Oregonian Publishes Biased Article on
Measure 11, Prisons, Budget CRIME
VICTIMS UNITED |
On Sunday, April 22, 2007, the lead story on the front page of The Oregonian was entitled ÒPrison Costs Shackling OregonÓ. The gist of the story was that Measure 11, OregonÕs mandatory minimum sentencing law for violent criminals and child molesters, was ÒshacklingÓ the state by devouring funds that should go for other purposes. The article discusses trends in corrections and public safety funding versus higher education funding, the causes of OregonÕs dramatic decrease in violent crime post-Measure 11, the cost/benefit ratio of incarceration, and other issues. It quotes views from or references data from 18 sources in the main article and four sources in the sidebar entitled ÒThe law didnÕt deter, but did sideline.Ó
Although Crime Victims United is well known as among the primary advocates for and defenders of Measure 11 in the legislature and the public arena, the articleÕs author, Edward Walsh, did not contact us to discuss any of these issues.
He did interview David Rogers, the director of a prisoner advocacy group formerly named Western Prison Project which has repackaged itself as ÒPartnership for Safety and JusticeÓ and which is the primary opponent of Measure 11.
The Oregonian saw fit to run a sidebar that tells the story of two armed robbers, but it did not see fit to tell the story of any victims in Measure 11 crimes.
If The Oregonian had deemed it worthwhile to run a sidebar from the victimÕs point of view, here is what we might have read:
ÒGood morning. Well, IÕm a crime victim and the perpetrator is in jail for 54 years and nine months. He was up for 111 years but they gave him concurrent sentences.
ÒThe crime that I went through with my daughter changed my life and hers forever.Ó
ÒI was a very successful professional in the real estate field. I no longer work in real estate. IÕm not comfortable going out with strangers. IÕm not comfortable being in closed places. IÕm not comfortable in my life at all anymore.Ó
ÒAnd youÕd think IÕd be over it by now. IÕm not.Ó
ÒAnd do I get money to send me to counseling or this or that? No. Nothing.Ó
ÒPay whatever you need to pay to keep these guys in jail because he would do it again.Ó
ÒAfter our crime, he wasnÕt arrested. He wasnÕt found. He was found two-and-a-half years later leaving the rape of a 50-plus-year-old woman who was raped in front of her disabled husband in a wheelchair.Ó
ÒHe deserves to be in prison for 54 years and nine months with no parole.Ó
ÒIÕm sorry, IÕm very, very emotional about this right now.Ó
ÒGive me the phone book. IÕll call everyone in the phone book to stop anything that diminishes Measure 11. Because I know heÕs gone, other people are gone. TheyÕre in prison, they canÕt get out. And thatÕs exactly where they should be.Ó
ÒAnd letÕs take a little money out of the bureaucracy and put it into the prison and forget about letting them out.Ó
- Linda, caller to the Jeff Kropf Show on KXL Radio, Sunday April 22, 2007 (listen)
The only conclusion we can take from the lack of balance in this article is that The Oregonian published a partisan advocacy piece on the front page of its Sunday edition. If The Oregonian is going to be an advocate, it should drop the pretense of being an objective news source.
The article included many points of fact and opinion which we challenge. Here they are:
ÒPrison costs shackling OregonÓ
This is the title of the front-page article. You would think that prisons are the largest item in the budget. In the 2005-2007 biennium, total spending for prisons is about $900 million, total spending for all education is $15.5 billion, the total state budget is $42.8 billion. These figures represent funding from all sources including state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, tuition and fees. By citing only general fund spending, The Oregonian article masks the true magnitude of prison spending relative to the total budget.
ÒPublic safety vs higher educationÓ
This caption for a graph from the article shows that, in the 2007-2009 biennium, the governorÕs general fund budget for Public Safety is projected to exceed the budget for Higher Education. A footnote says that public safety includes the Department of Corrections, the Oregon Youth Authority and the State Police but omits the Criminal Justice Commission, the District Attorneys, the Department of Justice, the Military Department, the Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. So this is not a comparison of prisons and higher education.
Furthermore, by citing only general and lottery fund figures, the graph omits other taxpayer spending such as federal taxes that flow back to the state and property taxes. As you will learn shortly, this paints a misleading picture.
ÒHow much prisons cost youÓ
This caption for a sidebar from the article shows the per-household spending for prisons and public safety was $632 in 1985-1987 versus $1,133 in 2005-2007 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Since a major thrust of the article is an analysis of the economic effect of Measure 11, which took effect in 1995, it makes no sense to compare current spending to 1985-1987. It should be compared to the 1993-1995 biennium.
More glaring is the omission from this graphic and from the entire article of the cost to taxpayers for locking up 3,500 armed robbers, kidnappers, child molesters, forcible rapists, murderers and other violent criminals who would be on the street except for Measure 11.
We asked the Legislative Fiscal Office what Measure 11 cost
taxpayers in the current biennium. The answer
was $223 million, a lot of money to be sure. But it amounts to just $31 per
Oregonian per year. This is less than the monthly cost of cable television for
most families. And it pales into insignificance compared to the Òcrime taxÓ
extracted from Oregonians by criminals each year.
ÒIn the next two years, the state will spend tens of
millions more tax money to lock up prison inmates than it does to educate
students at community colleges and state universities.Ó
This is the first paragraph of The Oregonian article. It is
wrong because it counts just state income tax money.
Crime Victims United asked the Legislative Fiscal Office how much taxpayer money, from state and federal income taxes, is devoted to Higher Education in the GovernorÕs 2007-2009 budget. The answer we got was about $1.9 billion. This excludes tuition, fees and other funds that are not tax money. Community Colleges are a separate budget item that adds another $638 million (not including property tax revenue that they also receive). The total is roughly $2.5 billion. This compares to about $1.1 billion for prisons. The OregonianÕs lead paragraph is simply factually wrong.
ÒAs legislators and the governor debate how much money to
spend on schools and higher education, there is little discussion in Salem
about spiraling prison costs.Ó (emphasis added)
Nothing could be further from the truth. A well-funded criminal advocacy group has raised this issue in dozens of hearings. The chair of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on Public Safety, a prominent prisoner advocate, has made this the focus of his efforts. He went so far as to bring the President of the University of Oregon into a hearing to testify that prison spending is adversely affecting the higher education budget. In December a major seminar was held in Portland during which several legislators, including the Senate President, the Chair of the Joint Ways & Means Committee, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, were panelists and spoke at length about the cost of prisons.
On March 26th, a hearing on the ÒSmart on Crime BillÓ, SB 856, was held during which legislators pounded on the prison spending issue. You can listen to the audio of the hearing yourself.
This has been a subject of frequent conversation during the process of generating the governorÕs budget and in the legislatureÕs Ways & Means Committee, and in many other venues.
ÒOregon taxpayers now spend roughly the same money to
incarcerate 13,401 inmates as they do to educate 438,000 university and
community college students.Ó
As noted above, the governorÕs 2007-2009 all-funds budget includes $4.5 billion of taxpayer money for higher education and community colleges versus approximately $1.1 billion for prisons.
ÒWhy do prison costs soar beyond population growth? Since
June 1995 after Measure 11 took effect, the prison population has grown from
7,539 to 13,401 inmates, including 5,387 Measure 11 offenders. To keep them
locked up, the state has built three prisons and expanded five others the past
decade. Another new prison -- Oregon's 14th -- opens this fall. A 15th prison,
probably in Medford, would open in 2012.Ó
Completely lacking here is any historical perspective.
Measure 11 and OregonÕs prison construction did not arise out of a vacuum. From
1960 to 1985, OregonÕs violent crime rate increased by nearly 700 percent.
During this time, Oregon built one new prison with a capacity of 400 beds.
And the ÒViolent crime declinesÓ graph they ran on the front page obfuscates this history by excluding the period from 1960 to 1980 during which most of OregonÕs violent crime increase occurred.
Without the huge increase in violent crime from 1960 to 1980, an increase not mentioned in The Oregonian article, we would have no Measure 11 because it would not be needed.
It bears noting that this obscene increase in violent crime came during a period where the Òtough-on-crimeÓ view was looked upon as barbaric and the soft approach, which held sway, was considered enlightened. The enlightened people somehow failed to notice the nearly 700 percent violent crime rate increase. Now people espousing similar views once again claim the enlightened mantle and are fighting to retake control of the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, the article neglected to say that prison population growth is leveling off. The April, 2007 Prison Population Forecast says:
ÒThe rate of growth in the prison population has been
gradually slowing. Comparing biennial growth rates shows that the population
grew by 15.7 percent in the 1999-01 biennium, 12.2 percent in 2001-03, and 7.3
percent in 2003-05. Growth in the current biennium is expected to be 5.4
percent (697 beds), while 4.3 percent growth (589 beds) is expected for the
next biennium.Ó
Table 1 of that report shows that prison population growth is projected to continue to level off until, in 2017, there is no growth at all. The article did not mention this trend.
ÒAccording to the U.S. Department of Justice, Oregon's
annual per inmate cost of $24,665 made it the nation's 24th most expensive
prison system to operate in 2005.Ó
So what? Oregon has the 27th largest population.
WhatÕs missing here, and what is missing from the entire article, is that, contrary to the articleÕs drift that Oregon has gone incarceration-crazy, Oregon ranks 34th among states in total (prison and jail) incarceration rate.
ÒWith so many criminals locked up, both Oregon and the
nation have seen a steady decline in violent crime rates. In Oregon, there were
about five violent crimes -- homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault --
per 1,000 population in the 1980s compared with 2.8 crimes in 2005.Ó
What the article fails to mention is that, from 1995, when Measure 11 went into effect, until 2002, Oregon led all states in decreased violent crime rate. This came on the heels of 25 years of skyrocketing violent crime (1960-1985) followed by 10 years during which violent crime was roughly flat near peak levels. From 1995 to 2002, OregonÕs violent crime decreased by 44 percent compared to 28 percent for the nation as a whole.
ÒBut the decline has leveled off in recent years. A
growing consensus among researchers concludes that the benefits of longer
sentences diminish as a state prison system grows. Their studies show that each
new cell added to a prison system has less impact on crime than earlier
additions because so many career criminals already are locked up.Ó
We wonder why The Oregonian sees fit to mention that the
decrease in violent crime is leveling off but does not see fit to mention that
the increase in prison population is leveling off.
It is true that this notion of diminishing returns has
gained popularity. It may be correct. But we wonder why researchers think a
career-child molester convicted in 2005 would be any less prolific than a
career-child molester convicted in 1995.
Consider this case, reported by The Oregonian the day before
the Measure 11 article appeared:
A Northeast Portland man pleaded guilty to manslaughter
Friday for killing a man in Gresham last fall by plowing a stolen vehicle
into the victim's car while trying to escape police.
Tyson Robert MacKay, 24, was sentenced to 10 years in prison
in Multnomah County Circuit Court for killing Christopher Grassl, 22.
Janet Grassl, the mother of the victim, held a picture of
her son in court Friday. Facing MacKay, she said, "I want you to see whose
life you took. None of this is an accident. You had control of the
circumstances. You could have stopped this before it ever started."
. . .
According to court records, MacKay has been convicted of
burglary, assault, violating a stalking order, witness tampering, driving with
a suspended license and several other traffic-related offenses. He pleaded
guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants in 2004 and had entered a
diversion program. (emphasis added)
Although it is 12 years after Measure 11 went into effect,
we suspect that incarcerating Mr. MacKay in 2007 will return the same benefits
as incarcerating a habitual-criminal-drunk-driver-killer in 1995.
Three days later, this appeared in The Oregonian:
A 27-year-old man accused in the April 14 killing of
Sharvettia Monique Brown, whose body was found off Northeast Lombard Street,
was arraigned Monday on a murder charge, as well as burglary and first-degree
assault charges stemming from two unrelated cases in 2006.
After his arrest Friday night, police say, a DNA sample
linked Imani Charles Williams to a Feb. 4, 2006, burglary in the 2700 block of
Northeast Bryant Street and a March 17, 2006, first-degree assault of a woman.
. . .
Williams had a history of drug abuse and prior
convictions for theft, criminal mischief and unauthorized use of a motor
vehicle and at least 11 failures to appear in court in Multnomah County
since November 2005, according to court records.
. . .
In mid-December, he was arrested and accused of breaking
into a car on Northeast Liberty Street and trying to steal a stereo from the
vehicle.
Clearly the diminishing returns here came, as they have in
so many cases, from letting a habitual criminal get away with contempt for the
criminal justice system.
ÒAfter reviewing numerous studies of the link between
incarceration and crime rates, the Vera Institute of Justice in New York said
in a recent report: ÔAnalysts are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that
continued growth in incarceration will prevent considerably fewer, if any,
crimes -- and at substantially greater cost to taxpayers.ÕÓ
The Oregonian neglected to mention that the Vera Institute
is not an objective source but rather a left-leaning, anti-incarceration
organization.
ÒSuch findings have spurred states such as Washington to
study alternatives to building more prisons.Ó
Oregon is already a world-beater when it comes to
alternatives to incarceration. According to the Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission, in 2006, 72 percent of convicted felons received probation
sentences. 7 percent received Òlocal controlÓ sentences. Just 21 percent of
convicted felons went to prison.
[Our original rebuttal said ÒIn 2005, 84 percent of
convicted felons received probation sentences. Just 16 percent of convicted
felons went to prison.Ó This statement was based on a letter
that the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission sent us in early 2007. On May 10th
the CJC informed us that the figure they provided was incorrect. They were
unable to give us a corrected figure for 2005 but did report that in 2006, 21
percent of convicted felons received prison sentences, 7 percent received local
control sentences and 72 percent received probation sentences.]
ÒA recent study by the Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission, a state agency, concluded that the number of crimes prevented each
year by adding one inmate to the Oregon prison system has declined from nearly
30 per new inmate in 1994 to slightly more than 10 crimes in 2005.Ó
Again, we wonder why they think a career-child molester
convicted in 2005 would be any less prolific than a career-child molester
convicted in 1995. And we also wonder whatÕs wrong with preventing 10 crimes a
year.
ÒThe cost-benefit ratio of prison expansion has also
diminished. In 1994, each additional $1 spent on incarceration yielded $3.31 in
reduced crime costs, the study said. By 2005, the benefit per $1 spent was
$1.03, barely above the break-even point.Ó
The article neglected to mention the following statement from the Oregon Criminal Justice CommissionÕs 2007 Report to the Legislature:
ÒThis estimate has also been done for Washington by the
Washington State Institute of Public Policy. They examined the benefits of incarcerating
violent offenders, property offenders and drug offenders. They found that it
is much more cost-effective to incarcerate violent offenders. They
estimated that in 2005, for every dollar the state invested in incarceration
for violent offenders the return in tax payer and victimization benefits was
$4.35. They also estimated that it was not cost-effective to incarcerate drug
offenders, with every dollar invested returning only $0.35.Ó (emphasis added)
ÒDue to data limitations, it was not possible to estimate a
cost-benefit ratio for each type of offender for Oregon. However, there are
many similarities between Oregon and Washington that make these estimates
seem reasonable for Oregon.Ó (emphasis added)
Since OregonÕs prison population is 70 percent inmates who committed crimes against people and just 10 percent illegal drug manufacturers and dealers, it would seem that OregonÕs overall return would be much closer to the $4.35 figure than to the $0.35 figure. And yet the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission reports a $1.03 overall return on a dollar invested. This bears further examination, but we see nothing wrong with a break-even on incarceration.
"Craig Prins, executive director of the justice
commission and the study's other co-author, says their findings suggest that
the Legislature should explore alternatives for fighting crime. That's what we
gave up to build the prisons, and I see this session as a time to take
advantage of that, to try to treat their addictions and change their thinking. I
think there's evidence it's a good investment."
If treatment is as effective as Measure 11 opponents claim,
and returns significantly more than a dollar for each dollar spent, there is no
reason why the Legislature should not fund treatment as well as prisons, as
they have been doing.
Oregon has 34,000 convicted felons on parole or probation.
If treatment proponents are right, we can dry up the stream of criminals going
into prison by treating these people without sacrificing additional innocent
people through major cuts in sentences for the most serious criminals.
ÒThe Legislature has cut programs for offenders such as
alcohol and drug abuse treatment and education programs, particularly after the
recession forced deep cuts across state government in 2003.Ó
During the period of dramatically increased prison
population and dramatically lower spending per inmate on treatment, we have
seen decreases in recidivism that surpass those projected for evidence-based
cognitive/behavioral programs. The average recidivism for the 8 years prior to
Measure 11 was 33.5 percent while the average recidivism for the 8 years after
Measure 11 was 30.8 percent. This represents an 8 percent decrease in
recidivism despite dramatically reduced treatment program spending.
Those who think prison spending
has sucked the lifeblood out of crime prevention, education, and health care
should ponder this: since 1994, Oregon has added a multi-million dollar
early-childhood wellness program, added a multi-million dollar juvenile crime prevention
program, expanded reentry programs for convicts, increased Oregon Health Plan
enrollment from 250,000 to 400,000, increased the number of students enrolled
in state universities by roughly one-third, devoted millions of dollars to the
Oregon Cultural Trust, and spent millions to seed a biotechnology boom that
never boomed.
ÒO'Leary estimates 75 percent to 80 percent of Oregon
inmates need alcohol and drug treatment. ÔWe have to ask ourselves, if 98
percent of these people in prison are eventually going to get out, isn't it
smart to be doing something with them while they're in custody to try to
increase the odds they're not going to reoffend and create new victims?Õ
O'Leary said.Ó
This makes it sound like there is no treatment, no
counseling, no education, no work, no opportunity for religious observance and
no activities going on in Oregon prisons. This is not the case, according to
the Oregon Department of Corrections:
ÒResearch shows meaningful work is known to contribute to
the success of inmates upon release. The departmentÕs correctional programs
contribute to inmatesÕ preparedness for work. Department programs include
education, cognitive change, vocational training, mental health, and alcohol
and drug treatment. These programs give inmates a solid foundation of
skills and attitudes they need to gain employment and succeed in the workplace.
Most Oregon inmates have a job while incarcerated to further develop practical
work habits while providing on-the-job experience.Ó – From DOC web site
(emphasis added)
ÒOthers would go beyond expanding treatment programs.
David Rogers, executive director of the Partnership for Safety and Justice, an
advocacy group, recommends that lawmakers increase the amount of time inmates
can earn off their sentences beyond the existing 20 percent cap and extend a
modest Ôearned timeÕ benefit to Measure 11 inmates, who now aren't eligible for
that benefit.Ó
To characterize ÒPartnership for Safety and JusticeÓ as
merely Òan advocacy groupÓ leaves far more unsaid than said. ÒPartnership for
Safety and JusticeÓ, formerly known as Western Prison Project, is a prisoner
advocacy group, funded
by George SorosÕ Open Society Institute, whose agenda consists mainly of trying
to find ways to get criminals out of prison.
This organization merged with ÒCrime Survivors For Community
SafetyÓ, formerly known as ÒSurvivors Advocating for an Effective SystemÓ,
formerly known as ÒCrime Victims For JusticeÓ, which opposed all of the
victimsÕ rights ballot measures in 1999 and supported the repeal of Measure 11 in
2000, which, if it had succeeded, would have resulted in the immediate
release of 800 violent criminals, with thousands more to follow. ÒCrime
Victims For JusticeÓ was funded
largely by the ACLU and defense lawyers.
In the current legislative session, David Rogers and the
ÒPartnership for Safety and JusticeÓ have advocated the gutting of the core
principles of Measure 11 - mandatory-minimum sentences, truth-in-sentencing,
and trying the most violent 15, 16, and 17-year olds in adult court. They have
a right to advocate these views but they should not be characterized as merely
Òan advocacy groupÓ. And what is the justification for including the chief
opponent of Measure 11 in this article while excluding Crime Victims United,
its chief proponent?
ÒCritics of an incarceration strategy contend that the
decline in violent crime cannot so easily be linked to Measure 11. In a 2004
study, Judith A. Greene, an analyst at Justice Strategies in New York, compared
what happened in Oregon and New York from 1995 to 2002.Ó
The article neglects to mention that Judith A. GreeneÕs
study was commissioned by Western Prison Project, the chief opponent of Measure
11. She is a recipient of the ÒSoros Senior Justice FellowshipÓ and has worked
for many anti-incarceration organizations including Families Against Mandatory
Minimums, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and the Vera Institute.
ÒBoth states experienced a sharp reduction in violent
crime. But New York, unlike Oregon, also cut its incarceration rate. More
effective policing tactics instituted under then-New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani are widely credited with the crime reduction.Ó
After decades of increased incarceration that totaled nearly
300 percent, New York cut its incarceration rate by roughly 10 percent mostly
by eliminating long mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. The Drug
Policy Alliance had this to say about New York:
ÒEnacted in 1973, New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws are among the harshest mandatory minimum sentencing schemes in the nation . . . Most prisoners serving sentences for drug crimes are people who possess drugs for their own use, low level sellers, or couriers.Ó
ÒUnder the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the possession of four
ounces or sale of two ounces of certain controlled substances is a Class A
felony and carries a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. Possession of two
ounces or the sale of half an ounce mandates three years to life in prison.
Persons convicted of Class A felonies, regardless of the nature of their
involvement, receive the same maximum sentence as people convicted of murder,
arson, and kidnapping. They are punished more severely than most felons
convicted of rape, manslaughter, and robbery.Ó
By contrast, Oregon has never had mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenders. In fact, it has some of the most lenient drug
penalties in the country. In Oregon the presumptive sentence for a fourth
conviction for selling a street-level quantity of drugs is probation, provided
that the dealer has no prior person felony convictions. And no one is in an
Oregon prison solely for possessing drugs.
Oregon and New York are about as far apart on the sentencing
spectrum as they are in geographic terms. Ms. GreeneÕs point is bogus.
ÒThe drop in Oregon's violent crime rate during the 1990s
cannot be attributed primarily to Measure 11, Greene said in the report. The
effect of the longer sentences would not be felt until years later, after
inmates remained in prison beyond their likely release date under the old
sentencing system.Ó
The RAND Corporation Report on Measure 11 (page 45) says:
ÒAs Figure 5.8 shows, prior to passage of Measure 11,
66% of M11-eligible cases received prison sentences.Ó
This means that 34 percent received probation and their
Òlikely release dateÓ preceded the date of their trial. The claim that Òthe
effect of longer sentences would not be felt until years laterÓ is nonsense.
ThatÕs why the RAND Corporation removed it from its December 2003 draft, after
we called it to their attention.
Crime Victims United demolished Ms. GreeneÕs arguments in an
article on our web page shortly after her paper was released. Somehow The
Oregonian managed to dig up Ms. GreeneÕs report but failed to unearth our
refutation.
ÒÔMeasure 11 has cost Oregon an enormous amount of
money,Õ Greene said in an interview. ÔHere in New York, we're getting equal or
better results, and we're saving money. If it were true that incarceration was
the cause in Oregon and better policing was the cause in New York, you'd
certainly choose better policing. You would choose the one that costs less.ÕÓ
In 2005, OregonÕs violent crime rate was 287 violent crimes
per 100,000 residents. New YorkÕs was 446 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.
If New York could reduce its violent crime rate to OregonÕs level, it would
prevent 30,687 violent crimes every year. Perhaps it is New York that could
learn from Oregon rather than the other way around.
Ms. Greene knows perfectly well that New YorkÕs decrease in
incarceration came on the heels of a huge increase in incarceration. After New
YorkÕs decrease and OregonÕs increase, their incarceration rates are roughly
the same. She also knows that virtually every state increased sentence lengths
in the late 1980Õs and early 1990Õs. The RAND Corporation report said that, by
1994, every state had some form of mandatory minimum sentencing.
ÒWilliam Spelman, a professor at the LBJ School of Public
Affairs at the University of Texas, did some of the pioneering research on how
states reap diminishing rewards as they build more prisons. He says the
effectiveness of an incarceration strategy Ôdepends mostly on who you're
putting in that prison bed.ÕÓ
The article neglects to report Dr. SpelmanÕs finding that about 25 percent of the drop in violent crime can be attributed to incarceration. We feel the 25 percent number is low, especially for Oregon which led the nation in violent crime decrease from 1995 to 2002. But even using the 25 percent figure, this adds up to tens of thousands of violent crimes prevented by Measure 11.
"If you are putting away drug offenders or burglars,
it's almost certainly a waste of taxpayer money," Spelman says. "If
they're armed robbers, maybe it does make sense."
Since Measure 11 does not put away drug offenders or
burglars and does put away armed robbers, as well as kidnappers, child
molesters, forcible rapists, drunk drivers who maim and kill, murderers and
other violent criminals, it would appear that Dr. Spelman would agree with us -
Measure 11 does make sense.
Mr. Willard and Mr. Rosling knew about Measure 11 and wanted
to avoid it but were not deterred. In other words, they were undeterrable. Is
this a reason to put them on the street?
While Mr. Willard and Mr. Rosling werenÕt deterred, it is
plausible that others were. Shortly before the 2000 ballot measure that would
have repealed Measure 11, Dan Golden, Assistant Director of the Klamath County
Juvenile Department, surveyed
delinquent youth in his community on their knowledge of and attitudes about
Measure 11. He concluded:
ÒResponses to the survey indicated that youth in juvenile
detention were well aware of Measure 11. Eighty-five percent indicated that
they had heard about Measure 11, and a similar percentage knew that Measure 11
applies to kids aged 15 to 18. Seventy-five percent knew some of the crimes
Measure 11 applies to.Ó
ÒThe survey asked delinquents, Ôknowing what you know about
Measure 11, would you be more or less likely to commit a Measure 11 crime?Õ
Eighty-five percent responded that they would be less likely to commit a
Measure 11 offense.Ó
Deterrence is like kryptonite to anti-incarceration
advocates. They know that if deterrence exists, even a small amount of
deterrence, it destroys all of their arguments.
A credible criminal justice system not only keeps criminals in prison – it keeps others out of prison. Deterrence is a well-known mechanism though quantifying it is difficult. But there is another, almost universally-ignored mechanism. A paper by Flores, Latessa and others lists the "big four" criminogenic risk factors as criminal history, antisocial attitudes, personality and associates. In other words, who you hang out with has a significant impact on whether you engage in crime. The 5,500 inmates added from 1995 to 2005 represent 5,500 criminogenic risk factors removed from our society. There is no escaping the conclusion that keeping these people in prison contributes to keeping others out of prison.
A story involving one walking criminogenic risk factor who was not sentenced under Measure 11 is instructive. James Daniel Nelson was released from prison in 2003 after serving 11 years for murder under pre-Measure 11 sentencing guidelines. Though his behavior in prison was atrocious and he was supposedly on post-prison supervision, he wasted no time in recruiting a new Òstreet familyÓ. Within two months, this family, at NelsonÕs direction, stabbed, burned and murdered 22-year-old Jessica Kate Williams. Thirteen family members were convicted of crimes ranging from assault to murder. The cost to taxpayers of releasing James Daniel Nelson is in the multiple millions. If Measure 11 had been in effect when Nelson was convicted of his first murder, he would have been in prison until 2017 – a costly proposition to be sure, but far less costly than releasing him. Jessica Kate Williams would be alive and Oregon would have 12 fewer prisoners.
ÒPrison officials said Rosling and Willard have good
records inside the institution and are productive workers in the print shop.
The men said they believe they have conquered their meth habits and can stay
out of trouble on the outside.Ó
ÒÔIÕve just decided now, IÕm way too old for that stuff,Ó
said Rosling who has spent about 20 of the past 24 years in Oregon prisons.
ÔThereÕs a pull there, still, even though I know it would be life-ending for
me. I canÕt do another prison term.ÕÓ
If we believe Mr. Rosling, this demonstrates that a person
can change when he wants to, with or without treatment.
Considering the facts laid out above, the only conclusion we can reach is that The Oregonian set out to advocate for their view and the view of the anti-incarceration lobby. The only plausible explanation for their failure to seek the views of Crime Victims United is that they made an ideological decision not to. This would be fine if they presented themselves as an advocacy organization but they donÕt – they portray themselves as an unbiased news source.
We feel that the errors, omissions, and flawed logic in this article are egregious and that the standard of journalism it represents is abysmal.
Crime Victims United Rebuttal of Judith A. Greene Study
What Have Oregonians Received For All This Prison Construction?
Crime Victims United Presentation on Measure 11
Rebuttal to Previous Biased Oregonian Article
Dave Frohnmayer, University of Oregon President
Department of Corrections Budget
Oregon Youth Authority Budget
GovernorÕs Budget
U.S. Department of Justice
The Vera Institute
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Steve Aos, Director, Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
Michael Wilson, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
Craig Prins, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
The Oregon Legislature
Joseph OÕLeary, GovernorÕs Senior Advisor on Public Safety
David Rogers, Western Prison Project
Max Williams, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections
Kevin Mannix, Chief Petitioner of Measure 11 in 1994
Judith. A. Greene, Analyst at Justice Strategies in New York
William Spelman, Professor of Criminology at University of Texas
Roger Rosling, armed robber
Timothy Willard, armed robber
Crime Victims United
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Parents of Murdered Children
Oregon District Attorneys Association
Oregon Sheriffs Association
Association of Oregon Chiefs of Police
Portland Police Association