By Dee Dee Kouns
Likely when you went to school, you were taught that the U.S. Supreme Court was the highest court in the land. Its rulings were unquestionably the law of the land.
That's not true. In the early 1980s, Oregon's justices, led by Justice Hans Linde, decided to make their own rulings.
I expect you wonder how this was possible.
Everyone knows the U.S. constitution guarantees us certain rights and no state can take those rights away. But what isn't commonly known, a state may extend additional rights, and that is what Oregon has done.
Oregon's criminal defense-attorneys enjoy many advantages. Trial judges must omit more evidence than they would in other states or risk having the case overturned on appeal. Police and prosecutors are restricted from presenting as strong a case because evidence is omitted from trial.
A coalition of crime victims, prosecutors, police sheriffs, politicians and other public safety minded people think this is wrong.
We have been working since 1983 on issues that would assure crime victims' rights in the criminal justice process, protect the public and get Oregon in line with the rest of the nation on evidentiary rules.
This has proved to be a difficult task. Oregon has a powerful defense bar and American Civil Liberties Union. They lobby the governor, the Legislature, the press and the public constantly. They claim we are more in danger of law enforcement than criminals. They try to scare the public into believing we'll become a police state.
We all know, of course, the rest of the nation is not a police state. But voters don't know when they hear those opposing victims' rights talk about "protections" whether these "protections" are protecting them from criminals or protecting criminals from investigation and prosecution.
A voter who wishes to make an intelligent evaluation of the victims' bill must wade through a mountain of the opposition's misinformation. Clever attorneys know you cannot disprove that which does not exist.
If you believe crime victims should receive consideration from all parties of the criminal justice system, if you believe victims should receive information about offenders' records, hearings, trials, plea agreements and release dates, vote yes.
If you believe judges should hold dangerous criminal defendants pretrial, vote yes.
If you believe criminals should pay their victims for financial losses, vote yes.
If you believe criminal defense attorneys should be hampered from judge shopping, vote yes.
If you believe defense attorneys should be constrained from putting a ringer on the jury, vote yes.
If you believe reliable criminal evidence that would be allowed in trial in other states or federal court should be allowed in Oregon courts, too, vote yes.
If you believe convicted felony offenders should not serve on criminal juries for a period of 15 years from their release, vote yes.
If you believe criminal defense attorneys should be restricted from deliberately delaying trials as prosecutors are, vote yes.
The essence of the victims' rights measure is that it is good for victims and society, and it's tough on criminals.
Dee Dee Kouns is president of Crime Victims United and a chief petitioner for Measure 40