Oregonian Distorts Measure 11 Again

CRIME VICTIMS UNITED


September 25, 2009

The Oregonian published another in its long-running series of distortions about Measure 11.

In its editorial about the Rodriguez and Buck decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court, The Oregonian writes:

"We would caution against reading too much into Thursday's ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court that in 'rare circumstances' Oregon's trial court judges can impose lesser sentences than the tough mandatory minimums required by voter-approved Measure 11."
"This is, at most, only a faint crack in the heavy, blunt tool that is Measure 11. The two cases at issue indeed demonstrate the deep unfairness and outrageous inequities created by a one-size-fits-all sentencing structure."
...
"But there is more to be done. The Rodriguez and Buck cases show that Oregon's criminal sentences remain largely blind to the relationship between the severity of the penalty, the gravity of the offense and the criminal record of the defendant. There was a time when that would have shocked the senses of every Supreme Court justice."

Crime Victims United responded with this letter to the editor:

Crime Victims United agrees that Measure 11 needs modification in the areas of non-forcible Sex Abuse I and non-forcible second-degree sex offenses. That is why we proposed and supported legislation on this issue five times since 1997. The most recent proposal, HB 3341 in the 2009 legislature, was defeated like all of the others. Measure 11 opponents, including The Oregonian, failed to support our efforts to provide additional discretion to judges in these cases.
When you write "these two cases demonstrate the deep unfairness and outrageous inequities created by a one-size-fits-all sentencing structure", you are demonstrating a failure to understand or a failure to acknowledge how Measure 11 works despite our repeated attempts to explain this to you in numerous editorial board meetings. According to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, in 2007 40 percent of adult defendants convicted of second-degree Measure 11 crimes received sentences below the Measure 11 mandatory minimum. For juveniles aged 15 to 17 it is 56 percent. How do you square this with your "one-size-fits-all" rhetoric?
You write that these cases "show that Oregon's criminal sentences remain largely blind to the relationship between the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the offense". Again you demonstrate total ignorance of how Measure 11 works. These cases were anomalies that could have been prevented had Measure 11 opponents supported our modification proposals. The fact that two out of thousands of Measure 11 sentences have been ruled disproportionate in no way supports your outrageous conclusion.
Prior to Measure 11, sentences that "shocked the moral sense" were commonplace. It was common for sexual assault and child molestation convictions to result in probation sentences. A case in point is Joel Courtney. Murderers routinely received 8 years in prison. It was voters outrage over such sentences that led to Measure 11.
A very small number of avoidable anomalies notwithstanding, Measure 11 has realigned Oregon's criminal sentencing with the values of Oregonians if not with the values of The Oregonian.

October 5, 2008

The Oregonian editorial board demonstrated its cluelessness about Measure 11 in today's endorsement of John Kroger for Attorney General:

"During the primary, Kroger seemed unfortunately committed to the Measure 11 mandatory minimum sentences, a system that needs reconsideration for both practical and financial reasons. At some point, Kroger might be open to re-examining Measure 11 juvenile sentences and the inclusion of certain consensual sex acts. There is no sense to a seven-year sentence for a 17-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend." (emphasis added)

Crime Victims United responded with this letter to the editor:

You have once again displayed a stunning and persistent ignorance of Measure 11. In your endorsement of John Kroger (October 5), you write "There is no sense to a seven-year sentence for a 17-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend."
Willing sex between a 17-year old and a 15-year old is not a Measure 11 crime. In fact, it is not a crime at all.
You write that Measure 11 is "a system that needs reconsideration for both practical and financial reasons". Measure 11 has been reconsidered and improved. One of the improvements gave judges discretion in cases of willing sex between 18-year-olds and 13-year olds. Other improvements gave judges discretion in all second-degree violent crimes and sex offenses and in Sex Abuse I cases when certain findings are made. Articles and editorials in The Oregonian consistently ignore these changes which were passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 and 2001.
Your readers assume that you know what you're talking about when you they read your editorials. You should not print your misconceptions as if they were fact.

Postscript: The Oregonian did not run our letter and did not run a correction of their egregious misinformation.


Home | Search