How are you guys feeling about Measure 73, increasing minimal criminal sentences?

[Arugula Latte]

Current law imposes mandatory-minimum sentences of 70 to 100 months for certain sex crimes; no mandatory-minimum incarceration sentence for driving under influence of intoxicants (DUII). Measure imposes mandatory-minimum sentence of 300 months for person convicted of "major felony sex crime" if previously convicted of major felony sex crime; defines "major felony sex crime" as first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, using child in sexually explicit display; previous conviction includes statutory counterpart in another jurisdiction, and separate criminal episode in same sentencing proceeding. Measure makes DUII a class C felony if defendant previously convicted of DUII, or statutory counterpart, at least twice in prior 10 years; imposes mandatory-minimum sentence of 90 days, at state expense.

I think a lot of mandatory sentencing rules get abused (people wind up serving many, many for petty pot possession, stuff like that). However, this one might be good.

Whaddyall think?

[WheelWalker]

1. I voted against it, reasoning that

the world needs more treatment plants, not more prisons. It's a question of priorities. When we've re-set our priorities in defining what is a crime, I'll reconsider my priority of clean water over dirty deeds.

Additionally, increased mandatory sentencings might well incentivize perps to kill their victims as the penalty for the sex crime approaches the penalty for murder, and a dead victim does not live to identify and testify against the perp.

[Arugula Latte]

2. Okay, thanks, I hadn't thought of that incentive.

[WheelWalker]

3. That was suppose to say

water treatment plants

[LWolf]

4. I voted no. nt

[classof56]

5. I'm voting no.

For one thing, it's sponsored by Kevin Mannix, and we've seen the detrimental results of his previously sponsored measures. The voters' pamphlet has several well-reasoned, well-articulated arguments against Measure 73. It's also an unfunded mandate, costing up to $60 million a budget cycle once it's fully implemented. Given the current current $2 billion state budget deficit, one has to wonder where the money's coming from to fund this measure if it passes. Education? Social services? Public safety? Doesn't make sense to me. The Partnership for Safety and Justice has a website that might be worth checking out: www.NoOnMeasure73.com.

[Arugula Latte]

7. Thanks for the info.

For some reason, I didn't get a voter's pamphlet this time, which is one reason I posted this question. Usually I just look to see who is behind the pro/con arguments for these things and vote accordingly. The name "Mannix" would have been a big clue to vote No. :)

[laconicsax]

9. One point being made in opposition that I haven't been able to confirm...

"It is supposed to punish repeat offenders but could easily be used to impose mandatory-minimum sentencing on someone going before a judge for the very first time—even if the accused is a minor who is only 15 years old."

When I read the text of the measure, I couldn't find that loophole. It's pretty clear on the mandatory-minimum being for repeat offenders.

(I'm voting no on it.)

[MerryBlooms]

6. I'm voting 'no'.

This measure is a gateway to promoting privatizing our prisons. Bad idea.

[golddigger]

8. My partner and I voted NO!

[OregonBlue]

10. I voted no. Just more slippery slope. Judges should be allowed to use discretion.

Cases may not always be as they appear. My son was involved with a woman that abused him all the time. I mean really abused him. One night she followed him all over town shouting and screaming and swearing. She tried to stop him from getting on a bus to get away from her. He pushed her away and she fell down. The passengers had only seen her fall. He was convicted of assault on her, even though he had two black eyes and scratches all over his body from that night. When the judge heardd the whole story and saw the pictures, he was given probation. Don't take away a judges right to decide based on the circumstances.

[jobendorfer]

11. I vote no on nearly all such proposals

... on the theory that a Judge, Jury, and Prosecutor, armed with the specific facts of the specific case, are much more likely to arrive at a correct verdict or sentence than a legislator or (in this case) initiative author working in a complete vacuum of evidence, facts, or context, before the offense has even been committed.

We pay judges and prosecutors to apply what they know, and if there is a problem with lenient sentencing -- which in the case of repeat sex offenders, I seriously doubt -- the correct answer is to hold the (bad) public officials accountable and relieve them of office, not hamstring the office itself.

The second reason I voted against this one is, that like every other measure like this that I've seen, it's completely unencumbered with any directions about how to pay for it, or what ought to be cut of the budget to pay for it.

Third reason: Kevin Mannix wrote it. I assume he wrote it for two reasons: a) it gives his base yet another non-problem to get excited about, and b) if it passes, it will shovel another $300,000,000 into the prison system and away from spending on state activities he doubtlessly lumps into "the welfare state" category.

J.

[hayu_lol]

12. Voted no because of Mannix and...

the two examples were too dissimilar.

When I read the bills in the voter's guide, I read the bill, then read the comments of those opposed, see who signs off on the bill, and then read the comments of those for the bill.

Mannix falls in the same category as Bill Sizemore and the Oregon Citizens Alliance et al.

If we dictate to judges, why do we need them?

[HuckleB]

13. I voted no, and yet the ridiculous thing is passing.

UGH!

:puke: