October 20, 2008
Dueling Oregon initiatives on drug sentencing reform
This local AP article notes that voters in Oregon are considering a pair of competing ballot initiatives that call for reform of the state's drug sentencing laws. Here are details from the story:
A pair of crime measures on the November ballot offer Oregon voters a choice between mandatory sentencing or increased sentences and expanded drug treatment programs — but not both.
One, Measure 61, is an initiative sponsored by former state lawmaker Kevin Mannix that would send first-time offenders to prison for up to a mandatory three years. The other, Measure 57, is a referral from the Legislature that would increase prison terms for repeat offenders convicted of nonviolent property or drug crimes while expanding treatment and prevention programs.
In the event that both measures pass, as polls suggest, Measure 57 contains a clause stipulating that the one with the highest vote count becomes law.
Mannix said a mandatory sentence for drug and property crimes is needed because so many offenders are given probation that it has become "a joke that's also an insult to the victims of crime." Supporters of Measure 57, however, say the competing Mannix proposal will cost at least twice as much without providing any treatment programs to prevent the most common cause of property crime — drug and alcohol abuse and addiction....
The coalition of supporters for Measure 57 also includes the sheriffs of the state's largest counties, police chiefs, unions, the Oregon Education Association, AARP Oregon and the Oregon Nurses Association....
The state Criminal Justice Commission has estimated that Measure 57 would cost an additional $140 million per biennium while the Mannix initiative would cost between $256 million to $400 million.
October 20, 2008 at 04:53 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dueling Oregon initiatives on drug sentencing reform:
There's nothing "reform" about Measure 61 -- in fact, it calls for a mandatory three-year minimum for the act of selling ecstasy. See the text of the measure here: https://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2008/040text.pdf . By its third year in existence, Measure 61 would cost Oregon taxpayers more than $100 million per year. See https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_61_(2008)
Posted by: Alex | Oct 20, 2008 8:15:05 PM
Hello. I really am having a hard time finding information on my rights I have that pertain to Court Mandated drug and alcohol treatment. I have been going to a treatment center for awhile now. It is mandatory that I finish to stay within my probation guidelines. I am starting to get worried though. It started as soon as I walked into the place, watching how the place is run, and now that I only have a couple of sessions left I am being hassled about stuff that should have been taken care of at the beginning of my treatment, during my intake appointment. I have seen other people that say that they have been in there for 10 months or longer and have never failed a UA, and have done all their work that they were supposed to do. I am wondering if there are guidelines set out for treatment centers that are Court certified to give treatment. If you have any information I would be grateful, even though I have no way of returning the favor. At least I doubt I would ba able to.
Posted by: Morgan Johnson | Dec 8, 2008 7:27:07 PM
A strict law should be passed that would deter drug users and pushers to do drugs. Penalties should be increase and punishment should always be implemented in order to eliminate one of the major problem in our society.
Posted by: treatment programs | Apr 16, 2009 4:00:04 PM
Did the mesure 57 pass on June 11th for early realease on time served... after 2/3 of time what is the staus of the bill.
Posted by: Ppatricia Riegler | Jun 25, 2009 10:59:58 AM
If there is a team of law enforcers that focus on drugs pushers and users I think the problem regarding drugs will be lessen.
Posted by: teen treatment center | Aug 19, 2009 2:11:09 AM
Consumption in public places is a crime. You can be fined or forced to attend prevention programs. There are penalties for those who consume it, whether or carry on private property, at a social gathering or "if people had made for it."
Posted by: viagra online | May 19, 2010 5:04:41 PM