Friday marked the beginning of Eugene’s downtown exclusion zone. With its citizens’ waning interest in downtown, it is understandable that the city would enact a measure to promote a safer metropolitan area. However, the ordinance currently in effect serves as a blunt, inconsistent instrument that undermines fair trail laws and makes no age distinctions.
The effects of the ordinance were felt this weekend as the first and second exclusion orders were given=. Both notices were for assault related charges. The first was given to Douglas Saxe, 49, while the second was given to an unnamed 14-year-old. The lack of age distinction is troubling. While other laws are more lax on minors, this ordinance proves inconsistent with the rest of the city code.
The law’s subjectivity was demonstrated during the weekend, as well. While more than 20 citations and tickets were given out in the exclusion, only two resulted in exclusion notices.
City officials reason that by not defining clear instances in which the law should be used, officers are able to target repeat offenders.
However, this lack of regulation allows the exclusion zone to become a political tool. When the Olympic Trials came to Eugene, accounts of Eugene police officers harassing homeless citizens out of the area surfaced. While officials claim this law is not an effort to ban those who do not “look right” out of downtown, there is no regulation to stop the exclusion zone from becoming the political tool officials seek to avoid.
The exclusion zone also undermines the right to a fair trial. Citizens are banned from downtown the instant an officer hands them an exclusion notice. It then takes three to five business days for an offender to plead his case before a judge. For some, those three to five days out of the downtown area are a loss of business, a loss entertainment and a loss of education. The city also demonstrates a lack of consideration for fair trial laws by enacting a punishment before a citizen appears before a judge.
Prohibiting offenders from such a large area also has its faults. Say a person was cited from WOW Hall at 8th Avenue and Lincoln Street. The person would then be unable to go to his or her bank at 11th Avenue and Willamette Street, or the library at 10th Avenue and Charnelton Street. It then becomes the officers’ responsibility to monitor all areas of the 20-block radius while maintaining other duties.
The exclusion law should be left in the hands of a judge as opposed to an officer. This method would allow the citizen a right to a fair trial, while taking away some of the subjective decisions made by field officers. A clear list of offenses would also be necessary to block the exclusion zone from being used as a political tool. Additionally, the exclusion zone should be used for second offenses rather than the first.
The Emerald does not endorse crime in the downtown and applauds the effort of the city council to improve safety. The Emerald also understands the limited resources the city must work with and recognizes that the answer does not simply lie in more officers in the area.
But to use such a blunt instrument that undermines the right to a fair trial impedes on citizen’s rights. Luckily, the city recognizes that this exclusion zone may not be perfect and has deemed the beginning stages a “pilot” period.
[email protected]