Aiming to ensure fair sentences for first-time offenders and youths, Ballot Measure 94 would repeal minimum sentencing for violent crimes and sexual offenses, such as murder, rape and robbery.
If passed, Measure 94 would repeal 1994’s Ballot Measure 11, which enacted mandatory minimum sentences. Measure 94 would require all adults issued mandatory minimum sentences be re-sentenced using a grid system, where the judge would consider factors such as prior convictions into the final sentence.
Supporters of Measure 94 say it would give power back to the judges and reduce Oregon’s prison population, thereby cutting the state’s prison costs. They also say that giving judges more power wouldn’t necessarily lead to more lenient sentencing for all violent criminals. Judges could still issue maximum sentences.
“[With this measure], judges can make the sentence fit the crime. It’s not our intention for people to just be set free,” said Cathi Lawler,member of Parents Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Lawler’s son was one of the first convicted under Measure 11 and has been in prison for five years.
But many opponents say mandatory sentences keep judges from being too lenient and keep criminals out of society and in prison.
Howard Rodstein, an opponent of the measure, said that “minimum sentences are important because sometimes the judge has no choice but to give out the minimum sentence.”
If the measure passes, approximately 3,200 violent criminals and sex offenders would be re-sentenced. There is a clause, though, that allows a prisoner to finish out a sentence rather than go through a re-sentencing trial. The clause would benefit criminals with plea bargains and criminals close to the end of their sentences, who would not have to be re-sentenced.
Juveniles ages 15 to 17 who have been convicted would be sent to juvenile court for a waiver hearing to determine whether the case would stay in juvenile court or would be transferred to adult court. In adult court, the youth would get a re-sentencing hearing; if sent to juvenile court, the youth would get a new trial.
Of the 3,200 criminals being re-sentenced, 11 percent are juveniles ages 15 to 17. Currently, seven of these youths are being held in adult prison, while the majority are being kept at facilities run by the Oregon Youth Authority.
“Seven juveniles in [an] adult system is too many,” Lawler said.
Along with human rights debates, both sides are also disputing the financial impact of the measure. If passed, Measure 94 would reduce the state adult prison costs, and juvenile close custody costs will decrease by $10.8 million in 2000-2001. Also, state community corrections payments to counties would increase by $900,000 in 2000-2001.
“This money should be put on the front end for prevention and treatment programs,” Lawler said.
On the other hand, costs to re-sentence criminals would be $6.9 million between now and 2002 and county costs for re-sentencing are estimated to be $2.1 million.