'Low-risk' designation sits uneasy with victims' groups, DAs
SALEM, Ore. – A debate is raging at the Capitol as the state tries to save money, and the outcome could determine who stays in prison and who should be freed.
The state Commission on Public Safety says prison populations will grow by 2,000 inmates in the next decade. Housing and caring for those inmates costs taxpayers about $650 million a year.
The commission released a report stating there was a growing number of "low risk offenders" in the prisons. Those "low risk offenders," though, include 57 murderers, two kidnappers and 78 felony assault convicts.
District attorneys and victims’ rights groups fear this "low risk" designation and inflated prison population forecasts are being used to justify the releases of more violent criminals.
"We've got a prison that's sitting over by Madras – Deer Ridge – that for the most part is empty about a third of it is being used," said Steve Doell with Crime Victims United. "There're 1800 beds over there, and I think about 5 or 6-hundred are being used right now."
Among those on the low-risk list is Bruce Turnidge who bombed a Woodburn bank two years ago, killing two police officers.
Doell said there is a major problem of bias with the study showing Oregon had a large population of low risk inmates. He said it was done by the Pew Foundation, which is an organization that widely opposes imprisonment over rehabilitation.
"It gives people a false impression of who we are putting in prison. That somehow these people don't need to be locked up," Doell said.
He said if Gov. John Kitzhaber and the Commission on Public Safety are truly trying to find savings in the corrections budget, they can begin by filling the beds they have rather than build new prisons or release violent offenders early.
The commission will bring plans to Kitzhaber about how the prisons should be funded and how they should be managed to save money.
Kitzhaber appointed the Commission on Public Safety to hammer out plans for the future of Oregon's prison system and on Monday he gave members a stern warning.
"I want to make it very clear that I am not interested in, nor will I support, any reform of the public safety system that shorten sentences or provides for the early release of violent offenders. Period. End of story," he said.
The governor's statement comes from reports provided by the commission that Oregon is housing a growing number of "low risk offenders" in its prisons at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to taxpayers.
Another study used by the Public Safety Commission stated the prison population will grow by 2,000 in the next decade. But district attorneys across Oregon say the numbers have been inflated every year.
Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote, as well as other district attorneys, dispute that the prison population will grow by 2,000 in the next year.
"All I'm saying is, let's go on the track record, and the track record says we are not going to need 2,000 beds. That's what the track record shows," Foote said.
Many district attorneys point to a study showing 67.2 percent of Oregon inmates are violent criminals – the highest per-capita prisoner population of any state in the nation.
The commission is expected to bring its report to the governor and Legislature before the beginning of the 2013 Legislative session.
I have no problem with this "low risk" label if the politicians are willing to serve as accessories to the future crimes these criminals commit if released. If the politicians are not willing, then the criminals should serve the rest of their terms in prison. Perhaps the politicians should stop siphoning off the taxpayers money and spend it where is was meant to be spent!
If there were such a thing as "low risk", there wouldn't be much crime! How can anyone predict the future? Not even the offender can really affect the dynamics which could lead to new offenses! Stop trying to eliminate crime by not addressing it. Crime happens, folks, get used to it and stop trying to gloss it over with well-intentioned rhetoric!
Having seen our "justice" system from both sides, my belief is that it is more of a "joke" system. There are no incentives for inmates to make any fundamental changes in their thoughts or their actions. The belief amongst those who even think about consequences (which is rare), is that they will receive minimal sentences. They tend to think of criminal activity as a viable means of coping with a society that is becoming more and more polarized into haves and have nots, with a minimal cost of doing business (ie incarceration). We, as a society, are reinforcing that by by catering to the offender rather than the victim. Back "in the day", as it were, we knew that if caught we would do hard time. There was no matrix system, no color tvs, no self-created religions (with state funded martial arts classes as an integral component), and no plea bargaining a Class A felony down to a Class C. It was do the crime and do the time. At this time, that is seen as a "cruel and unusual" punishment. But at least there were sufficient teeth in the law to provide some incentive to change, if only to avoid that certain punishment. That is no longer the case. What is the cause of this change? It is rooted in a myriad of sources. But there is one that stands out glaringly. The offender is viewed as a primary victim, rather than as culpable for his (or her) own actions. I had a bad childhood. I'm misunderstood. I was abused. And the list goes on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The fact is, there are some truly evil, sociopathic, and violent people out there, from whom who society needs protection. This means segragation (incarceration) or even execution, our governor notwithstanding. And for all our sakes, we need to make prison once more a consequence to be feared, not yawned about. Make it an incentive for change. That will provide more rehabilitation than what now exists. One needs only to look at the results that Sheriff Joe Arpiau (spelling ?) has achieved in Maricopa County, Arizona. Recidivism is continually dropping, still. My opinion only. Apologies for any toes on which I might have tread. GG
Low risk, deport all illegals held in our jails for drug crimes, with a press release that they are being released because of information provided to the FBI and DEA. Then release all inmates who are convicted of drug possession charges. Keep the pedophiles, rapists and murderers. Release all gang members into the neighborhood of their rival gang, while announcing it over a loudspeaker.
Those actions should limit any repeat offenders, thereby reducing future inmate population.
 @Owt_RagedÂ
....That is the perfect solution! You should run for president. You would have my vote!
There are many changes needed but releasing "low-risk" offenders of the murdering ilk is not one.
Â
All prisoners should be required to work daily without regard to an 8 hour work day. They obviously couldn't manage their free time themselves so their workday should be closer to 12. The work done must offset the cost of their housing by either saving the state/county money or by providing a service which the state/county charges a fee. All money should go to the cost of housing, medical, etc.. The inmate shall receive no compensation directly or indirectly.Â
Â
The oppositie of good time should be initiated. More time is added if the inmate refuses to work and only basic rations are provided; bread & water.Â
Â
Inmates should be required to pass a test to be released. It shouldn't be easy to come from prison back in to society. It should be a very arduous task that only those who really want to be productive members of society will complete. Â
 @SelfPossessed I concur....
They shouldn't have mp3 players, big screen T.V.'s, or Wii games...not to mention all the free access to medical and dental care...they reoffend because they can't afford care on the outside and think the taxpayers should pay for it instead...
Who says crime doesn't pay in Oregon?
I wonder if the state will save money when one of these "low risk" offenders murder someone and the victims next of kin files a lawsuit agains the state. It's been done before....Â
If anyone is wondering whether the basis for the "low-risk" designations in this study are reasonable, the fact that Mr. Turnidge is on the low-risk list ought to answer that question rather quickly.
You have to be really bad to serve a long sentence in Oregon (67.2 percent of Oregon inmates are violent criminals â the highest per-capita prisoner population of any state in the nation). We need to keep those that are serving them, serving them. We should be using the prison in Madras.
If the great all seing eye of Souran, er' I mean our "leaders" would end the (failed) war on drugs(the people).. That would free op ALOT of space for REAL criminals.
op, up whatever...
I don't care what designation they give these people, as long as we have enough of 'em in our privatized cum slavery prisons, everything's A-OK with me. We're too easy on these criminals; what we need are more ridiculous post-sentence hoops for them to jump through and fail. Once you're in the system, it's our job to ensure they never, ever get out.
 a few things Isn't Turnridge under Death sentenc for killling two officers and maiming a third; low risk?,second Pew is so biased their research is beyond worthless. Maybe someone should find out why per prisoner costs are in the top nationally. Lastly Gov. rerun has taken many positions that have turned out to be much more "nuanced" than origionally stated. I trust him not. Finally if these folks are so "low risk" let them baby sit the commisions children and care for their parents
"Among those on the low-risk list is Bruce Turnidge who bombed a Woodburn bank two years ago, killing two police officers."
Â
Unbelievable. Â In 2 years he's gone from cop killer / bomber to low-risk !Â
Â
All this crap is just to create some FUD in the general public to preceed yet another round of tax increases.
Next should be the new tax increases on smokers and the threats to cut public safety.
I knew this was coming.
Â
Democrats are notoriously easy on criminals. They always think that criminals can be reasoned with and will stop committing crimes if they are asked nicely to stop.
Â
Maybe a condition of their release is that they move somewhere else like California and never come back.....hey, maybe I'm on to something here. If they are caught in Oregon they get live in solitary. The more I think about this the more I like it.
 @RalphCramden I'm a Democrat and I have to say we're not all like that. I'm all for inmates making' little rocks from big rocks'. Recidivism rates are like they are because inmates don't (or ever will) take responsibility for their own well being. They reoffend because they want a 'vacation' from their malfeasance on the outside.Â
If the public only knew half of what we pay for.
Â
 @JoGrinderÂ
Â
You are one of the few with that view.
 @RalphCramdenÂ
Â
This is not people being "easy" on criminals, the issue is quite the opposite. It is mandatory sentences for many crimes where a lighter sentence should have been imposed but cannot because of the requirements. This fills the prison with first time offenders for long stretches on less egregious offenses (because they are not career criminals they don't have the tools to know how to work the system) and end up meaning people with shorter sentences who did more significant acts go free.
Â
For example, you can serve two years from auto theft. But you steal your exâs car and with a domestic âenhancementâ you can end up serving 5. A solid 5, not 2 and a half then three years probation. Such an enhancement makes it 2nd degree robbery and is a measure 11 offence.
Â
All this while the career guy pleased to auto theft instead of trying to fight the ex (because they didnât actually steal the car) and serves less than a year.
Â
Mandatory sentencing got us into this mess. Now we have to release violent people to keep the drug convictions and property thieves in jail.
Â
Â
 @Repoman  @RalphCramden I agree, the definition of violent crime keeps changing as government, in their continuous attempt to make us all feel safe, criminalize more and more things. When I was in school, you might have gotten into a fist fight with another school kid. Now if that happens and you are 18, you could be charged with assault and do hard time. Because it is a "violent" crime. Same goes with other things on the measure 11 list. Some people truly are violent, others make mistakes and are treated the same as violent because of measure 11. It does suck, and is a drain on local resources, and locks up people who could learn their lesson another way while still being productive in society. All violent crimes are not created equal. Each has it's own set of individual circumstances.
</end of soapbox>
 @Repoman  @randolaÂ
Â
A 15 year old walks up to me and says give me your wallet should get charged with a felony. I'm okay with that.
 @RalphCramden  @randolaÂ
Â
2nd degree robbery is a measure 11.
Â
And any act consensual or not, between a minor and a non-minor will fall under measure 11. 2nd degree rape is what it is called.
Â
Neither f those are violent crimes (although robbery in any form is a person on person crime and usually regarded as more threatening even if no weapon is present). Most violent crimes fall under 11, but so do non.
Â
Either of the above have minimum sentences of more than 5 years.
Â
Try this on. A 15 year old walks up to you and says give me your wallet. He has a friend, a big kid. You comply (or don't), they are convicted. Second degree robbery (with another person) both boys WILL be in jail until they are almost 21 even is it's their first offence.Â
Â
Tell me that makes sense?
 @randola  @RepomanÂ
Â
I got into a fight in school several times. The school dealt with it and no police were involved. Both of us got detention and were friends after that.
Â
Now a days I would be in juvy and charged with a crime.
Â
Measure 11 crimes are all violent. They involve physical force, a weapon or the threat of significant physical violence or death. None of them are non violent or minor violence like shoving someone or having consensual sex with an underage girl who is also a girlfriend.
 @Repoman Â
Â
The only mandatory sentences are measure 11 crimes and all of those are violent crimes. The rest are up to the DA, judge or jury.Â
@RalphCramden Your on to something there, maybe the state parole board gives them a plane ticket to say........Massachusettes. Amother condition would be you're not allowed back in Oregon for 20 years or you'll be arrested. That might work until other states start doing the same thing to us.
 @Billy Batts Â
Â
If we start shipping them out now and get a head start we would be ahead of the game before anyone else catches on.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Solipsist01 Â
Â
Not that I know of which is why this is happening.Â
Cut back on what the inmates receive in prison. Make them all work at something, to perhaps work on rehabilitation. No fancy lawsuits regarding trains keeping them awake, or geese honking outside. They are in prison for a reason. Fill all the beds in all the locations. Prison should not be a cakewalk. Once the government decides to let the "low-risk" ones out, the percentages will change and the next group of 'low-risk" will be let out. They broke the law, so let them complete their sentences