Anti-Crime Measures, Part Two

Imagine spending three billion dollars on new prison construction and borrowing costs at a time when the state of Oregon is in recession and when the crime rate has been going down for years. Then there would be the commensurate operating costs for those new prisons. And then there's the cost of state-provided foster care for the kids of single moms who will go to prison for three years for first-time identity theft.

That's what Kevin Mannix's Measure 61 would mean. But even if we could afford it, it makes no sense. Measure 61 would require mandatory minimum sentences for property crimes---even first-time offenses. First time i-d theft or home break-in? Mandated three years in prison. Sell one gram of cocaine for the first time? Three years. Just breaking into a garage could net you 14 months.

But even if we could afford it and even if we did think it was appropriate to send someone to state prison for three years for a first-time home burglary, Measure 61 still makes no sense. That's because the vast majority of property crimes are committed by drug addicts. They steal everything from the bronze off gravestones to identities to feed their habit. And Measure 61 does nothing to address that. Instead, we will spend big-time to warehouse non-violent criminals.

Much more reasonable is the alternative on the ballot, Measure 57. It would mean spending about a sixth as much on new prisons, would target repeat offenders, and would require drug treatment. Measure 57 is more of an appeal to reason. Measure 61 to fear.