Proposed Prison Reform / Prisons are just too damned expensive.

Here we go again.  Regarding Friday’s Oregonian article (12/30/11):  “Panel Pushes Prison Reform” – “an Oregon commission says retooling sentencing using modern research will save money.”

This so-called commission, appointed by our dilettante governor, John Kitzhaber, rendered their first major recommendation which was that said appointed commission requires additional members and that the requested review of the prison system will necessarily be continued for an additional year.  Sounds expensive, doesn’t it?

So far, when you read what was released in the commission’s initial report, they’ve determined that recidivism would be greatly reduced if the prisoners received additional vocational training.  I don’t buy it.  What the commission is ultimately promoting under the table is the reduction of mandatory sentencing because it is just too costly for the State.  They do mention that the crime rate seems to be going down; presumably, according to the commission, because criminals just aren’t as bad as they used to be.  Could it be that the worst criminals are incarcerated, and that’s why the public feels a little safer?

I’m not an expert on the prison system, but I think I’ve probably had more experience in that area then Governor Kitzhaber.  I was a jailer in a county jail at one time.  I’ve had personal contact with a number of criminals – some who have chosen crime as a life-long profession.  And, for what it’s worth I’ve toured a couple of the major State prisons, and talked to the staff.  Slim experience, I know; but I do have some suggestions.

If there is a major spectrum of crimes, and related punishments, that need revision, it is in the area of illegal drugs.  We simply should no longer clog our prisons with individuals who are principally illegal drug users, and themselves victimized by their own addiction.  I’m aware that many users also sell drugs – and in fact most do.  Our laws need to recognize the intent – is it to sustain addiction or to victimize others?  Not easily ascertained, but possible.  It’s time that the public recognized the war on drugs, if not over, is but limping along.  The main caveat I would put forward is that minors must be protected.

What about the ‘death penalty?’  I’m a proponent of death for the most horrendous murders.  However, I do not favor the system wherein a jury is compelled to make this life or death decision for society.  My suggestion is that all murderers, convicted in the first degree, be given the sentence of life in prison without chance of parole or the death penalty by lethal injection.  They choose.  If they choose life in prison, that’s fine.  If, at some point, they change their minds and request the lethal injection, the State should accommodate them.  Barbaric?  I don’t think so.  I think it is humane.

In that regard, currently, Gary Haugen, a resident on Oregon’s death row has been asking to be executed for months.  Against his wishes, the appeals on his behalf have gone on and on while attorneys rack-up fees at the expense of the taxpayers.  Our Governor has decided to take the easy way out.  He’s decided that, even though Oregonians voted overwhelming for the ‘death penalty,’ he will not permit executions as long as he is governor.  In other words, he refuses to do the job for which he was elected.  To put this bluntly, it appears to me that Gary Haugen has bigger balls than John Kitzhaber, who refuses to enforce the law.

What about recidivism rates for crimes other than murder?  Common sense tells us that vocational training for criminals, welding, wood working, etc. isn’t going to change anything.  Why would an individual, with a propensity for crime, want to get up at six in the morning and go to work as a welder when he can make easier money by burglary, robbery, etc.?  All his friends are doing crime, why should he change his ways?  Not only is it not economically viable as far as he is concerned, all his friends would think he’s a chump.

My suggestion is this.  OK, we’ll give you vocational training, and we will even release you somewhat early with no parole requirements – providing, you leave the State of Oregon and Oregon’s contiguous states – and establish residence elsewhere.  If you return to Oregon or an adjacent state, you will be incarcerated and required to complete your original sentence – no exceptions, no more vocational training, just hard time.  This will force the individual to start a new and more productive life somewhere else, without returning him or her to all the bad influences that lead him to crime in the first place.  Hell, I’d even help him with some relocation expenses.  Are we just shipping our problems somewhere else?  No, I don’t think so.  We’re giving a former prisoner a possibility of a new life.  Take your family and move away from those mean streets.  Start a new life and God speed.

True Nelson