Public Health in Oregon - Join The Conversation

This would be a very sad thing if it were to happen. I’m not sure of the results of this vote, but I sure hope that there was an alternative. It seems that sending first time drug offenders to prison without treatment would do more harm than good. Prison most likely won’t teach them how to handle their addictions. That’s what treatment is for. Everyone deserves rehabilitation for addictions.

Although this seems to be a functional solution I am somehow skeptical about the functionality of this project. We should focus more on drug treatment otherwise we risk making things worse by jailing people and leaving them there…

Democratic Forum, the first of the All-American Presidential Forums broadcast on PBS and hosted by Tavis Smiley, addressed the issues of mandatory minimum sentencing and racial disparity in the nation’s criminal justice system Thursday. Hosted at Howard University in Washington, D.C., the forum focused on crime and punishment as one of eight topics presented to the Democratic candidates.
=======================
Thomson
   
oregon drug rehab

According to an article in today’s Oregonian today, if Mannix’s measure 61 passes, about 33 percent of the new inmates are expected to be women - who will cost the state more than men “because of health issues.”

Suzanne, your question is a good one, and I have not found much information to answer it. A September 10, 2008 Willamette Week article says that Measure 61 opponents “got this message from pollster Lisa Grove in January: ‘The Mannix mandatory minimum initiative will pass.’” However, there’s nothing further about the “poll” the “pollster” refers to.

If anyone does have any more information on polls that indicate where Oregon leans on this issue, please don’t hesitate to post it here.

Thanks!

Chris Palmedo
CHP Website Administrator

Could someone please point me in the direction of the actual “polls” I keep hearing about that say that Measure 61 is likely to pass? Who is it doing this polling and whom are they polling? (they obviously haven’t polled me or any of the hundred + people I’ve talked to who are openly against this measure - AND against measure 57)

Still, these same voters talk about gambling on the outcomes of elections and voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Apparently, if you don’t vote for one of the two in a game you don’t even want to play, it will always be the worst one that wins. This playing the odds has become an obsession of our modern culture in order to feel good about something - at least we’ve picked a “winner.”

But it isn’t working for the good guys. That’s because the bad guys (who insist that they don’t base any of their moves on polls) have us so turned around that we’re spending all our time and talents dreaming up “alternatives” that still mess us up. I don’t even have to play for the worst to happen: both sides are completely focused on guaranteeing it, and they’re going to deal the cards whether I’m at the table or not!

Why not spend our time registering new voters, educating them, and dreaming up real progressive proposals for them to vote on—like something that actually changes the rules of this game?

As a project dedicated to raising awareness about the public health implications of policies that may seem unrelated to health, we are pleased to have the participation of a public defender in this discussion. Thanks for your comment!

As a public defender, I am so pleased that the public health community gets it—that Measure 61 is so costly that it will divert money from other public health programs and initiatives and fails to address a huge source of property crimes, drug addiction.

VOTE NO… on Ballot Measure 61: It’s Impact on the Mentally Ill
by Eileen Kennedy
 
 
Mandatory Minimums are an automatic prison term. Typically, there is no judicial discretion allowed, and a judge is required by law to mandate prison for certain kinds of offenses without
regard to age, prior criminal history, or other mitigating circumstances.

Ballot Measure 61 concerns the establishment of mandatory minimums for drug dealers, id thieves, burglars, and car thieves. All of these nonviolent offenses have mandatory minimum prison terms attached, and diversion and probation are NOT options.
 
The impact on our mentally ill loved ones could be severe. Mental health courts are a diversion that judges can use if the offender has problems with mental illness. Rather than going to prison, which undermines mental health recovery, the mentally ill would able to regain their health while under court supervision, accessing mental health services within the community. Mental health courts aim to get treatment for offenders who are involved in crime because of their illness.
 
The current language of Ballot Measure 61 does not allow the mentally ill access to these mental health courts if they commit offenses contained in the ballot measure. The only way a mentally ill offender could access any mental health services, without going to prison, under Ballot Measure 61, would be to plead guilty except insane, followed by a commitment to the state hospital. The mental health courts, however, do not identify the offender as insane, a label which is often stressful for the ill offender and his or her family, but the court does allow the offender a supervised environment that is supportive of recovery.
 
Max Williams, the Executive Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, tells us that twenty-one percent of the current prisoner population is severely mentally ill; that is, roughly
3000 prisoners out of the 14,000 prisoners in ODOC have mental problems. He willingly tells Oregonians that recovery is not fully supported by ODOC because the purpose of the prison
system is safety and security. Williams is openly concerned about the quality of services the ODOC can provide Oregonians under Ballot Measure 61.
 
If Ballot Measure 61 passes, the arrival of between 4000 to 6000 new prisoners will change the prison budget from rehabilitation programs to prison building in order to house so many new
offenders in the next three years. If new construction does not keep pace with incarceration, overcrowding will result with the mentally ill offender sometimes sharing cell space with more
predatory offenders.
  The bottom line is that under Ballot Measure 61, more mentally ill people will go to prison.

I would like to respond to this blog from the recovery aspect of how the state spends our dollars.

I have been free of all mind-altering substances for 8 years and 200 days. What that means to my community, I am a tax-paying citizen, I vote, I am no longer a drain on society and our precious resources. When I was in my addiction and went to prison, it cost the taxpayers more than $28,000.00 per year to house me. Those were the days, our state’s policy was to rehabilitate! I enrolled in college and found out, “I was smart and I could further my education when I left prison.” I completed a 6-month treatment program and left prison a few months early because I had earned the right through my work and my programs, to take what I had spent the year learning and put it into practice as a free woman. I had a safe place to live for a few months while I got back on my feet, with a job.

1994 came along and our state took a new approach, we became punitive and slowly dismantled the services that help people succeed. We began to use our tax dollars to build buildings (cages) in which to warehouse our people. Our tactic became so narrow minded, it created a cookie-cutter approach. We took the right for the judges to do their job and decide the best method of sentencing folks and gave the power to the prosecuting attorneys.

2008 is here and once again we are presented with yet another state budget buster. Measure 61 is asking us to lock up even more of our brothers, sisters and children, put them in prisons, not treat the treatable and focus just on punishment, including first time offender.

Measure 57 asks us to consider each of the folks coming before the judge on his or her own merits or circumstances; it builds money into the measure for drug and alcohol treatment.  Measure 57 has thoughtfully built in some recourses that will actually reduce future crime and help diminish recidivism.

Join me as I reclaim the Oregon I know and love; where we take care of the poorest of the poor, our children and families. We need to spend our dollars on health care, education and not prioritize incarceration.
Vote Yes on Measure 57 and NO on measure 61.

Measure 61 focuses on crime primarily driven by addiction; unfortunately the solution M61 offers will only make matters worse. Drug treatment would be less available because: 1) Judges would no longer have the discretion to direct people into drug court and community-based treatment when appropriate; and 2) It would further shift public funding into expensive prison construction and continue Oregon’s history of defunding the very programs (like treatment) that actually reduce recidivism. People would serve long sentences in prison (with no distinction for first time offenders) and be no better off when they get out.

Partnership for Safety and Justice is particularly concerned with the criminalization of addiction. Drug abuse is a very serious public health problem that includes a wide range of distressing consequences including addiction-driven crime. Despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests tough on crime strategies have not helped curb addiction, these reactionary policies proliferate focusing public resources on expensive incarceration while both community-based and prison-based drug treatment has become less accessible.

Over the past fifteen years, Oregon’s prison build-up has been particularly alarming because it has been at the expense of the very programs proven to reduce future crime at a fraction of the cost of building more prisons. Cuts to drug and alcohol treatment, adult basic education, and juvenile intervention programs have actually reduced the state’s ability to maintain public safety. We believe the best possible future for Oregon will not be found behind bars. If Oregon shifts its public safety strategy, we can make advances in crime reduction and also save valuable taxpayer dollars to invest in health care, K-12 education, community colleges, and the other vitally important services that are so essential to building safe, sound, and healthy communities.

According to the Oregon Department of Corrections 85% of repeat property offenders within its custody have a moderate to severe drug and/or alcohol problem. The recidivism rate for these offenders is 49%. Yet only 12% of this inmate population participates in substance abuse treatment while in custody. The fiscal and human toll of such a myopic and misplaced approach to addiction is profound. We are doing little to heal and transform impacted people (including families and friends) failing to break the cycle of crime, and squandering tax dollars in the process. A similar dynamic can be found when examining the intersection of mental health issues and incarceration. Oregon can do better.

Recognizing how bad Measure 61, is the legislature developed a competing measure for the ballot. Legislators knew that if M61 passed, it would make it even harder to fund schools, healthcare, and human services while taking the criminal justice system in the wrong direction. The legislative alternative (Measure 57) emphasizes the need to expand access to drug treatment as a critical approach to public safety.

Essentially, M57 is built on the notion that first time property crime offenders should have access to community-based treatment and diversion programs like drug court. Second time offenders would do prison time but would also have access to drug treatment (Alternative Incarceration Program) and earned time, while people with multiple convictions would receive tougher sentences. M57 also includes very long sentences for people who are dealing or manufacturing large quantities of drugs. By contrast, Mannix’s measure sends low-level dealers to prison for 36 months no matter what the circumstances with no judicial discretion and continues the failed strategy of the War on Drugs.

For more information on Partnership for Safety and Justice and a more in-depth analysis of our Vote NO on 61 / Vote YES on 57 positions, please see our website at http://www.safetyandjustice.org.

If public health’s mission is “to fulfill society’s interest in assuring conditions in which people can make choices to be healthy in their communities,” then the issue of preventing and treating substance abuse and addiction is integral to how we choose (as a society) to deal with offenders, first-time and otherwise. 

Overall, drugs and alcohol are implicated in the crimes of 81 percent of state prison inmates.  States pick up much of the financial burden of addiction. Recent estimates show that states spend $81.3 billion to deal with substance abuse and addiction. Of this amount, only 4 percent was spent on prevention and treatment; the remainder was spent on the consequences of addiction.  (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population (New York: CASA, 1998)

As many thinkers in this area have advocated, shifting focus toward effective substance abuse prevention and treatment would help to reduce many of the problems associated with addiction and also would lead to significant reductions in the amount of state funds spent. 

Read more at the National Conference of State Legislatures website:  http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/forum/crosscuttingissue.htm