Scott Swanson
Gov. Kate Brown’s releases of numerous inmates from Oregon prisons is not new news, but her move on Oct. 20 to use her clemency power to retroactively change sentences for one-time youthful offenders sentenced to long prison terms has raised the ire of some in law enforcement.
It also raises uncomfortable questions about crime and punishment – whether progressive thinking about crime and punishment reflected in recent laws passed in Oregon is more valid than traditional views of guilt and punishment.
In recent years, Oregon’s leaders have moved away from the strict punitive approach of Measure 11, passed by the state’s voters in 1994.
In 2019 the Legislature approved SB1008, which limits the prosecution of juveniles in adult court mandated by Measure 11 for serious felonies committed by juveniles. Persons convicted of Measure 11 offenses receive no parole or reduction of sentence for good behavior while in prison.
Meanwhile, Brown has taken matters into her own executive hands by signing off on retroactive changes to the prison sentences of more than 70 youthful offenders, who are serving adult-length sentences for violent crimes – homicide, sexual offenses, robberies, assaults, committed when they were 15, 16 or 17 years old.
The governor has cited the passage of SB1008 and research that asserts that juvenile offenders’ brains aren’t fully developed at the time when they commit crimes and that they must be treated differently in the criminal justice system, a position adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Brown is no stranger to commutations, according to an Oregon Public Broadcasting report earlier this year, which noted that she has granted more pardons and commutations than any governor in recent state history, in part to reverse what she sees as overreaches of Measure 11 and advances of “science” relating to youthful offenders.
There’s no question that the imprisonment of offenders is troublesome, not just for the prisoners but for society in general. Prison is expensive and subject to abuses, as history has shown repeatedly. Many approaches to imprisonment have been tried in the United States, most resulting in attempts at reform.
It is right to be concerned about fairness and justice, which is what has driven these movements in the past. But faulty preconsiderations about the nature of evil, guilt and punishment can lead to end results and dangers to society.
That’s the concern of law enforcement officials around the state, not just from politically conservative areas. They question the viability of Brown’s presumption that, as she put it in a statement, “we must put more emphasis on preventing crime and rehabilitating youth than on harsh punishments and lengthy and costly prison sentences. We can no longer rely solely on imprisonment as the only solution.”
That sounds great, but people who deal with these violators every day have serious doubts.
“Perhaps this sounds fair, maybe even compassionate in light of (SB 1008), ” wrote Marion County District Attorney Paige Clarkson, who has been outspoken in her concern about the commutations. “But if you look a little closer, you will see that the governor’s decision to grant these violent offenders clemency and the process by which she did it, suffers from a lack a real individualized assessment, transparency, and trauma-informed victim services.”
Granted, Brown’s order doesn’t automatically open the doors for prisoners, but it puts their cases in the hands of parole board members, not judges.
As we said earlier, there are no easy answers to the issues of crime and punishment, but presumptively ignoring the rights of victims and with a three-year recidivism rate of 52.9%, there’s a lot of cause for concern here.