What is it?

Measure 61 would change state law to strengthen penalties for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug and burglary crimes, requiring even first-time offenders in certain felony cases to do prison time.

Where did it come from?

Petitioner Kevin Mannix is a former state legislator and successful backer of the earlier tough-on-crime initiative Measure 11. Public alarm about rampant ID theft and drug-related property crimes, and concern about the lack of meaningful penalties for property criminals prompted the new measure. “The criminal justice system is leaking like a sieve,” Mannix said.

Oregon legislators and a slate of district attorneys subsequently proposed Measure 57 as an alternative way to address the problem. Mannix has described that measure as “wimpy” but said more recently that if it were “the only thing on the ballot, I’d say it’s a good thing.” He contends that Measure 61 is the best way to bring “accountability” to the system.

What it would do:

Measure 61 would impose mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders in three types of crime – drug dealing, ID theft and first-degree burglary – and for repeat offenders in forgery and other burglary crimes.

Estimates say it would add some 4,900 inmates to the existing prison population of 13,600, requiring the state to build additional prison space. It does not provide for drug treatment, which Mannix says should be dealt with by the Legislature.

The measure has drawn opposition from police, corrections and probation officer organizations, as well as various social service advocacy groups. Opponents say the measure is too costly, fails to provide for drug treatment and eliminates judicial discretion in sentencing. Some officials in the justice system have stopped short of opposing 61, but have come out in support of the competing legislative referral, Measure 57, as a more reasonable alternative.

Reality check:

The state estimates the cost of implementing Measure 37 would be $8 million to 10 million in the first year, rising as high as $274 million a year by the fifth year. Prison construction could require the state to borrow up to $1.3 billion.

Mannix says those figures are too high, especially since they don’t take into account an expected drop in the crime rate as more career criminals are locked up. He argues that Measure 11 drew similar objections but turned out to cost less than half of what had been projected. He also contends that work camps could be used to cut costs, although that idea has not been backed up by corrections officials.

The proposal also has drawn fire because the FBI’s national crime stats, released in September, show violent and property crime dropping in Oregon. Mannix counters that Oregon’s property crime rate is still the 18th highest in the nation, and even proponents of the competing measure admit Oregonians are fed up with property crime.

Check the fine print:

Measures 61 and 57 are drawing strong support in polling, and some observers expect both measures to pass. If that happens, the one with the most votes will go into effect.

Recommendation:

No. The cost of this measure – even if the estimates are high – would still be too great, given the state budget forecasts. It also would have hidden costs, in that the focus on first-time offenders likely would greatly increase not just the number of inmates, but the number of women inmates – sending ripples through other state programs that assist families and children and provide foster care.

However, the primary concern is the lack of drug and alcohol treatment. The measure leaves that up to the Legislature to fund – an iffy prospect at best. The voters have a better alternative in Measure 57, which would strengthen some sentences while requiring the treatment needed to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime.