Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Observer. (La Grande, Or.) 1968-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 29, 2020)
Opinion 4A Thursday, October 29, 2020 My Voice Vote no on Measure 110 easure 110 is not a gamble that Oregonians should make. We can all agree that Oregon needs more treatment for those suffering from the crushing devastation of drug addiction. Unfortu- nately, Measure 110 is advertising itself to be that solu- tion when in reality it will add to the problem. While it claims to “expand treatment and services,” it does no such thing. The largest change this measure will have is the decriminalization of hard drugs. This means it will no longer be a crime to possess the following: 2 grams of methamphet- KELSIE amine; just less MCDANIEL than 1 gram of DISTRICT ATTORNEY heroin; 2 grams of cocaine; 40 user units of Oxycodone; 40 user units of LSD; five user units of MDMA (ecstasy); 40 user units of methadone; or 12 grams of psilocybin. What it fails to do is actually increase treatment services and inpatient beds. This is especially concerning when you know how this would apply to children. Let’s say your 15-year-old son was caught in pos- session of 2 grams of methamphetamine. Police would issue him a citation, much like a speeding ticket. It would carry a $100 fine. You as the parent would not be notified. If he simply paid the fine, that would be the end of the case. If he wanted to, he could call the number on the back of the ticket and engage in a health assess- ment. In this hypothetical, let’s assume the assessment determines your son needs inpatient treatment. He can simply say “No, thank you” and the court will waive the $100 fine and he can go about his business. The most the assessment will do is likely put him on a waiting list to receive treatment that exists now, should he choose to accept help. This whole process could take place without any notification to the parents. Many supporters of Measure 110 are shocked to learn the law would create no additional treatment beds. There would be no increase in additional counselors, groups or classes to facilitate treatment. The only thing this measure would do is create 16 regional assessment centers that would accept voluntary engagement and then provide information on where the person could go to receive treatment. Assessments are not treatment. Union County does not struggle to have individuals assessed — we struggle with the lack of treatment ser- vices. What Oregon needs is an increased number of inpatient treatment beds and an increase in the number of treatment facilities across the state. This measure does not do that. This is not a grassroots movement by Oregonians for Oregonians. This initiative is funded by a New York-based advocacy group, the Drug Policy Alliance, flooding $3.4 million dollars into the effort. If passed, Oregon would be the first state in the country to try this experiment. Our state does not need to be the guinea pig for an out-of-state-led experiment to “see what happens” when addictive drugs are decriminalized. The criminal justice system is not perfect, and I fully support programming and services to combat addic- tion. I am a proud member of the Union County Treat- ment Court Team, and Union County has a robust treat- ment court designed to do just that. Many graduates who are in recovery credit the intervention of the mul- tidisciplinary program for providing the motivation and roadmap toward sobriety and a crime-free life. Mea- sure 110 would take away that option for many of our citizens. Don’t be fooled by the slick language of the adver- tisements in favor of Measure 110 promising treatment services galore. Look into it yourself and you will see this is a bait and switch that will devastate more fami- lies and lose more lives to substance abuse. As a mother, neighbor and your district attorney, please join me in voting no on Measure 110. ——— Kelsie Davis McDaniel is the district attorney of Union County. M Other Views Oregon AG must address unjust convictions lingering after Supreme Court ban uring the six years I spent in prison and the five years I spent on the sex offender reg- istry, one of the many things that played on my mind was that if my case had been heard just a few miles along the road in Idaho, I wouldn’t have been in prison at all. D EARL BAIN JURY REFORM ADVOCATE I was wrongfully convicted by a nonunanimous jury, despite being innocent of any crime. Only 10 of the 12 jurors believed the story the pros- ecution told, but that was enough. Unlike every other state in the union, aside from Louisiana, at the time of my conviction in 2009 Oregon allowed me and others to be convicted of felonies if only 10 or 11 jurors voted “guilty.” Elsewhere, all 12 jurors had to be convinced to support a guilty ver- dict. If I had been tried in Idaho, a few minutes’ drive from where I lived in Malheur County, the split-jury ver- dict in my case would not have been enough to convict me. My experience has convinced me that justice demands that verdicts be unanimous. I am not alone in thinking that. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question of whether Oregon and Louisiana’s nonunanimous jury systems are fair by ruling that verdicts must be unan- imous. The justices ruled that jurors in any new cases that come to trial in Oregon must reach a complete agree- ment to convict. The court found that nonunani- mous verdicts violate the Constitution and that they are a relic of the past Mail: The Observer, 911 Jefferson Ave., La Grande, OR 97850 Email: news@lagrandeobserver.com • The Observer welcomes letters to the editor. We edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We will not publish consumer complaints against businesses or per- sonal attacks against private individuals. Thank-you letters are discouraged. • Letters are limited to 350 words and must be signed and carry the author’s address and phone number (for verifica- tion only). • Letter writers are limited to one letter every two weeks. • Visit The Observer’s website, www.lagrandeobserver. com, for more news, opinion and other content. Editor’s Note Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor or a guest column. the effects of a nonunanimous con- viction can last for a lifetime. There’s no asterisk on a felony conviction to tell potential employers that your con- viction would not stand under cur- rent law. Landlords can’t tell that your criminal history is based on a law the Supreme Court now calls “gravely mistaken.” Before my pardon, I still had to submit to the humiliation of being under supervision as a sex offender, including having to regularly take lie detector tests about my sexual thoughts and activity, even though I was convicted nonunanimously. Attorney General Ellen Rosen- blum and the Department of Justice must do more. Rosenblum should con- sent to new trials for all Oregonians convicted by nonunanimous juries, regardless of when their appeals were heard. I know from bitter experience that the system can get it wrong. Why would we risk other people enduring wrongful conviction as I have? A wrong is a wrong, and it should be righted, whether it occurred a short time ago or decades past, especially when it impacts the lives of so many people convicted unfairly by a process rejected by 48 other states. ——— Earl Bain was wrongfully con- victed in Malheur County in 2009. He spent six years in prison. After the complaining witness in his case recanted her story, with the help of the Oregon Innocence Project he was pardoned on the grounds of innocence by Gov. Kate Brown in August this year. Contact your public officials Local officials Write to us that was designed to silence minority voices on juries. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the practice of allowing split-jury verdicts is inconsistent with the Constitution’s right to a jury trial and must end. He traced the right to a unanimous jury all the way back to medieval Europe, explaining that it “emerged as a vital common law right in 14th century England, appeared in the early American state constitutions, and provided the backdrop against which the Sixth Amendment was drafted and ratified.” Oregon and Louisiana have been very much outliers in allowing nonunanimous verdicts for so long. This is good decision, but the Supreme Court left open a question: What happens to those people who have already been convicted nonunan- imously and are still in prison, or oth- erwise suffering the burden of an unjust felony conviction in their past? Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Oregon Department of Justice, which is responsible for han- dling the prosecution side of appeals of criminal cases, announced it would concede all cases that were decided nonunanimously and were still on direct appeal. That means a group of convictions is being over- turned, but there are still many more cases that had already reached later stages of the appeals process when the DOJ announced its concessions. An arbitrary cutoff point does not change reality: People who have been wronged by nonunanimous verdicts still need help. If it were not for the pardon I received from Gov. Kate Brown, with the help of the Oregon Innocence Project, I would be one of the people still waiting for relief, since my direct appeal was dismissed in 2009. Even for people no longer in prison, La Grande: City Manager Robert Strope, 541-962- 1309, fax 541-963-3333; RStrope@cityoflagrande. org; P.O. Box 670, La Grande, OR 97850; Mayor Steve Clements, mayor@cityoflagrande.org; Councilors Gary Lillard (mayor pro tem), glillard@ cityoflagrande.org; Nicole Howard, nhoward@ cityoflagrande.org; Corrine Dutto, cdutto@cityo- flagrande.org; Mary Ann Miesner, mmiesner@city- oflagrande.org; Justin Rock, jrock@cityoflagrande. org; and through the city manager’s office. Elgin: City Hall, 790 S. Eighth Ave., Elgin, OR, 97827; City Recorder/Administrator Brock Eckstein, cityadm@cityofelginor.org; Mayor Allan Duffy, 541-240-9763, mayor@cityofelgi- nor.org; Councilors Mary West, 541-805-0443, councilor3@cityofelginor.org; Kathy Warren, 541-786-9611, councilor6@cityofelginor.org; Risa Hallgarth, 541-437-9462, councilor2@ cityofelginor.org; Rocky Burgess, 541-786-2417, councilor1@cityofelginor.org; David Reed,541- 975-3306, councilor4@cityofelginor.org; and Ryan Martin, councilor5@cityofelginor.org. Cove: City Hall, 504 Alder St., P.O. Box 8 Cove, OR 97824; City Recorder Donna Lewis, 541 568- 4566, donna.lewis@cityofcove.org; Mayor Del Little, 503-508-6727. Union County: County Courthouse: 1106 K Ave., La Grande, OR 97850; 541-963-1001; fax 541-963-1079; Commissioners Donna Beverage, dbeverage@union-county.org, Matt Scarfo, mscarfo@union-county.org, and Paul Anderes, panderes@union-county.org; administrative offi- cer Shelley Burgess, sburgess@union-county.org. Wallowa County: Courthouse, 101 S. River St., Enterprise OR 97828, 541-426-4543 ext. 15; fax 541-426-0582; Commissioners Susan Roberts, sroberts@co.wallowa.or.us; Todd Nash, tnash@ co.wallowa.or.us; John Hillock, jhillock@co.wal- lowa.or.us. United States officials Rep. Greg Walden: walden.house.gov; D.C. of- fice: 2182 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515; 202-225-6730; La Grande office: 1211 Washington Ave., La Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400; fax, 541-624-2402. Sen. Jeff Merkley: merkley.senate.gov.; D.C. office: 313 Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland office: One World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503- 326-2900. Pendleton office: 310 S.E. Second St., Suite 105, Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129.
