-------------------------------------------------------------------
Affidavit Describes Drug Use At Fair (According To 'The Register-Guard'
In Eugene, Oregon, Undercover Linn County Prohibition Agents
Filed An Affidavit In Support Of A Warrant To Search The Property
Of Bill Conde, Describing 'Rampant Drug Use And Brazen Drug Sales'
At Conde's 'Cannabis Carnival' Earlier This Month, Even By Security Guards -
Conde Said Detectives Were Motivated By Politics And Their Search Last Week
Effectively Shut Down His Redwood Lumber Business By Confiscating Computers
And Business Records)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:01:34 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OR: Affidavit Describes Drug Use At Fair
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Olafur Brentmar
Pubdate: Wed, 23 Sep 1998
Source: Register-Guard, The (OR)
Contact: rgletters@guardnet.com
Website: http://www.registerguard.com/
Author JANELLE HARTMAN
AFFIDAVIT DESCRIBES DRUG USE AT FAIR
HARRISBURG - Undercover Linn County sheriff's deputies described rampant
drug use and brazen drug sales - even by security guards - at Bill Conde's
"Cannabis Carnival" earlier this month, according to an affidavit filed in
support of a warrant to search his property last week.
"People were walking around calling out `shrooms, nuggets,' like peanut
vendors at a ball game," a detective wrote, referring to street terms for
hallucinogenic mushrooms and marijuana bud.
Detectives said they bought drugs 26 times during the three-day event and
were approached by sellers numerous other times. Drugs described in the
affidavit were marijuana, mushrooms and blotter acid.
Conde, an outspoken marijuana activist who has hosted numerous
marijuana-themed events, said Tuesday that he didn't see any of the alleged
drug sales. Furthermore, he said, he tried to prevail on fairgoers not to
buy or sell drugs on his property.
According to the affidavit, Conde told undercover detectives who approached
him before the event that they could smoke marijuana there "as long as you
don't try to peddle it or are blatant about using it."
On stage at the event, however, he allegedly asked the crowd to avoid
"blatant transactions."
While on stage, detectives said, Conde took a rolled joint from his pocket
and showed it to his 4-year-old daughter, asking her if she knew what it
was. She didn't answer, but Conde allegedly said she'd picked up a bud of
it when she was 2 years old and told him, "Daddy, this smells good."
Detectives said he then urged everyone to "light it up."
"Conde lit his joint and the majority of spectators did the same,"
according to the affidavit.
Conde hasn't denied smoking pot or allowing others to smoke it on his
property, saying using or possessing less than an ounce isn't a crime.
Under Oregon law, it is considered a violation and can result in a citation
similar to a traffic ticket.
Conde said detectives were making too much of his daughter's exposure to
marijuana.
"I could compare it to maybe a guy drinking a beer and his daughter knowing
what a beer looks like," he said. "My children have never smoked any pot."
Conde said detectives effectively shut down his redwood lumber business
when they searched his property last week, taking computers and business
records, among other items.
He was charged with a felony count of possessing marijuana after detectives
allegedly found just more than an ounce of marijuana during the search. He
also is facing about $45,000 in fines for alleged violations of county
building, sanitation and mass gathering codes.
Conde continued to call the search politically motivated, saying the
affidavit didn't justify why detectives had the right to search his house
and business. The carnival site, just north of Conde's lumberyard and home,
wasn't searched, he said.
"There's nothing in that affidavit that determines that they could go into
my house or Conde's Redwood Lumber," he said. "Yet that's where they
struck. Their investigation was trying to do something to me, rather than
trying to find out what's going on."
Sheriff Dave Burright said Conde "has been squealing a lot about
computers." But he said the affidavit makes it clear that authorities saw
pertinent records, such as names of carnival vendors, being stored in
computers.
Detectives are using the records to try to identify vendors and security
guards who sold drugs, according to the affidavit.
The affidavit said one security guard "openly talked about mushrooms and
acid he'd been taking" and arranged for detectives to buy marijuana from a
young man wearing a red wrist band - the color used to identify event
employees.
Later, another security guard introduced a pair of undercover detectives to
a guard at the front gate to arrange another drug sale. While his co-worker
relieved him, the guard took the detectives - a man and a woman - to his
car. There, he allegedly took out a set of scales, weighed an eighth of an
ounce of marijuana and sold it for $40.
Conde said he doesn't believe the detectives were dealing with members of
his security force. "They've got some surprises in store for them, in terms
of who was working here and who wasn't," he said.
However, he said, if he finds that any guard was selling drugs, he'll never
hire him again.
"If I find any security guards doing that, shame on them," he said. "They
were specifically instructed not to tolerate that."
Conde said he and his lawyers have filed motions to compel sheriff's
officials to answer questions about the raid, and are seeking a restraining
order to prevent authorities from reviewing his personal computer records,
or using what information has already been accessed.
He said the computer files include information about political action
committees, as well as about people they've registered as voters.
"There's nothing in there they had a right to take," Conde said. "They went
way beyond the scope of the warrant."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenge To Suicide Law Is Dismissed ('The Oregonian'
Says US District Judge Michael Hogan Tuesday Reluctantly Refused To Revive
A Lawsuit Against Oregon's Physician-Assisted Suicide Law,
Apparently Ending Nearly Four Years Of Legal Challenges)
The Oregonian
letters to editor:
letters@news.oregonian.com
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Web: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Challenge to suicide law is dismissed
* U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan says his hands are tied
by a higher court ruling, forcing the law's critics to look to
Congress for help
Wednesday, September 23 1998
By Ashbel S. Green
and Erin Hoover Barnett
of The Oregonian staff
A federal judge Tuesday reluctantly refused to revive a
lawsuit against Oregons physician-assisted suicide law.
The decision ends a nearly four-year legal battle and
apparently extinguishes opponents last hope of
overturning the law in court.
"Although I am bound by (a higher court) decision in this
case, I find it troubling because it may well render (the
law) incapable of judicial review, U.S. District Judge
Michael Hogan wrote.
This court questions a decision which effectively places
a statute of such consequence outside the parameter of
consitutional review.
In 1995, Hogan ruled that Oregons assisted-suicide law
lacked constitutional safeguards and overturned it. But
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Hogan
in 1997, ruling that those who challenged the law had no
standing to sue.
Assisted-suicide opponents asked Hogan, who is based in
Eugene, to revive the case, but he concluded Tuesday in
his 10-page opinion that the 9th Circuit decision
prevented him.
Hogans decision came two days before a rescheduled
vote in Congress on a bill that would, in effect, invalidate
Oregons law. The bill, introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde,
R-Ill., would prevent doctors from prescribing lethal
doses of drugs for terminally ill people who wish to end
their lives.
Oregon voters approved the nations first assisted-suicide
law in 1994, allowing doctors to prescribe a lethal dose
of medication to competent, terminally ill adults who
request it.
Assisted-suicide opponents went to court to block the
law. They argued that it lacked safeguards to prevent
terminally ill people who oppose assisted suicide from
killing themselves in a state of depression.
Hogan agreed and declared the law unconstitutional.
But in 1997, the 9th Circuit said Hogan never should
have addressed the merits of the law because the plaintiff
had no standing to sue.
Janice Elsner, who has muscular dystrophy, argued that
she might use the law if she were depressed, even
though she opposes suicide. The 9th Circuit said that
argument was too speculative. In order to challenge a
law in federal court, a person must be actually, not
hypothetically, injured by it.
The Supreme Court declined to take an appeal.
Meanwhile, in November 1997, Oregon voters
overwhelmingly refused to repeal the law.
Assisted-suicide opponents went back to court, asking
Hogan to consider another argument on standing.
On Tuesday, Hogan said the 9th Circuit left him no room
to consider such an argument. He made it clear that he
did not agree with the higher court.
"Had the voters enacted a measure that permitted
members of a certain race, gender, religion or age group
to avail themselves of physician-assisted suicide, would
outraged members of such classes lack standing to
challenge the legislation on the ground they had no
intention of committing suicide?" he wrote.
James Bopp, the Indiana attorney who represented
Elsner, could not be reached for comment.
Valerie Vollmar, a law professor at Willamette University
who has watched the case closely, said Hogan's
dismissal made clear legal sense.
"Personally, I'm relieved to hear that the judge felt bound
by the case law because I thought the case law was
pretty clear," Vollmar said.
Vollmar credited opponents of assisted suicide for their
tenacity at fighting the law in court. She said she does
not expect them to give up, even if they fail to get an
anti-assisted suicide law through this session of
Congress.
Both sides react
Gayle Atteberry, executive director of Oregon Right to
Life, said she was saddened by the decision.
"I will say in absolutely certain terms that the evil
assisted suicide poses to Oregonians has not changed
and will not change," she said. "We will pursue every
avenue to protect those who are threatened by assisted
suicide in this state. We will never waiver from our
commitment."
Barbara Coombs Lee, executive director of the
Compassion in Dying Federation and co-author of the
Oregon law, said she was glad that Hogan heeded the 9th
Circuit.
"It's one more little victory, one more barrier put in front
of it that it has overcome," said Lee, calling the law "the
little engine that could."
Lee said she thinks the movement to give the terminally
ill control of the timing of their deaths has gained a
permanent foothold.
"At this point, I just think the forces of change and the
consciousness of the nation have been transformed and .
. . can't be reversed," she said.
Cancer victim comforted
Charyl Failor, 52, of Newport agrees. She had a radical
mastectomy in June after doctors diagnosed an
aggressive form of breast cancer. She said she feels
comforted in knowing the assisted-suicide option exists
and has nervously watched challenges to the law. She
called Tuesday's development "incredible."
"I thought (Hogan) was going to dog that forever," she
said.
Failor said she is optimistic that Hogan's ruling signals
that the powerful forces against assisted suicide might
not be strong enough to keep it from becoming a right
for all Americans.
That's just what Ellie Jenny fears.
Jenny, who is disabled and a member of the anti-assisted
suicide group Not Dead Yet, was disappointed by
Tuesday's news. She had hoped that assisted-suicide
advocates would be called to testify in Hogan's court.
Jenny wants to expose what she views as a movement to
expand assisted suicide to include the disabled. Such a
move, she said, would create a climate in which disabled
people would feel compelled to kill themselves.
"It's a culture of death," Jenny said. "Instead of learning
to help people live with their pain, we're finding ways to
help them terminate it and themselves. And the bottom
line is the buck."
Her hopes, she said, turn to Congress to stop Oregon's
law.
In August, the Oregon Health Division reported that eight
terminally ill people had used the assisted-suicide law to
end their lives.
Lee, of Compassion in Dying, said she knew of
additional patients who have died using lethal
prescriptions since the report. She would not say how
many.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coalition Opposes Hyde-Nickles Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act
('The St. Louis Post-Dispatch' Relays Commentary On The Bill
That Would Nullify Oregon's Assisted-Suicide Law, From Some Of
The More Than 50 Associations And Organizations Who Have Joined Together
To Oppose The Legislation)
From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Coalition Opposes Hyde/Nickles Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:34:27 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Online: http://web3.stlnet.com/postnet/
Pubdate: 09/23/98
Contact: Scott Swenson, 202-326-8712
Writer: U.S. Newswire No byline
Newsjunkie: ccross@november.org
Coalition Opposes Hyde/Nickles Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act
WASHINGTON -- The following was released today by a coalition of groups
on behalf of patients and families:
In the rush of politics and policy, the real lives that are affected by
legislation are sometimes forgotten. Here are two case studies of people
that would be affected by this Thursday's (Sept. 24th) expected vote in
the U.S. House of Representatives on H.R. 4006, The Lethal Drug Abuse
Prevention Act.
More than 50 associations and organizations representing millions of
Americans concerned about health care, pain management and states rights
have joined together to oppose this legislation. A companion bill (S.
2151) introduced by Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), is scheduled for mark-up
by the Senate Judiciary Committee, also on Thursday.
The coalition of health and patient care groups opposing H.R. 4006/S.
2151 has steadily gained momentum and members as more people have grown
to understand the consequences of this legislation. The bill would give
the Drug Enforcement Administration the authority to investigate a
physicians ``intent´´ in prescribing controlled substances to
patients, thus putting the federal agency in the position of
second-guessing any physician who writes prescriptions for high doses of
medication for pain and suffering.
Many medical studies, including one from the Institute of Medicine,
already indicate that pain is severely under-treated in this country due
to existing laws and regulations.
Many states are working to improve palliative care and reduce regulatory
impediments to adequate symptom management, efforts that would be
thwarted by this shift of authority from state medical and licensing
boards to the federal government and the DEA.
A coalition of more than 50 associations and organizations is opposing
H.R. 4006/S. 2151, representing millions of Americans concerned for
either personal or professional reasons about the delivery of high
quality health care. The coalition includes: Academy of Managed Care
Pharmacy, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of
Clinical Pharmacy, American College of Physicians-American Society of
Internal Medicine, American Medical Association, American Nurses
Association, American Pain Foundation, American Pharmaceutical
Association, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of
Health-System Pharmacists, Americans for Better Care of the Dying,
Choice in Dying, National Hospice Organization, Oregon Hospice
Association. A complete list can be found in an advertisement placed by
the coalition in the Wednesday, September 23, 1998 issue of The Hill
Newspaper.
CASE STUDY
(Provided by Americans for Better Care of the Dying, 202-467-2222)
Mr. Smith, a 72-year-old man with prostate cancer, was dying rather
miserably. He could not walk and had to have a catheter. His bones were
riddled with cancer and he had a great deal of pain. He was already
taking 120mg of morphine in a sustained release form every six hours and
still said that the pain is ``11 on a scale of 0 to 10.´´ He could
not move in bed. Baths were excruciating.
Enemas caused so much pain that he became nauseous and dizzy. He had
lost 40 pounds. His home care nurse called his doctor seeking more pain
medication. The doctor had not seen him at home ever and had not seen
him at all since he was last in the hospital for radiation, three months
ago. The doctor had never had a patient on this much morphine. No one
had suggested hospice care. The doctor said to try hot water bottles and
to move him less.
The nurse was distraught and convinced his wife to call another doctor
who might come see him at home. The second doctor was uncomfortable with
the situation and tried to just offer to talk to Doctor No. 1 about
options in pain management -- but Dr. No. 1 was not interested. All this
had taken four days before Doctor No. 2 came to see him. The patient was
immobile and withdrawn. Any movement caused unbearable tension in
muscles and resulted in expletives, along with ``Get away from me. You
are no good.´´ Mrs. Smith was in tears. Doctor No. 2 agreed to take
over care from this time to death but decided not to suggest hospice
support because it would mean losing the trusted home care nurse. He set
up a schedule that gradually doubled the morphine dose. Once on this
dose, with periodic increases, Mr. Smith actually had some good time to
share with his wife. He reassured her that he loved her and they shared
some time in reminiscences. He promised her that he would be waiting
``on the other side.´´
The pharmacy resisted delivering this much of an opioid drug, but
finally agreed.
However, the sudden jump in opioid use through this pharmacy occasioned
a call from the DEA. In error, the agent ended up calling Doctor No. 1
who said that Doctor No. 2 was using narcotics irresponsibly. Mr. Smith
had died before the agent called Doctor No. 2, who contended that
everything was done correctly. The agent called the wife and nurse. They
readily admitted that they wanted Mr. Smith to die and would have been
grateful if Doctor No. 2 had just given him enough morphine to see that
he died: ``He was suffering so much.´´ However, they are not sure
whether Doctor No. 2 really did that or not. Doctor No. 2 claimed that
he had no such intent, but he acknowledged that he increased the doses
in the last few days on the basis of reports from the wife and nurse,
since he did not see the patient alive again after that first visit. The
agent was quite perplexed as to what the ``intent´´ was here, and
whether there is anything to be troubled by. Doctor No. 2, on the other
hand, was much less perplexed. He has lost reputation and income for
trying to help out in a tough situation. It will be a long time before
he does that again.
CASE STUDY
(Provided by Skip Baker, American Society for Action on Pain,
757-229-1840)
I suffer from Ankylosing Spondylitis of the sacrum, which is like having
the base of your spine in a steel vice at all times. It produces truly
``suicidal pain levels´´ if not treated with adequate narcotic pain
medicine, which is nearly impossible for victims to get. It took me 13
years of battle to have my medication approved at 500mg per day, and
even now each month when it comes time for my next month´s supply I
have to ask myself: ``Is THIS the month they come after my doctor and I
look into the abyss? Is this the month I die? Will he be able to write
my prescription?´´
Ankylosing Spondylitis causes the joints and vertebra to try to fuse
together. This puts pressure on the nerves and causes excruciating
vice-like pain. It won't show up on film for 14 years, on average, after
the pain starts and many doctors are afraid to treat the pain because of
this lack of proof on film -- but the HLA-B27 antigen blood test should
be proof enough. However some patients don't get diagnosed because
doctors don't want to be ``stuck with´´ another Chronic Pain
Patient. The devastation is total: loss of job, loss of car, loss of
wife and home, and finally the patient faces the unending pain unless he
or she can get diagnosed and treated.
Mornings are the worst time for a victim of Ankylosing Spondylitis. The
vice-like burning pain affects the entire body. It takes me two hours
each morning to get enough pain medicine into my blood to control the
pain. Many doctors have turned me down for pain medication. Since my
very life depended on getting the medicine, I had to spend a great deal
of my time ``doctor shopping´´ to get enough medicine to function.
That cost jobs and income. At times I had to go for more than a year
without adequate pain medicine, trying to function on other types of
medication that didn´t work to control the pain, because of doctors´
fears of the regulators.
Many times when I was able to get prescriptions, I'd have problems
getting pharmacists to fill the prescriptions. I now get messages almost
daily from other pain patients who also have problems with their
pharmacists, unwilling to fill their prescriptions over their fear of
the DEA. So the patient is caught between the doctors, the pharmacists
and the DEA in a life and death struggle. Pure panic soon sets in and
the patient faces that for years. It's like bending a coat hanger back
and forth until it snaps.
What happens if a severe pain sufferer can't get the medication they
need? They commit suicide, or die of heart attacks and strokes, or
suffer inhuman, unbearable pain. One woman couldn't get a doctor to
prescribe pain medicine for her and a week later she took her own life.
Suicide rates have shot upwards, according to the Centers for Disease
Control, for the first decade since the 1940s, in part due to the
problems in getting pain medication since the mid-1980s. That's when it
started to get very hard to get pain medication because of the DEA's war
on drugs which, for pain sufferers, has become a war on patients. Before
that, doctors treated pain more compassionately. But with an overly
zealous DEA looking over their doctor's shoulder, many patients are
given only one or two four-hour pain pills per day. Some can only get 30
pills per month. That would be just fours hours of pain relief per day,
if the pill is strong enough to control the pain, which it often is not.
By expanding the DEA's powers, increasing its control over the practice
of medicine, and further scaring physicians and pharmacists from
prescribing and supplying adequate amounts of pain medication, the
proposed ``Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act´´ would twist this bad
situation even more out of shape. It will be a disaster for those who
suffer from chronic, intractable pain and will drive many pain sufferers
to suicide.
***
For more information about H.R. 4006/S. 2151 contact Scott Swenson at
202-326-8712 or any of the groups mentioned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Crime That Changed Punishment ('Willamette Week' Presents A History
Of Ballot Measure 11 In Oregon - An Initiative Requiring Mandatory Minimum
Sentences For Supposedly Violent Crimes - Showing How The Law-Making Process
Works In Oregon Through The Example Of Steve Doell, Whose Daughter Was Killed
By A Hit-And-Run Driver)
Willamette Week
822 SW 10th Ave.
Portland, OR 97205
Tel. (503) 243-2122
Fax (503) 243-1115
Letters to the Editor:
Mark Zusman - mzusman@wweek.com
Web: http://www.wweek.com/
Note: Willamette Week welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or
fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street
address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to
letters of 250 words or less.
Pubdate: Sept. 23, 1998
The Crime that Changed Punishment
* In 1992, Steve Doell's daughter was killed. Since then his rage has helped
transform Oregon.
BY MAUREEN O'HAGAN
mohagan@wweek.com
Her name was Lisa Doell.
Just 12 years old, she was a star pupil at Waluga Junior High who dreamed of
becoming an actress. She had just gotten off the school bus that October
afternoon in 1992 and was walking along Lake Oswego's North Shore Drive.
The car struck her from behind. Within two blocks of her grandmother's
house, she was killed instantly by the impact. The teenager behind the wheel
sped away.
When police caught up with 16-year-old Andrew Whitaker, he explained how it
happened. He just "homed in," stepped on the accelerator and ran her down.
"It wasn't an accident," Whitaker told police. "I did it on purpose." He had
even bragged to a friend about the dent in his father's silver Oldsmobile.
The crime was bad enough. The punishment only added to the horror. Instead
of intentional murder, a jury found Whitaker guilty of manslaughter, which
under state law carried a maximum sentence of three years.
Thirty-six months didn't seem like much when weighed against a girl's life.
Especially at a time when fear of violence was sweeping the country, when
politicians were duking it out to win the tough-on-crime crown, and when
Oregon's criminal justice system was already under fire.
"In that kind of atmosphere, sometimes a very small spark can cause a large
explosion," says Dick Springer, who at the time served on the state Senate
Judiciary Committee. "That's kind of how I would see Lisa Doell's death."
Her father's grief and rage have been part of the fuel. For five years,
Steve Doell has played a central role in a kind of people's revolution. Last
year, he became head of Crime Victims United, an advocacy group that--since
his daughter's death--has had remarkable success in shaping crime policy in
this state by taking power away from elected officials and putting it in the
hands of voters.
In the last four years, five silver-bullet ballot measures--two of which
were crafted specifically with Lisa Doell in mind--have steamrolled years of
legislation and precedent.
Love it or hate it, the influence that crime victims like Steve Doell have
had in changing this state's priorities is undeniable.
Need proof? Since 1993, the combined budget for the Department of
Corrections and the Oregon Youth Authority has almost doubled--from $440
million to $836 million.
This November, Doell, 48, will take an even more public role as a co-sponsor
of Measure 61, which will take the revolution one step further by
lengthening sentences for 35 different crimes (see "Tougher on Crime," page
25). Most observers expect Measure 61 to pass if it reaches the ballot,
although the state Supreme Court is now considering a signature-count
challenge by opponents.
With Oregon's justice system now determined the same way as its tax policy
is--through the initiative process--it's time to take a look at the clout of
one grief-stricken dad.
Just over ten years ago, Oregon's system of crime and punishment was a joke.
We hadn't added a prison bed in years. Because of overcrowding, virtually
all prisoners were released at least six months before their scheduled
parole dates, and some inmates were given temporary leave to make room for
the endless supply of new convicts. "There was a gigantic gap between what
was being said in the courtroom and what was actually happening," Multnomah
County District Attorney Mike Schrunk recalled. "[In some cases], 10-year
sentences were really 60 days. It was ridiculous."
There was also a problem with equity. While there were maximum sentences on
state law books, judges had tremendous leeway in doling out punishment. For
example, a thief from Coos Bay might be sentenced to five years behind bars
while one in Portland would get a short stint in jail.
In 1987, the Criminal Justice Council, a committee of prosecutors, defense
lawyers, judges, probation officers, legislators and citizens, embarked on
what would become a two-year project to transform that broken system.
They came up with a system called Sentencing Guidelines. It was essentially
a new scale of justice that weighed the need to punish offenders,
particularly violent ones, against the desire to keep prison spending at a
reasonable level.
Under the guidelines, sentences were standardized across the state, although
judges still had the power to tailor those sentences to individual offenders
using specific criteria.
Most important, in 1988 then Gov. Neil Goldschmidt reluctantly agreed to
build hundreds of new prison beds (a promise that was later followed through
by his successors) so that offenders would serve their full sentences.
Parole, the bane of crime victims, was eliminated.
"Oregon's sentencing guidelines were considered about the best in the
country," says Multnomah County Presiding Judge James Ellis, who worked on
the committee.
There was just one problem: Even with the new prison cells, there wasn't
room for everybody at the inn, so some sentences still seemed too lenient.
For example, the standard sentence for a car thieves was generally
probation, possibly including some jail time--even for two-time offenders.
Some violent offenders could receive probation if they had no prior offenses.
But without building even more prison beds--something few in the Legislature
had the stomach for--the sentences couldn't change.
The story of a disturbed teenager and the girl he killed helped convince
voters to take matters into their own hands.
In the summer of 1992, Steve Doell was floundering. After working in sales
and marketing at Tenneco for 15 years, he was without a job. The company
offered him a promotion, but it would have required moving to Los Angeles.
"It was either up or out," he recalls. He chose the latter because he wanted
to stay in Lake Oswego near his two children, Lisa and her older brother,
Scott, who were living with their mother. The couple had divorced three
years earlier (see "Irreconcilable Differences," page 29).
At the time, Doell figured he would find a new career in a related field.
Then, on Oct. 21, he got the awful news: Lisa had been killed by a
hit-and-run driver.
The next 12 months were torture for the Doells. They endured a seven-day
remand hearing to determine whether Whitaker should be tried in juvenile
court. "It was very long and very painful," Steve Doell says. "You have to
listen to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists saying why [defendants]
are just real good people who were having a bad day. That's very painful to
a family." In the end, the judge sided with the prosecution. Whitaker would
face trial as an adult.
Then, the Doells sat through a eight-day trial and three days of jury
deliberation. In the end, Whitaker was found innocent of intentional murder,
despite the fact that he told police he had run the girl over on purpose. He
was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter, a crime which under
Sentencing Guidelines carried a maximum sentence of 36 months.
Steve Doell decided to fight. He joined Crime Victims United, an advocacy
and support group headed at the time by Bob and Dee Dee Kouns. The couple,
now retired, began working on crime issues in 1980, after their daughter
Valerie disappeared in California. (Her body has never been found, and no
one has been prosecuted for the crime.) Today, the group has about 800
members statewide, only about 25 to 50 of whom are active. "It's run on a
very thin dime," Doell says. He says he relies on a settlement from his
daughter's death to pay his bills.
CVU worked to change the justice system on two fronts: through the
Legislature and through the initiative process. Legislative successes were
few; CVU was often blocked by Democrats who were in control of both chambers
until 1991. The group did get several initiatives approved by voters--for
example, a victims' rights measure in 1986--but these were isolated
victories in a climate otherwise unreceptive to getting tough on crime.
From the early 90s, that all changed.
In 1994, the country underwent the Republican revolution, as Democrats were
tossed from office nationwide. In 1995, Republicans gained control of both
chambers of the Oregon Legislature, giving CVU a more receptive audience.
In addition, inmates who were convicted before the Sentencing Guidelines
took effect were still being released early. Publicity over these
releases--and the growing fear of crime--played into CVU's hands. And, of
course, there was the story of Lisa Doell.
By 1994, the political climate was ripe for crimefighters. Then state Rep.
Kevin Mannix, an ambitious Democrat from Salem (who is now running for
office as a Republican), jumped on the opportunity. He proposed a
triumvirate of ballot measures--10, 11 and 17--that would dramatically alter
the way justice was meted out in this state.
Measure 11 was the most sweeping of the three. It required long minimum
sentences for certain crimes, including robbery, rape and murder, and it
applied to first-time offenses. It also required offenders as young as 15 to
be treated as adults--a provision Mannix says he added with Whitaker's
grueling remand hearing in mind.
Doell's daughter was a key player in the campaign.
Lisa's death was mentioned in radio ads, in the Voters' Pamphlet and in
editorial boardrooms. "We heard a lot about Lisa Doell and her
circumstances," recalls Ingrid Swenson, a Portland defense lawyer who fought
the measure.
For example, Lisa's paternal grandfather, Edward Doell, penned this Voters'
Pamphlet statement: "My beautiful 12-year-old granddaughter, Lisa Marie
Doell, was murdered October 21 1992 in a violent and random act...If your
family were victimized by violent crime, which sentence would you want
imposed on the criminal?"
Opponents of the measure were unable to counter such volatile emotional
fuel. It passed overwhelmingly, with 65 percent of the votes in favor,
thereby tossing out a large portion of the Sentencing Guidelines. Judges
could no longer tailor the sentence to the crime. Without this discretion,
they were, as one prosecutor said, "like potted plants in the courtroom."
"Measure 11 is the gorilla that ate the whole system," Swenson says. "It
runs the whole show here."
That same year, 65 percent of voters approved Measure 10, which prevents the
Legislature from overturning any part of Measure 11 without a two-thirds
majority. And 70 percent of voters passed Measure 17, which required all
state inmates to work full time to earn their keep.
If the justice system was knocked upside down in 1994, it was given another
stiff kick two years later.
In 1996, CVU pushed for Measures 26 and 40. Once again, Lisa Doell was a key
figure in the campaigns. Steve Doell even helped to write one of the
measures with his daughter in mind.
A Voters' Pamphlet statement in favor of Measure 26, which eliminates the
Constitution's prohibition against "vindictive justice," read: "Remember the
horrific story of a teenage boy who purposely ran over a young girl simply
for the thrill of doing it?" The statement was signed by Sen. Gordon Smith,
Rep. Chuck Carpenter and Rep. Beverly Clarno.
Doell took particular interest in the crafting and passage of Measure 40,
called a crime victims' "bill of rights." Among other things, the measure
allows 11-1 jury verdicts in murder cases (instead of only unanimous
verdicts) and changes the rules of evidence--provisions that stemmed
directly from his daughter's case.
Both initiatives passed with overwhelming margins, although portions of
Measure 40 have since been thrown out by the state Supreme Court.
Taken in combination, says Emily Simon, a Portland defense lawyer, the
measures have amounted to "virtually a revolution in the way in which the
criminal justice system works."
Like the Kounses before him, Doell has also worked another angle--the
Legislature.
"He's a pretty tireless guy," says Mark Gardner, special counsel to the
attorney general. "He's [at the Capitol] all the time. He's lobbying and
lobbying and lobbying."
Observers in Salem have mixed opinions about his skills. Some, like former
Rep. John Minnis, say he's a "very articulate man" who knows how the
political game is played. Rep. Peter Courtney calls him "a CEO type" and a
"force to be reckoned with."
Others call him awkward and criticize his stiff demeanor and his sometimes
unyielding disposition. One lawyer describes him as an "ice man with a
volcano underneath."
"It's a mystery to me where this guy gets his power," says Portland defense
lawyer Paul Levy, who has testified on criminal-justice issues in Salem.
"I'm not sure it is him. I think it's what he represents: the fear of crime."
That's not a concept many politicians want to be seen as knocking. "I know
how politicians and candidates fear [Doell] and worry about him," Courtney says.
In addition to lobbying, Doell dabbles in electoral politics. For example,
Eugene legislator Karsten Rasmussen lost a reelection bid in 1994 after he
was blitzed with eight straight days of radio ads branding him as soft on
crime. Doell read the script, which mentioned his daughter's death.
"That is the kind of thing that sends ripples through [the Capitol]," said
one Legislature-watcher.
Doell has also had influence in judicial appointments. Henry H. Lazenby Jr.,
the governor's legal counsel, says that "we weigh [CVU's viewpoint] along
with other opinions" when choosing judges. Dick Springer, who was seeking
appointment as a referee in late 1997, thinks Doell's influence may be more
significant.
"He appeared twice before the Supreme Court to testify and present written
testimony that really blistered me as an enemy of the people because I had
chosen to disagree with him," Springer says. The court chose not to approve
Springer as a pro tem judge. (Some say that he wouldn't have gotten the job
with or without Doell, and in fact a bar committee did not recommend him.)
This year, Doell and former Rep. Bob Tiernan decided to take their concerns
over individual judges to a broader level by sponsoring a ballot initiative
that would have drastically changed the way they were elected. Lawyers were
so worried about this measure that they formed a PAC and quickly raised
almost $60,000 to try to block it. At the last minute, Doell and Tiernan
withdrew the measure but threatened judges with bringing it back in 2000.
The District Attorneys Association, which has benefited from crime victims'
initiatives, was the only major group of lawyers not to oppose the measure.
Steve Doell and his supporters acknowledge that they have revolutionized the
way justice is doled out in Oregon. And they argue their efforts have been
effective in reducing crime.
In fact, the violent crime rate has declined since 1994. "There were 12,000
Oregonians who weren't raped, murdered assaulted or robbed because Measure
11 passed," Mannix says.
The best criminal justice experts in the country can't agree on exactly what
causes the rise and fall of crime, although they all say that incarceration
rates are but one piece of a puzzle that includes demographics, economics
and various other factors.
"It's complicated," says defense lawyer Levy, "and the desire of folks like
Mannix and Doell is to make it seem simple."
Even Mannix concedes that Measure 11 was drafted without the benefit of any
real analysis of the correlation between sentences and crime rates. "It's my
own personal scale of justice," he says. "Even if it didn't make a dent in
the crime rate, it was the right thing to do."
While opinions differ on the effect of ballot measures on the crime rate,
there is no debate about the extent to which Doell's efforts have tied the
hands of judges.
Judge Ellis tells a story of his first Measure 11 case, a shoplifter who
struggled when she was caught. According to Ellis, she said, "Let me go.
I've got a gun"--even though she did not have a weapon. Because she
physically resisted and claimed she was armed, the charge was second-degree
robbery, a Measure 11 crime that carries a mandatory 70-month sentence.
Eventually, she accepted a plea bargain--pleading guilty to a lesser
offense--and went to prison for 14 months.
"She was a single parent with two preschool children and no prior record,"
Ellis said. "I suppose you could say it's a good lesson to a shoplifter, but
it's so wildly disproportionate to the level of the crime. I'm not sure what
social end was achieved by that."
As justice in Oregon has been transformed by Doell, so has the amount we pay
for it.
"Voters made a decision for us in '94 that we would spend money on
construction and operation of new prisons," says Bob Applegate, Kitzhaber's
spokesman. "That vote was a budget decision." As tax revenues grew to
unprecedented levels from a booming economy, they were quickly eaten up
because elected officials were forced to allocate more money for prisons.
The shift has been dramatic. While overall the state budget has risen 39
percent since 1993, the corrections portion has increased by 90 percent,
mainly to pay for the building of new prison cells. Since 1994, the
Department of Corrections has added 2,350 beds. It has started construction
on one new prison and sited five more. During that same time, the
higher-education budget has risen by 0.5 percent, and human resources has
increased by 16 percent.
This biennium, Oregon will reach a dubious milestone. For the first time
ever, the state will spend more on corrections ($836 million) than it will
on higher education ($704 million).
Measure 61, the tough-on-crime initiative on this November's ballot, could
cost an additional $850 million to $1.4 billion over the next 10 years and
will require the construction of between 2,800 and 4,300 prison beds.
The problem, of course, is what isn't getting funded. "Only about 50 percent
of the people who seek drug and alcohol treatment and counseling can find it
in this state," Applegate says. "If you take the money we've put into
expanding our prison system in the last four years and put a tenth of it in
those kinds of services, might we be a safer place? That's how we feel about
it, but it's too late. Measure 11 is law."
If you believe, as Doell does, that protecting citizens is the most
important mission of government, then this isn't a problem. Clearly, Doell
has no regrets.
"There's certainly more noble things we could spend our money on," he says,
"but once we can get a real handle on the crime problem, which I think we're
starting to see, then we can go more into the prevention mode. Hopefully, we
can shift money the other way some day."
Sidebars:
Tougher on Crime - Property criminals get kicked with mandatory sentencing.
Irreconcilable Differences - Domestic violence in the Doell household led to
a 1989 divorce.
[note: The next few paragraphs appeared along the left column margin of the
lead story above.]
Steve Doell helped Bob Tiernan in his bid for the state Supreme Court. The
campaign was financed by Mark Hemstreet, Loren Parks and developer Robert
Randall. This month, Tiernan dropped out of the race.
Andrew Whitaker was acquitted of murder because of one hold-out juror, whose
son accidentally killed someone in his car two decades earlier. The jury
finally compromised on second-degree manslaughter.
So far, $56 million has been budgeted for Measure 17, the 1994 inmate work
initiative.
The district attorney contributed to the problems with the Whitaker
prosecution. For example, he didn't charge Whitaker with first-degree
manslaughter, which could have earned him a tougher sentence.
Whitaker was released from prison in March 1995. He was initially to live
with relatives in Michigan but was drummed out of town with bad publicity.
Gov. Kitzhaber has written a statement in opposition to Measure 61.
Gov. Kitzhaber's spokesman Bob Applegate says, "you could probably fully
fund Head Start with the money spent building one medium-security prison."
The Oregon Youth Authority has built five juvenile jails and one juvenile
boot camp since 1994. Today, the agency holds 1,018 young people; in 1994,
that number was just 633.
Oregon has had fluctuations in the crime rate without any changes in
sentencing laws, according to Phil
Lemman, who heads the state Criminal Justice Commission.
In 1996, the Rand Corporation found that giving students incentives to
graduate from high school was far more cost-effective in preventing crime
than locking them up was.
LEAD STORY SIDEBAR
Tougher on Crime
Measure 61 addresses a very real problem with state sentencing laws:
Property criminals, even repeat offenders, escape any serious consequence
for their crimes.
The measure calls for 12-month sentences for 35 different crimes, many of
which are property offenses. It also tacks on an additional one-year
sentence if the offender has one prior conviction, two years for two
convictions and three years for three. The "kicker" sentences are mandatory,
while the initial 12-month sentence is discretionary; in other words, the
judge could give a first-time offender probation.
According to Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk, "There is a
helluva problem with property crimes. We need to do something."
But Schrunk is not supporting 61. One problem, he says, is the cost,
estimated by state fiscal officers at $1.4 billion over 10 years for
additional prison beds. Steve Doell, a co-sponsor of the measure, says that
because many cases end in plea bargains, the price tag will be more like
$850 million.
Schrunk also believes these offenders can be better served with programs
like drug treatment. "If there's one group we can manage in the community,
it's property offenders," he says.
Critics of the measure also argue that the state Legislature has addressed
some of the problems with property crimes in a 1997 law that increases
sentences for some offenses. --MO
***
LEAD STORY SIDEBAR
Irreconcilable Differences
Steve Doell and his ex-wife, Colleen, divorced in the summer of 1989 because
of "irreconcilable differences." According to court documents, the split was
difficult.
In November 1989, Colleen Doell took out a restraining order against her
ex-husband. In it, she claimed that Doell pulled their son, Scott, by his
hair and hit him on the head and back: "At about 3:30 am [one day in
October], Steve threatened Scott by telling him to keep the physical abuse a
secret or he would have to walk home, as well as other unspecific
retaliation." Colleen Doell further claimed that her ex-husband "grabbed my
neck, threw me against the wall of the house and choked me with sufficient
force to cut off my ability to breathe or speak. Steve then struck my son
several times in the head and grabbed my 9-year-old daughter [Lisa] and
tried to force her into his car as she screamed for help."
Doell does not deny the incidents. "What I did was wrong," he said. "There's
no excuse for that type of behavior."
Doell and his ex-wife also fought over child support.
According to court filings, Doell suddenly stopped making child support and
alimony payments about 12 months after the divorce. The lapse lasted 21
months, and the district attorney's and the attorney general's offices were
called in to enforce the court-ordered support payments. At one point Steve
Doell was nearly $21,000 in arrears. He has since paid what he owed.
"Financial difficulties were part of it," he says, noting that he "did pay
for other items that would never be listed there, like private school and
that type of thing." --MO
***
LEAD STORY SIDEBAR
Tougher on Crime
Measure 61 addresses a very real problem with state sentencing laws:
Property criminals, even repeat offenders, escape any serious consequence
for their crimes.
The measure calls for 12-month sentences for 35 different crimes, many of
which are property offenses. It also tacks on an additional one-year
sentence if the offender has one prior conviction, two years for two
convictions and three years for three. The "kicker" sentences are mandatory,
while the initial 12-month sentence is discretionary; in other words, the
judge could give a first-time offender probation.
According to Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk, "There is a
helluva problem with property crimes. We need to do something."
But Schrunk is not supporting 61. One problem, he says, is the cost,
estimated by state fiscal officers at $1.4 billion over 10 years for
additional prison beds. Steve Doell, a co-sponsor of the measure, says that
because many cases end in plea bargains, the price tag will be more like
$850 million.
Schrunk also believes these offenders can be better served with programs
like drug treatment. "If there's one group we can manage in the community,
it's property offenders," he says.
Critics of the measure also argue that the state Legislature has addressed
some of the problems with property crimes in a 1997 law that increases
sentences for some offenses. --MO
originally published September 23 , 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Will Be Third Man At Davis-Lungren Debate
('The San Francisco Chronicle' Says The Latest Polls Indicate
California Attorney General Dan Lungren, Nemesis Of Proposition 215,
Has Come From Behind And Now Is Tied With Democrat Gray Davis
In The Race For Governor - A List Subscriber Forwards A Collection
Of California Media Addresses And Urges You To Write Letters
Opposing Lungren For Governor)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:39:47 -0700
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
From: R Givens (rgivens@sirius.com)
Subject: DPFCA: Lungren Gaining In Polls
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
According to today's San Francisco Chronicle Dan Lungren is even in the race
for governor. (See article below)
Anyone in the state hoping for any improvement in California drug policy
knows that Lungren must be defeated in November.
How many LTEs have you written damning Lungren to hell and gone?
How many of your friends have you persuaded to vote for Davis??? How many
anti-Lungren voters have you registered? (Oct 5 deadline). Are YOU
registered???
If Lungren wins the Governor's office we can kiss the hope of reform for
medical marijuana goodbye for the next eight years.
If Davis wins we can expect a big decrease in Reefer Madness activity in
Sacramento. For sure, Davis won't veto cannabis legislation passed by a
Democratic legislature.
Do your part to keep this rat dog from sneaking into the governorship with a
phony campaign about "character." Because of the Clinton scandal Lungren
might get away with playing piety game unless we do our part.
Write a few letters to every paper in California. Send them via individual
e-mails since editors are wise to the Bcc tactic now.
Make sure every anti-Lungren voter you know gets to the polls on election
day. This is a critical election. Let's kick narco ass.
R Givens
***
Bay Area Reporter, ebar@logx.com
Modesto Bee, letters@modbee.com
UCLA Daily Bruin, viewpoint@asucla.ucla.edu
Bakersfield Californian, local@bakersfield.com
Bakersfield Californian, opinion@bakersfield.com
San Diego Mission Times Courier, editor@cyber-ace.com
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, letters@pressdemo.com
Editor, ajournal@foothill.net
Union Editor, webmaster@TheUnion.com
Davis Enterprise, editor@davis.com
San Francisco Examiner, letters@examiner.com
Ridgecrest Daily Independent, sfarwell@ridgecrestca.com
San Jose Metro, dp@livewire.com
San Jose Mercury News, letters@sjmercury.com
Feather River Canyon News, frcn@cncnet.com
Saratoga News, sn@livewire.com
City News, citynews@local.net
Newsroom, newsroom@blk.com
Antelope Valley Press, editor@avpress.com
Stockton Record, editor@recordnet.com
Orange County Register, letters@link.freedom.com
Half Moon Bay Review, hmbreview@hmbreview.com
Los Angeles Times, letters@latimes.com
LA Times, letters@news.latimes.com
Tahoe Daily Tribune, kirk@tahoe.com
Union Tribune, nancy.crisci@uniontrib.com
San Diego Union Tribune, letters@uniontrib.com
San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune, slott@scripps.com
Pacifica Tribune, pactrib@hax.com
USC Daily Trojan, dtrojan@scf.usc.edu
Pasadena Weekly, weekly@pasadenaweekly.com
Los Gatos Weekly-Times, lgwt@livewire.com
San Francisco Bay Guardian, letters@sfbayguardian.com
Los Angeles Downtown News, ladtn@village.ios.com
Ponc City News, ponca_city_news@okpress.tfnet.org
San Francisco Chronicle, chronletters@sfgate.com
Los Altos Town Crier, towncrier@losaltosonline.com
Ojai Valley News, dewartim@ojaivalleynews.com
Vacaville Reporter, letters@thereporter.com
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, pdletters@aol.com
Ventura County Star, vcstar@aol.com
Contra Costa County Times, cctletrs@netcom.com
Palo Alto Weekly, paweekly@netcom.com
Press-Telegram, speakout@ptconnect.infi.net
***
Clinton Will Be Third Man At Davis-Lungren Debate
Robert B. Gunnison, Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writers
Wednesday, September 23, 1998 A 15
The two major candidates for governor meet for their third debate tonight,
with Republican Dan Lungren eager to discuss President Clinton and Democrat
Gray Davis anxious to talk about anything else.
With public opinion polls flashing mixed signals about Davis' lead, if any,
over Lungren, the televised encounter will take place as both candidates are
stepping up the intensity of their campaigns and television advertising.
Lungren's chances have been bolstered by a Los Angeles Times poll last
weekend that showed him dead even with Davis, with each getting 46 percent
of likely voters.
The attorney general's strategists are working overtime to tie Davis to the
political woes of Clinton, who arrives in California this weekend for
fund-raising events.
Asked why Clinton's troubles matter in a California governor's race, Dave
Puglia, Lungren's campaign director, said, ``People in this state are
looking to these candidates for some leadership. There are issues of trust
here.''
Even though Clinton's scandal appears to be on the front burner in this
debate, Democrats say it isn't what matters most to California voters.
``We still want to talk about education, health care, choice, the assault
weapons ban,'' said Michael Bustamante, spokesman for the Davis campaign.
``We will continue to talk about them.''
Lungren and Davis have fired up a television advertising war, based not on
Clinton's character but on controversial issues in the race, including
crime, abortion and health care.
Last week, the Davis campaign began broadcasting an ad in which, looking
directly at the camera, the candidate tells voters that Lungren's 10-year
record in Congress shows repeated votes against abortion rights, even in
cases of rape and incest. His ads emphasize the idea that Davis has
``experience that will move us forward.''
Lungren immediately fought back with his own ad, saying, ``I'm disappointed
my opponent has chosen to get personal and misrepresent my beliefs on
abortion.'' Lungren, noting that he is ``a lifelong Catholic,'' argued that
he understands ``the need to make exceptions in cases such as rape, incest
and when the mother's life is in danger.''
He then notes his positions on parental consent (which he supports) and
public funding of abortion (which he opposes). His tag line: ``A governor
you can trust.''
In his new crime ad, Lungren suggests that he deserves credit because crime
rates are at their ``lowest level since 1966'' and that there are 1.2
million fewer crime victims in California than there were then -- ``enough
to fill the Rose Bowl 12 times over.''
Davis, for his part, is campaigning on medical care reform in new ads,
saying he wants to ``rein in these HMOs'' by making sure Californians can
choose their own doctors and have the right to ``a very rapid appeal'' if
patients are denied care.
Like the previous gubernatorial debates, the face-off in Sacramento will not
include questions or participation from state voters -- because both
candidates want it that way.
The Lungren and Davis campaigns, while not agreeing much on policy or
politics, have agreed on a lengthy list of requirements for potential
sponsors for such debates, records show. Those include a say in who will
serve as debate panelists and in ticket distribution and technical setup for
the events. Sponsors have been asked, for example, to pay not only for
broadcast and satellite time, but also for fully equipped media facilities
and for the $14,000 fee of the debate coordinator, Vic Biondi.
Both sides have also been firm on the format; they agreed to candidate
questioning from journalists and from each other, but there are no
provisions for members of the debate audience or voters to ask questions.
And although both Lungren and Davis have made good on their promise to
participate in lengthier face-to-face debates, they have quietly scotched an
agreement in principle to hold ``minidebates'' on weekly newscasts around
the state.
The idea of free television air time during prime-time newscasts was
promoted as a first and as an innovative way for candidates -- who often
grouse about the cost of paid commercial time -- to reach more voters in
California, where the costs of TV advertising is astronomical.
But representatives of both sides now say the five-minute ``Crossfire''
style debates, which were praised by journalists and political insiders as a
refreshing way to provide voters with unfiltered views of candidates, will
not happen.
The minidebates were ``a good idea, yes,'' said Bustamante of Davis'
campaign. ``Was it workable? I think (both sides) had serious questions
about whether it was workable,'' due to schedule demands.
``And we're debating more (in this race) than in the last four gubernatorial
races combined.''
Dan Schnur, who worked with the Alliance for Better Campaigns to help push
the minidebate idea in California, said that ``neither gubernatorial
campaign responded by the deadline, so we've moved on.'' But Schnur, who now
works with the California Republican Party, said he still has hope that
minidebates will take place in other statewide races and in the governor's
race in the future.
(c)1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prison Growth Stealing Funds From Schools, Activists Say
('The Chicago Tribune' Says The Prison-Reform Movement Is Gaining Strength
On College Campuses - Again - Angela Davis, 53, A Professor
At The University Of California At Santa Cruz, As Well As College Students
And Other Former Prisoners, Have Scheduled A Conference This Weekend
At The University Of California At Berkeley Titled 'Critical Resistance -
Beyond The Prison Industrial Complex,' To Draw Attention To The Issue -
A Study To Be Released Wednesday Says In The Last Seven Years,
Appropriations For Higher Education In California Dropped 3 Percent
While Prison Spending Rose 60 Percent)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:46:03 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Prison Growth Stealing Funds From Schools, Activists Say
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young (theyoungfamily@worldnet.att.net)
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: 23 Sept 1998
Author: V. Dion Haynes
Section: Metro Chicago
PRISON GROWTH STEALING FUNDS FROM SCHOOLS, ACTIVISTS SAY
LOS ANGELES -- During the 1960s and early '70s as college students were
protesting the Vietnam War, another movement began pushing its way to the
fore: prisoner rights.
Inspired in part by Angela Davis, the young black militant who was
imprisoned before being acquitted of kidnapping and murder charges in 1972,
the movement focused on overcrowding, rapes and other inhumane conditions
in the nation's jails and prisons.
By the 1980s, that movement largely succumbed to growing calls for tougher
crime laws to combat the proliferation of gangs and illicit drugs.
Now, nearly 30 years later, Davis and others are attempting to enlist a new
generation of college students to spark a prison movement with a much
different emphasis: pressing policymakers to shift budget priorities and
reverse an apparent trend throughout the country that has seen state
spending for prisons rise substantially while budgets for higher education
increase at a lower rate.
A study to be released Wednesday documents the spending disparity in
California. The study says appropriations for higher education dropped 3
percent while prison spending has risen 60 percent in the last seven years.
California Department of Corrections officials say it is naive to suggest
that funds for higher education are being siphoned off by prisons. There
are other factors in the equation, these officials note, including
Proposition 13, the 1978 law that put a cap on property-tax increases, and
growing demands from education, public assistance and numerous other budget
items.
The higher-education budget in California is $11.3 billion, nearly triple
the funding for corrections. State officials say that despite the prison
growth, university spending will continue to be a top priority.
Davis, 53, a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, as
well as college students and other former prisoners, have scheduled a
conference this weekend at UC-Berkeley titled "Critical Resistance: Beyond
the Prison Industrial Complex" to draw attention to the issue.
The conference is expected to call for a moratorium on prison construction
and a focus on preventive measures to keep people out of prison.
Davis "sees this as an ongoing work of what went on in the '60s," said
Robin Templeton, a prison activist who is organizing the conference with
Davis. "California is building (colleges and universities) 20 times slower
than prisons. That creates a very devastating reality."
The state's spending priorities have had a devastating effect on low-income
and minority students who "have a higher likelihood of ending up in prison
than a university," said Khaled Taqi-Eddin, a policy analyst at the
Washington-based Justice Policy Institute and co-author of the study.
According to the study, the number of African-American males enrolled
full-time at University of California and California State University
campuses decreased to 8,767 last year from 8,974 in 1990. During the same
period, the number of black men incarcerated in the California prison
system rose to 44,617 from 32,145.
Nationally, the prison population has grown about eightfold to about 2
million over the last 30 years. California's prison population has risen to
160,000 from 19,000 in 1977, and the number of prisons has nearly tripled,
to 33, during that same period.
"The governor and the legislature are responding to demands of the public
who are saying they want career criminals off the streets and they want to
be safer in their homes," said Tip Kindel, an assistant director in the
Department of Corrections.
"Most of these new prisons have been authorized by voters at the ballot.
The crime rate is significantly lower than it was 20 years ago, and that's
because more career criminals are in prison and prison sentences are much
longer."
California's "three-strikes" law, which requires violent criminals to serve
life sentences upon their third felony conviction, is helping propel the
need for more prisons. But conference organizers also attribute the
population growth to efforts to incarcerate non-violent criminals, who make
up 60 percent of the prison population.
They want state officials to cut prison spending by finding alternatives to
incarcerating drug abusers and petty thieves.
They cite an Oregon program that keeps petty thieves out of prison but
forces them to work at a so-called restitution center until they can pay
back their victims.
"We want to promote (these kinds of programs) among policymakers," said
Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Center. "These programs
are not soft on crime but smart on crime."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Search For Justice? (A Staff Editorial In 'The Orange County Register'
Says Monday's Ruling By The California Supreme Court That Police Can Search
People On Parole Or Their Residences At Any Time For No Reason Is Troubling -
Parole Is A French Word Meaning 'On Your Word' - The Ruling Enlarges
Police Powers And, Once Again, That Expansion Of Power Is Tied To The War
On Drugs - Anyone Living With A Parolee Also Has His Or Her Fourth
Amendment Rights Severely Proscribed, So This Ruling Could Encourage People
To Shun The Parolee, Perhaps Forcing Them Back With Those Who Might Have
Enabled A Life Of Crime)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 10:03:07 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Search for Justice?
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W.Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: Wed, 23 Sep 1998
SEARCH FOR JUSTICE?
A troubling California Supreme Court ruling on Monday could encroach on
Americans' protection from unreasonable searches and seizures under the
U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
The case under review involves the rights of parolees from prison and
people they associate with.
When people commit crimes, they give up some rights upon conviction and
imprisonment. Prisoners commonly are searched and their movement limited.
But once a convict is paroled and leaves prison to live on his or her own,
monitored by a parole officer, does the abridgment of rights continue?
In recent years, the answer has been "no" regarding the Fourth Amendment.
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1986 that parolees have
the same Fourth Amendment rights as other citizens. Monday's decision
overturns that earlier ruling by a narrow 4-3 margin.
"The case involved Rudolfo Ryes of Woodlake in Tulare County, who was in
the last year of a three-year parole term in February 1995 when his parole
officer got an anonymous telephone tip about possible drug use and other
misconduct," according to The Associated Press account.
"Police saw Reyes in his yard that evening, found no sign that he was under
the influence of drugs, but searched his shed and found a small amount of
methamphetamine.
"After unsuccessfully challenging the search, he pleaded guilty to
possession and was sentenced to seven years in prison."
The court ruling means police can search a parolee's person or dwelling at
any time, without notice or a warrant, which requires approval by a judge.
If a parolee lives with others, Deputy Attorney General Joel Carey
announced after the ruling, the parolee's room and common areas can be
searched.
The government itself will determine what is a "common" area and what is a
private area for non-parolees.
The ruling enlarges police powers at the expense of private citizens'
rights and, once again, that expansion of power is tied to waging the war
on drugs.
"There's a famous saying in criminal justice that 'drug cases make bad
laws'," Gilbert Geis, professor emeritus of criminology at the University
of California, Irvine, told us. "It's the old problem. They [the
government] wage this extensive campaign against drugs, and they keep
losing. They make the court make rulings that apply only to drug laws, but
then apply the laws to everybody else. They can't say this [court ruling]
applies only to drug parolees, because that's not equal protection. So it
applies to everybody else, including white collar crime or tax evasion.
They can go in and look at the books."
The California Department of Corrections told us that the state currently
has 109,367 parolees, of whom about 36 percent are drug offenders. The next
highest category is property offenses at 27 percent.
Are parolees criminals who need close watching? Mr. Geis pointed out that
parole is a French word meaning "on your word." These people are let out of
prison because it's assumed they can be trusted to resume normal lives. If
they can't be trusted, then perhaps the parole system needs reform, not the
search laws.
The new court ruling is especially egregious in those instances where the
parolee lives with others. The ruling would allow "searches of private
homes in neighborhoods throughout the state, by day or by night, for any
reason or no reason, if one of the home's residents is a parolee," wrote
Justice Joyce Kennard in her dissent from the majority.
That means anyone living with a parolee - parents, children, a spouse -
also has his or her Fourth Amendment rights severely proscribed.
Consequently, instead of encouraging people to welcome back a wayward
family member, such as a child who experimented with drugs, this ruling
well could encourage families and friends to shun the parolee, perhaps
forcing the parolee back with those who might have enabled a life of crime.
Finally, the Fourth Amendment always has allowed searches with a search
warrant. "It's nasty for the state to be knocking down doors for the
arguable gains they get" from warrantless searches of parolees, Mr. Geis
said. "The police can go to court for a search warrant. It won't kill them.
They can show a judge reasons why a search is needed."
There are two ways Monday's ruling could change. Given the close margin of
decision, should a separate but similar case reach the state Supreme Court
and one new justice hear it, the outcome could go another way. And, Mr.
Reyes's attorney, William Arzbaecher, announced an appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenging Report On Pregnancy And Drug Abuse
('The Journal Of The American Medical Association' Says A New Report
Titled 'Ethical And Legal Analyses Of Coercive Policies Aimed At Substance
Abuse By Pregnant Women,' Written As Part Of The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation's Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, Documents
What Is Currently Known About The Effect On Fetuses Of Substance Abuse
By Pregnant Women And Concludes Imprisoning Pregnant 'Drug' Users
Is Ineffective, Racist And Otherwise Unethical And Could Be Challenged
On Constitutional Grounds - The Substances That Do The Most Harm
Are Tobacco And Alcohol)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: bc616@scn.org (Darral Good)
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: HT: Challenging report on pregnancy and drug abuse
Reply-To: bc616@scn.org
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
From: tsupport@umi.com (UMI - ProQuest Direct)
To: bc616@scn.org
Date: Fri, 25 Sep
Challenging report on pregnancy and drug abuse
The Journal of the American Medical Association
Chicago
Sep 23-Sep 30, 1998
Authors: Charles Marwick
Volume: 280, Issue: 12
Start Page: 1039
Copyright American Medical Association Sep 23-Sep 30, 1998
Full Text:
IMPRISONING pregnant drug abusers is ineffective and unethical and could
be challenged on constitutional grounds, say the authors of a new report
entitled Ethical and Legal Analyses of Coercive Policies Aimed at Substance
Abuse by Pregnant Women. The report, written as part of the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation's Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, documents
what is currently known about the effect on fetuses of substance abuse
by pregnant women and examines the ethical and legal issues associated
with criminalizing these women for illicit drug abuse.
"Since 1985, 240 women in 35 states have been criminally prosecuted for
using illegal drugs or alcohol during pregnancy," said Mary Faith Marshall,
PhD, director of the Program in Bioethics at the Medical University of
South Carolina. She spoke at a press conference in Washington, DC, last
month to announce the publication of the report, of which she is an author.
Prosecution has occurred despite the fact that there is "no legislation
in any state expressly criminalizing the use of an illegal drug or legal
substance by a pregnant woman," added Lawrence J. Nelson, PhD, JD, of the
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California.
Nelson, coauthor of the report and a practicing attorney as well as a
bioethicist, said that the use of involuntary civil commitment of pregnant
women for drug abuse, a legal means of intervention, may be increasing. (Such
women are then, presumably, to be detoxified and treated, but whether
treatment facilities exist and are used is a moot point.)
Incarceration Rejected
By rejecting the criminalization of perinatal substance abuse as policy,
the report adds further support to the contention by a growing body of
experts that incarceration for substance abuse is unworkable and ultimately
self-defeating (JAMA.1997;278:378 and 1998;279: 1149-1150).
As Marshall's figures (cited in the report and below) indicate, the number
of women arrested and criminally charged for substance abuse while pregnant
is not large. Nevertheless, she said it is a national problem and noted
that the combined rates of substance abuse during pregnancy, including
abuse of alcohol and use of tobacco, both of which are legal, are
troublesome.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) estimated (in the 1992 National
Pregnancy and Health Survey: Drug Use Among Women Delivering Live Births)
that about 5.5% of US women (about 221000) have used an illicit drug while
pregnant. Marijuana was used by 2.9% (119000), cocaine by 1.1% (45000),
heroin by 0.1% (3600) and psychotherapeutic drugs without any physician
prescription by 1.5% (61000). In addition, 18.8% (757000) of women used
alcohol sometime during their pregnancy, and 20.4% (820 000) smoked
cigarettes. Marshall noted that while illegal drugs get the attention, "the
drugs that do the most harm and [into combating which] we should put the most
resources are the legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco."
Although abusers may use more than one drug, Marshall couldn't give a precise
figure. However, she said, "Most cocaine users are also multiple drug users
and, of course, a widespread combination is alcohol and tobacco." The NIDA
survey says that "women who used an illicit drug during pregnancy were
more likely to also use cigarettes and alcohol than women who did not use
an illicit drug."
One Imprisonment
Only one woman has been imprisoned for substance abuse while pregnant.
Cornelia Whitmer of Charleston, SC, is currently serving an eight-year
sentence for using crack cocaine. She had not been on probation for drug
offenses prior to her conviction, but admitted in court to having used
the drug for which her newborn child-and a subsequently obtained urine
specimen-tested positive. Commenting on the severity of the sentence,
Marshall said, "We [that is, state authorities] are moralistic about drug
abuse. And we want to punish these women."
The case was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which upheld
the lower court's decision. However, trial courts in most states have refused
to apply existing criminal statutes to women who abuse drugs, Nelson said.
In instances where prison sentences were imposed, they were reversed by
appellate courts. One state, Minnesota, expressly requires what is
euphemistically termed involuntary civil commitment of pregnant women
who have used illicit drugs.
In the South Carolina case, the state Supreme Court held that viable fetuses
are persons and so are subject to protection under child abuse statutes
if their mothers take drugs while pregnant. Nelson maintained at the press
conference that this position is wrong because the US Supreme Court has
ruled that the unborn are not constitutional persons entitled to legal
protection. The decision "is nothing less than legislation by judicial
fiat," he said. If the state wishes to criminalize drug use among all
persons, not just pregnant women, it is free to do so, he said, but noted
that statutes that refer to persons, children, or human beings cannot apply
to prenatal humans.
Nelson also maintained that the Whitner case is open to challenge on
constitutional grounds, saying that "the US Constitution bars enactment of a
statute criminalizing prenatal drug use per se as violative of women's
constitutional rights to reproductive freedom and to be free of sex
discrimination." However, when the Whitner case was appealed to the US
Supreme Court, the court declined to hear it and let the South Carolina
decision stand.
"Rush to Judgment"
Since the 1980s, society has been concerned that prenatal exposure to drugs,
cocaine in particular, causes serious physical and mental damage to unborn
children. There has been a "rush to judgment" that these children were
destined to become wards of society, said Barry M. Lester, PhD, director
of the Infant Development Center at Brown University School of Medicine,
also speaking at the Washington press conference. However, he said, claims
about the "devastating" effects of drugs, including cocaine, have not been
substantiated.
Lester cited a study of more than 11000 infants who had been exposed in
utero to cocaine (Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;846:296-305). No increase in
physical abnormalities at birth was seen in this group. But only five studies
have followed cocaine-exposed infants into school age. Overall, the findings
are inconclusive, he said: "This is a field that is in its infancy."
At the press conference Marshall, summarizing her findings, said that
criminalization neither favorably affects infant health nor deters substance
abuse. Indeed, she added, "It may have a detrimental effect. It has been
shown that substance-abusing women may forgo early prenatal care or drug
abuse treatment for fear of losing their children or being arrested" (Brown
SS, ed. Prenatal Care: Reaching Mothers, Reaching Infants. Washington, DC:
Institute of Medicine; 1988). She described this situation as "tragic"
because "substance abuse treatment during pregnancy has been shown to be
effective in reducing the risk of drug exposure before birth and in improving
parenting after birth."
Marshall also called unethical the requirement that clinicians, social
workers, or anyone else report drug abuse to such authorities as, for
example, South Carolina's Department of Social Services. "This is
inappropriate to the caregivers role," she said. Furthermore, the
criminalizing approach is tainted with discrimination based on race and
socioeconomic status. "Only certain drugs - crack cocaine, heroin,
marijuana - are targeted for screening," she said. "Other drugs - powdered
cocaine, methamphetamines, or non-physician prescribed psychotherapeutics -
are largely ignored."
The result is that it is mostly minorities who get identified by the
authorities. From 1989 to 1993, she said, 41 pregnant women arrested for
abusing drugs in South Carolina; some were repeat offenders. Of these,
Marshall said, 40 were black, and of the 240 women in the 35 states she
reviewed, 70% to 80% were members of minority groups, primarily blacks
and Hispanics. Yet, she added, current studies show that substance abuse
during pregnancy is not a problem only of poor black and Hispanic women,
but also of white women and women in other racial and ethnic groups.
-by Charles Marwick
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
