Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin tuesday, november 22, 2023, by devadmin
Ballot Measure 112 – Repeals language allowing slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishments and authorizes an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual.
This measure is poorly structured as a constitutional amendment and neglects the real issues surrounding criminal justice, incarceration, parole, probation and other alternative options that would be better suited to statutory changes.
- It relies on the emotionally powerful, but purely rhetorical, ideation for “doing away with the antiquated racist legacy of slavery in our State.”
- It fails to recognize differences between institutional slavery and involuntary servitude as the latter refers to the serving of time in detention or incarceration following a criminal trial.
- The new legal battles over mandatory sentencing, regardless of duration, will sculpt an entirely foreign landscape with regard to new, yet unimagined, definitions of “involuntary servitude.”
- It promotes the modern social justice or Humanist propensity for promoting criminal rights without consideration for the victim, or victims’ rights.
- It steps deep into the incarceration, probation, parole, and pardon quagmire without fairly addressing the details associated with criminal justice, sanctions, punishment, recompense or rehabilitation.
- It may eventually lead to fair wage compensation for incarcerated individuals, followed quickly by cost overruns and the eventual “defunding of police.”
Everyone knows that legalized slavery is a foul and abominable crime against humanity. The inhumane treatment and bondage of exploited human beings is universally repulsive.
We believe our nation is a uniquely indivisible melting pot. We know it is comprised of people from many cultures, races and ethnic backgrounds. We believe in the equal application of all laws, across all people, in all circumstances for the protection of their lives, their personhood, individual liberty and personal property.
Although legal forms of slavery have long been outlawed in the US, slavery still exists in many parts of the world. In fact, more people are in bondage today than at any other time in history. Widespread exploitation for illicit purposes, in countries around the world, impacts people from ethnic, religious and racial minorities, women, children and impoverished populations.
However, none of this is because of some leftover clause in Oregon’s Constitution.
In fact, Section 34 of Oregon’s Constitution closely resembles the wording in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and nearly repeats the words in the US Constitution.
There are no legal forms of slavery anywhere in the US due to the thousands of souls who argued for abolition and the Christian ideals of human dignity. The US Civil War was thought to be the final push for ending racial prejudice, where many hundreds of thousands fought and died. Lastly, there were thousands of stalwarts who argued, preached, advocated, and secured the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US constitution.
So, the issue is not “slavery” the issue is how to handle and administer justice, for those who have been harmed by the deviant or criminal behavior of others.
The concept of justice is easy, give every person their due. In real life it is much more difficult. We have a conscientious duty to discharge justice to all parties, both the victim who deserves restitution and the criminal who may deserve some form of sanction, punishment and/or imprisonment.
As a side note, passing this responsibility to local jurisdictions, where the cost or benefit to the local community can appropriately be weighed sounds reasonable. But remember, this is a constitutional amendment not a statutory change. Measure 112 fails to address the real, deep, and concerning details of our criminal justice system.
The proposed language by-passes justice and reform, ignores any relevant costs or benefits for victims, criminals, community and society. The suggested language delegates authority to any and all parole or pardon agencies who may “order” a sentencing alternative. This flies in the face of judicial review and oversight and begs the question, who is in charge here?
This proposal seems to be a “get out of jail” free gimmick. The proponents talk about human dignity and idly suggest that a more fair, civil and polite society will blossom after individual responsibility and accountability have been stripped from our criminal justice system.
For example, in California a thief can steal up to $950 of merchandise from any large or small business on main street without criminal repercussions. This is hardly fair to the store owners because without law and order our businesses cannot survive. Nor is this fair to the thief who is never brought to terms with their criminal actions.
The deeper issue that never gets addressed is our own individual moral agency and human consciousness. Our society requires each of us to make conscientious assessments of individual actors and their actions. There is no alternative.
Lastly, Oregon’s Criminal Justice system is in need of reform. However, this is the wrong path forward. Ballot Measure 112 would be a gross disservice to our communities and the universal concept of justice.
Therefore, I suggest a “NO VOTE” on Ballot Measure 112.
If we don’t stand for rural Oregon Values and common-sense… No one will!
Regards,
Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate – District 28