2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

As a former prosecutor in Washington State, I find the idea of non-unanimous juries anathema. The idea that unanimous juries will result in more hung juries and delay is laughable. 48 states and the entire federal judiciary have managaged to do it. Why not Oregon? The requirement for a unanimous jury puts the State to a rigorous test before an individual is deprived of their liberty. This is the way it should be. Non-unanimous juries allow for lazy prosecutions and sloppy trial skills.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

As a former criminal prosecutor, I have been greatly alarmed by the blatant over-reaching of recent statutory enactments such as The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The government rarely passes criminal laws that restrict its power to prosecute. Everything the government has chosen to classify as "terrorism" has always been a crime - arson is arson, murder is murder, assault is assault, a crime motivated by racial hatred is a hate crime. The government has always had sufficient tools to protect community safety from crimes such as these. There has been very little discussion or justification as to why existing laws are inadequate to punish these sorts of crimes.
The new domestic terrorism laws now give the government an avenue to seriously punish ideology and political dissent. Prosecuting arson as terrorism is just one more method to stifle any challenge to the dominant political paradigm.
These new domestic terrorism laws are similar to the laws targeting the labor movement and striking workers who challenged the business-dominated status quo in the 1920's and 1930's.
Anybody who is not terrified by the vagueness of the definintions of what constitutes "terrorism" in these new laws, particulary the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, is not paying attention. If we continue in this vein, how long until a critical email such as this is a crime?

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context