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

I disagree with the idea that we should increase the category of official misconduct to a felony.

Prosecutors already have too much leverage when it comes to charging suspects.  I am a lawyer (in Umatilla County), and regretably there are times where the potential consequences of trying a case to a jury are astronomical.  The consequences are severe because of the number of felonies already on the books and the mandatory minimum sentencing schemes.  From a risk-analysis perspective, it can be an unwise choice to proceed to trial - even when there is a sound defense.

For people facing official misconduct charges, the threat of a misdemeanor is sufficiently severe.  Many of them have careers in public service and no criminal record.

This is not a "loophole," and it does not need to be fixed.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I am a public defender in Umatilla County, and I think the state of mental health care in Oregon is poor and needs dramatic improvement despite the best efforts of those who serve on the front lines of this issue.  I have had many clients with deep and serious issues in conflict with police, who often use a rough approach when dealing with the mentally ill.

A former client (who was eventually civilly committed for schizo-affective disorder) was arrested for attempting to assault a police officer.  The officer wanted to conduct a "field interview" of my client who had done nothing wrong.  My client completely misunderstood the officer's intentions and mistook him for an assailant from several years ago in California.  My client walked briskly toward the officer who tazed my client in the chest.  Weeks later, my client had missed a court date, so the police went to arrest him on the warrant.  The police learned he was sitting in his father's home with a loaded gun to defend it from intruders.  My client was lucky that he did not suffer the same fate as the gentleman from Portland, even though it was apparent to all invoved with him that he was completely and totally bonkers.

I have had other clients who have spent more time in custody waiting to be evaluated to determine the extent of their mental illness than the maximum sentence they would have recieved had they simply pleaded guilty.

The state's mental health system is overloaded and underfunded.  Instead of building more prisons, the state should spend money on new mental health facilities and personnel.  Stories like the one from Portland will continue until this is changed.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Maybe Grant Co could create a new town for these guys to move into, then the neo allies could storm it and blow it up.  That would solve the problem for good.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The Nazis can say what they want, somewhere else. 

By wearing swastikas on their sleeves, they deserve the approbriation they recieve because they are identifying themselves with Hitler and the Holocaust.  This creates a categorical difference between their free speech right and other groups who are not responsible for a world war and the deaths of millions.  While it is true that we should not single out groups to silence, I think the Nazi's legacy creates a special case.

Should we not silence terrorists planning acts of mass destruction?  Certainly they have a right to express their point of view.

Go John Day!  Keep them out.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

It is unfair to ask our soldiers to serve in dangerous and trying situations then deny them the ability to defend against a criminal charge by denying them the PTSD argument.  PTSD is a direct result of their military service, and if we are going to fight wars, we need to be prepared to accept the consequences.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I see the need to incorporate a kid's interests in education. Allowing a child to wander among topics and hope for the best seems unproductive. What if the kid doesn't like math - then will she never learn math? More formal, structured education curricula have been around for a long time and they seem to work pretty well.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

My Canadian father-in-law visited the emergency room at our local hospital. About 18 months ago, while visiting, he became concerned with his elevated heart rate. Both of the in-laws went to the hospital, were checked in, were greeted by several physicians and specialists in turn, and were attended to in a timely manner.

These two Canadians were thrilled by the quality of care they received compared to the treatment they expected from their system of medical care.

Will Perkinson
Pendleton

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I'm not sure how you would do it, but outlawing the paying of people to collect signatures may curb the abuse of the system.

It's a good system that may spur needed changes when a legislature is unwilling to act. However, moneyed interests have come to dominate the process.

By allowing measures on the ballot that are a product solely of Oregonians' sweat equity and devotion, we will see less efforts to buy constitutional or statutory changes.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Requiring criminal background checks is not an outlandish demand before granting state certification to people who will be dispatched into the homes of the elderly or infirm. It allows the state to know fully who they are licensing. Otherwise, the agency faces the risk of bad headlines and loss of public support if things go wrong in a sympathetic victim's home. A few bad apples spoil the cart? And which victim wouldn't be sympathetic?

The problem arises when the agency demands homecare workers to be conviction free. While the ongoing, neverending criminal crackdown rages on, state legislatures race one another to prove themselves the toughest on crime. By increasing the number of crimes on the books, the amounts of fines payable upon conviction, and the funding given to police agencies, the number of untrained* people who live conviction-free dwindles. (*I presume that more highly skilled folks with other options open to them are taking them.)

The elderly and infirm are a segment of society that demands vigilant state support and defense. Yet commonsense must dictate whether a person who has been convicted for minor crimes that present no reasonable risk to the patient be allowed to work in another's home. If someone is willing to do work that I wouldn't be willing to do, then perhaps Washington shouldn't be too quick to eliminate those who aren't squeaky-clean.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Good one.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

May I suggest a sixth? Taxpayers get to borrow the corporate jet for overseas "mental health" days and we get to use the CEO gym and shower facilities (by appointment only, of course).

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Exactly! Give the money to people who have mortgages and work hard to make payments on time. Apparently Mortgages are the source of the problem, so spend the cash there instead of propping up broke investment banks.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Wall Street is like a crackhead uncle who has been high for several days and comes to you for "rent" money. But you know your paycheck will go straight into his veins; a fiend wants only keep from crashing. Do you give it to him? Hell no. He shouldn't have gotten spun in the first place. You don't support his addiction or his greed that feeds it.

Where did Wall Street lose the $700B they want from us taxpayers? Maybe they should look there.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Let me offer my reply to this topic in the context of criminal law. This is my first post here. Go OPB!

When prosecuting a criminal case, the state needs to have proof that the defendant did what they accuse him of. Not just any proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Objective proof is the best kind; it's incredibly difficult to argue with if you are a defense attorney, like me. DNA is a flashy example, but photos and video and audio recordings rarely leave room for interpretation.

I practice criminal defense in a small town in Eastern Oregon, but I believe most police citizen encounters across the state are not recorded in either a temporary or permanent format. I believe this is a shame given the relative affordability of decent recording equipment.

Police officers need to be recorded nearly all the time for objective, truth-telling purposes. Partly because I would like to spend less time pursuing half-truths a small percentage of my clients may feed me, and partly because police officers are people too and are capable of forgetting from time to time. Police forgetfulness can impact a court hearing in many ways.

I have recorded police action on my cell phone. I was not told to stop, but for other reasons they told me to back away. I backed up and continued discussing the scene with a DA/friend of mine.

I like citizen observation of times when the power of the state encounters individuals. Usually it involves Constitutional Rights, which our founding fathers believed in. I believe police have largely treated me fairly, so I have never needed a recording. Some of my clients do not share my sentiment, and from time to time a recording would be nice to have to show my client or the court.

How could more truth be a bad thing?

Will
Eastern Oregon

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context