MEASURE 71


ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 71 TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND

THE PUBLIC FROM PREDATORY CRIMINALS

The Legislature referred this measure to the voters so that another part of the original Measure 40, adopted by the voters in November 1996, can be considered. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Measure 40 could not be enacted as a single amendment to the Oregon Constitution. The Court said each part must be voted on separately. Measure 71 generally reflects one part of original Measure 40.

This measure establishes that crime victims have the right to have decisions by the court, regarding pre-trial release of a criminal defendant, be based upon the principle of reasonable protection of the victim and the public. This measure will protect victims and the public where there is danger of physical injury or sexual victimization by the criminal defendant if the defendant is released before trial. The court must determine that there is probable cause to believe the criminal defendant committed the crime, and the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is danger of physical injury or sexual victimization if the defendant is released pre-trial.

Currently, criminal defendants are held if they are thought to be a "flight risk" (will not show for trial) except in cases of Aggravated Murder, Murder, and Treason. This measure will apply to violent criminal defendants who have been charged with crimes such as Rape, Manslaughter, Armed Robbery, Kidnap, Child Molestation, and Aggravated Assault.

Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; Crime Victims United) and by Oregon law enforcement organizations (Association Chiefs of Police; District Attorneys Association; State Sheriffs Association; State Police; Federation of Parole and Probation Officers).

As chief petitioner on the original Measure 40, I urge you to vote yes on Measure 71.

Kevin L. Mannix
State Representative

(This information furnished by Kevin L. Mannix, Justice For All.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.


ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

In 1996, Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims at least as many rights as criminals. Politicians on the Oregon Supreme Court devised a never-before-used technicality to throw out the voters' wishes.

Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims Bill of Rights.

Except in cases involving Aggravated Murder and Murder criminal defendants are usually held in pre-trial custody only if they are considered a flight risk. Measure 71 amends the state constitution to give crime victims the right to have decisions by the court regarding pre-trial release to be based upon the principle of reasonable protection of the victim and the public. This will help to better protect victims and the public in cases where there is a danger involving physical injury or sexual victimization.

The inadequacy of the current law is illustrated by the case of Sarah Beth Zimmerman. On September 26, 1998, Ms. Zimmerman was attacked by a man she had been dating. A grand jury indicted the man for two counts of Attempted Murder, two counts of First-Degree Kidnapping, along with other counts of First-Degree Kidnapping and Second-Degree Assault. Ms. Zimmerman's attacker was released from jail, after posting bail. On December 8, 1998, the man attacked Sarah Zimmerman for a second time. On this occasion, the man shot both Ms. Zimmerman and her mother. Sarah Zimmerman lost an eye and a finger. Her mother suffered severe internal injuries. Police were forced to shoot the suspect when he threatened an officer attempting to arrest him. He remains in police custody.

Following Ms. Zimmerman's first attack, the violent nature of her attacker was obvious. Given the opportunity to post bail, he was free to viciously attack again.

PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75!

SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL?

(This information furnished by Steve Doell, Crime Victims United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.


ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

If Ballot Measure 71 were already law, my younger brother would probably be alive today.

On March 17, 1997, a man named Lee Knoch, who was out on bail, murdered my younger brother, Robert Holliday. At the time of the murder, Knoch was charged with torturing my brother through beating and burnings over a two-week period. After my brother escaped from the beatings, Knoch convinced my brother that a gang had a contract "hit" out on him, and extorted $20,000 from my grandmother. My younger brother was gullible and passive, and did not know how to fight back and protect himself. When he escaped from Knoch, most of his ribs were broken, had internal bleeding and multiple burns.

While out on bail, Knoch violated the conditions of his bail, with full knowledge of the bail department. Yet the department chose not to inform the court. On March 19, 1997, Knoch was scheduled to go to trial. Two days before that, he and his girlfriend, Julie Walker, kidnapped my younger brother, drugged him, transported him to the mountains, murdered him, and then buried him. Knoch knew that without my brother, there was no case against him.

This Ballot Measure cannot bring my brother back, but it can keep others alive and safe. By denying bail to certain violent offenders, we can prevent criminals from reattacking and silencing the victim. Currently, except in murder cases, the judge can only take into account whether or not the offender has a risk of flight-not the safety of the victim. This Ballot Measure would change that and help protect victims.

I ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75!

(This information furnished by Bradley Holliday, Crime Victims United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.


ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

How would you feel if your child, spouse, sibling or parent were assaulted, raped or murdered?

Now, how would you feel if you learned that the person who committed this crime was previously arrested for a serious crime, held in jail, and released by our criminal justice system?

Some of your fellow citizens know this feeling.

The family of Donna Louise Smith knows this feeling. She was murdered by a person with a lengthy criminal record who was released on bail awaiting trial for kidnapping, sodomy and rape! (The Oregonian, 10/26/96)

The family of Robert Holliday knows this feeling. He was kidnapped, tortured, and buried alive by a man who was released on bail awaiting trial for previously kidnapping and torturing him! (The Oregonian 3/27/98)

The family of a 13 year-old Oregon girl knows this feeling. She was kidnapped, raped and sodomized by a person with 49 arrests and at least 15 convictions who was released on bail awaiting trial on burglary! (The Oregonian, 4/3/98)

Sarah Zimmerman knows this feeling. Her finger was shot off and her eye was shot out by a man who was released on bail awaiting trial for attempted murder in a previous attack on her!
(The Oregonian, 12/9/98)

These cases and many others like them constitute a disgraceful lapse of our justice system.

Under our current law, except in the case of murder, the safety of victims and other innocent people is not a primary consideration when setting bail. The primary consideration is whether the defendant is likely to appear for trial if released on bail.

Please, to protect innocent people, change this law. Vote yes on Measure 71. And vote yes on the other victims' rights measures, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, and 75.

Howard Rodstein
Crime Victims United

(This information furnished by Howard Rodstein, Crime Victims United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.



Arguments In Opposition

Measure 71 Text

November 2, 1999 Special Election Voters' Pamphlet Table of Contents