The Supreme Court took a major swipe at crime victim’s rights recently. In Giles v. California, the Supreme Court held that a crime victim’s report of a prior incident of assault by her husband could not be used against him in a subsequent trial of him for her murder a short time later. The decision struck down a California rule that provided that prior statements made to the police could be used against a defendant if the defendant’s conduct had caused the victim to be unavailable for trial.

This is a common occurrence in domestic violence cases, where defendants often terrorize their victims before trial (or, in extreme cases, even kill them) to prevent them from testifying. Contrary to common sense, the Court held that the prosecutor had to prove that the defendant’s actions were INTENDED to cause the victim to “not be available to testify” not merely that they actually caused the victim to be unavailable. In essence, the decision forces the prosecutor to go into the defendant’s head and see what his intent was when terrorizing the victim.

I have no objection to the general rule requiring the prosecutor to present the witnesses for cross-examination by the defendant in his criminal trial. The right to confront witnesses lies at the heart of the American justice system. However, when the defendant causes the absence of the victim by his conduct, he forfeits that right. In fact, that’s the name of the doctrine - forfeiture by wrongdoing. The ultimate expression of this utter contempt for the law occurs when a defendant kills the victim of an earlier crime.

This decision beggars the imagination. How could a man accused of assaulting his wife have had any other intent than to prevent her from pressing charges when he killed her? What’s his defense of that conduct supposed to be? “Oh, I knew that she had reported me to the police for a violent crime, but that’s not why I killed her. I just did it on a lark.”

The decision essentially overturns Oregon’s policy of allowing the statements of a dead or missing victim solely on the basis of the defendant’s having caused the absence, without the requirement to show that the defendant intended to cause the absence. For instance, I once showed that the defendant had threatened the victim with the kidnapping of their children while trial was pending. The defendant never came out and said “If you testify, you will never see your child again,” but, under the circumstances, what else could, “You will never see your child again” mean?

This absurd decision shows just how far “strict constructionist” judges will stray from reality. Judges should not legislate from the bench, but they should interpret the law based on the facts of our society as it exists. It demonstrates a way of thinking that does not acknowledge any interpretation of the language of the Constitution in light of the facts of modern society. It puts domestic violence victims at a much increased risk of death at the hands of their intimate partners and undermines the rule of law in our society. For us, it shows us the importance of electing leaders who will appoint and confirm judges willing to interpret the law in the light of our present society, not in the light of a white male landowner dominated agrarian society where women were treated as the property of their husbands.

If you are able to give some time in these last days to put her over the top and let her continue building the Eugene we all want to live in, see the times and places below!

In my opinion the most important race for this May 20 election is the one for Mayor of Eugene.  Just for the fact that the two candidates come from two very different sides of the political landscape.  If you didn’t know the Lane Bus Project supports Kitty Piercy for this post!

Monday, May 12th:

Sign waving-
Ferry St Bridge and 18th & Chambers - 4-5:45pm
Phoning-
SEIU Office (basement of Oregon Community Credit Union, corner of 11th and Ferry) - 6-9pm

Tuesday, May 13th - Thursday, May 15th:

Phoning-
SEIU Office (basement of Oregon Community Credit Union, corner of 11th and Ferry) - 6-9pm

Friday, May 16th:

Sign waving-
Morning-Ferry St Bridge- 7:30-9am
Afternoon-Ferry St Bridge and 18th & Chambers - 4-5:45pm

Saturday, May 17th:
Bus Project GOTV Canvass! Monroe Park (10th and Monroe)
10am - Meet Up 11am - Canvass

Sunday, May 18th:
Final GOTV Canvass- University Park (24th and University) - 1pm

Monday, May 19th:
Last Night of Phoning!
SEIU Office (basement of Oregon Community Credit Union, corner of 11th and Ferry) - 6-9pm

Let me know if you can help! Contact Ashley at 541-968-8269 or ashley@kittypiercy.com.

I’ve been following the budget crisis stories as we report them, but recently I saw first hand how hard it is for someone in need to get help.

Last week a man and woman in their late 40s came to my door asking if they could do some yard work for me (my yard is a complete wreck) so they could earn $20 to afford some propane so they wouldn’t be cold overnight in their trailer. His name was Dan and was a really kind and genuine guy, although I could tell he had lived a very hard life. It was getting dark, so I told him to just take $20, get his propane problem solved and if he could come back another day, that would be fine. They were overwhelmed with appreciation and he went on to tell me their entire story.

Both are recovering heroin addicts trying to get their lives back together. They have been accepted into a treatment program, have sponsors, and a job offer waiting after that is completed. Dan can’t read or write. I felt really bad because I could tell he really wanted to turn over a new leaf and save their own lives. I told him it was great to hear that they were taking those steps and that if he could come pull a few weeds in exchange for the money, he could do so whenever. Dan is about 100 pounds and frail with back problems, so I didn’t even want to force him to do the work at that point.

The next day, Dan was back on my doorstep, I thought to do some yard work. But really, he was just looking for more help. He showed me a letter his wife had written explaining that she had terrible cellulitis in her legs and a 104 degree fever. He was so upset and with no where to turn was asking me, a stranger if I knew any way to help.

Whitebird wouldn’t help them. Buckley House wouldn’t help them. They ER wouldn’t help them. They had a person able to give her a ride, but no place to go. They have both been accepted to the Oregon Health Plan in a lottery, which was a miracle that they both got picked, but it hadn’t started yet. I could tell he was worried that she might not even make it. I had no idea what to do other than wondering if Portland had any resources for them.

You can’t place blame on these local services. They are staffed with good hearted people who are just trying to stretch their resources as thin as possible for as many people as possible.

It is hard to say sometimes when someone is giving you a tragic story just to get something out of you. I didn’t want them to, but those thoughts about whether he was just looking for more cash to get drugs crept into my mind. I knew that there wasn’t much I could do about helping his wife. Throwing money at a problem that serious wasn’t going to help. Dan went desperate on his way and I don’t know what happened. I hope that she got some medical attention and I hope that leads them on to their plans to get healthy and on track.

It was hard to see someone with absolutely no recourse in a possible life or death situation. Are they at fault for getting to that stage in life? Yes. Should the community and society be there to help them out of that hole? Yes.

I expect I will see Dan again. Probably no closer to the treatment program in Portland they are seeking, without any money to afford the basic necessities in life. I would happily pay more taxes to know that these types of stories didn’t exist in our community, but unfortunately not everyone feels the same.

Disclaimer: I consider myself a progressive. Through my experience in local politics, I have championed the rights of the underprivileged, used my seat at the table to represent the disenfranchised, and promoted a functional government that works for ALL people.

The one question I have continued to ask myself is: what does it mean to be a progressive? I suppose, even more pertinent to my station in life is: what does it mean to be a progressive in Eugene?

I was excited when I first read The Bus Project’s Mission, encouraged when I saw the effectiveness the organization on the ground, and elated when the Lane County chapter opened. I served on the board of directors until my life became too busy with a family, work, school, and elected and appointed offices. I continue to offer monthly financial support and contribute time when my schedule permits. I state this, not to offer my own credibility, rather to help set the framework for my definition of progressive. You see, it is in the Bus that I find progressivism. I see a well-rounded, forward-thinking, impassioned group of people organizing around a set of values (as opposed to particular issues) that promote a better government and a better community. This particular definition of Progressive led me to long and thoughtful consideration of my support for the North Eugene seat on the Lane County Board of Commissioners.

In the race between Bobby Green and Rob Handy, I find two truly impassioned individuals – each with a wealth of personal and public experiences that make them uniquely qualified to serve this community. I have worked with both Bobby and Rob. A self-declared “meeting junkie,” I serve on too many committees and have working relationships with a number of public officials. Few leaders in this community have made as great an effort to take a balanced approach to their job than Bobby Green has. Sometimes balance makes us nervous, especially as progressives. We rely heavily on scorecards and sound bites to shape our view.

(more…)

Folks, this isn’t a Bus Project event, but my good buddy and incredible advocate Martin Rafferty is asking those who care about what young residents in Lane County have to say to join them for the Youth Empowerment Summit. His words below:

It’s time to come together to support the youth of our community. If you support or work in the youth service field you should come to see this elaborate event. Fully created and lead by youth and funded by multiple organizations this will be a great opportunity for networking and community building. If you can’t make it May 9th pass this letter along to someone who can!

Say YES!

Youth know what is happening in our community and have fresh ideas to address social issues. Eight groups of youth allied with community organizations have prepared presentations on solutions to social issues in our community.

Please come take part in this unique opportunity to hear from proactive young leaders. The Youth Empowerment Summit (YES) is an opportunity for youth to create change by presenting to community decision makers on youth identified community issues.

YES is a youth led event which is designed to stimulate awareness by giving voice to youth as they speak about issues of oppression and create positive community solutions.

Where: The Shedd Institute for the Arts
868 High St. (Use High St. Entrance), Eugene

When: Friday, May 9th 2008
12:00 – 7:00pm (breakout sessions from 1:40pm to 4:30pm)
Lunch will be provided at noon.

Schedule for the day:
12:00 – Lunch
12:30-1:30 – Opening Presentation
1:40-3:00 – First Breakout Session
Juventud FACETA
Youth Council
LGBTQ Issues
Sexual Health

3:10-4:30 – Second Breakout Session
Communities Empowering Youth (CEY)
Oregon Family Support Network (OFSN) And MindFreedom International
ACT-SO
Student Peace Alliance

4:30-5:00 – Closing Presentation
5:00-7:00 – Networking Opportunity and Open Mic Celebration

Please RSVP to Cheryl Bondy by May 2nd
682-2331 or cheryl.bondy@co.lane.or.us

If you need a translator, sign language interpreter, large print material, or other accommodations, please call or email Cheryl Bondy.

BREWHAHA EXAMINES EQUAL RIGHTSby Ted Taylor, Editor of the Eugene Weekly

What’s it like to “come out” to family and friends as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual in modern times? The bigotry and ignorance of the last century have eased somewhat, but it’s still difficult for people who are LGBT to feel like they truly belong to a community. And people who come out sometimes find that their sexual preferences become the dominant factor in how they are perceived by others.

“Your sexuality is all people see,” says Matt Friday, one of the panelists in a two-hour Brewhaha political gathering at Davis’ restaurant March 19. The discussion was cosponsored by the Bus Project, Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) and Eugene Weekly.

Becky Flynn and Maceo Persson of BRO outlined the status of domestic partnerships since the Oregon Equality Act and Oregon Family Fairness Act survived legal challenges and went into effect Feb. 4. In the second half of the evening, three panelists, Matt Friday, Joe Cedar and Alison Cerezo, talked about their personal experiences negotiating the maze of heterosexist laws and a homophobic and transphobic society.

From L to R: Alison Cerezo, Joe Cedar, Matt Friday
Photo|Lynn Moracco

Domestic partnerships are now legal and binding for Oregon residents, and about 1,300 same-sex couples in the state have tied the knot since Feb. 4 when a legal challenge to the legislation failed. Anti-gay activists have filed two initiatives to repeal the laws, and petitioners have until July 3 to collect 83,000 signatures to get on the November ballot.

Meanwhile, domestic partnership is still approximately 1,000 rights and benefits shy of marriage, says Flynn — but the new laws are a big step in the right direction, providing couples with legal rights in the event of emergencies and outlawing discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. The details of the laws are available at on BRO’s website. In the panel discussion, the three panelists told their stories and talked about not being trusted because of their sexuality; chronic homelessness, unemployment and violence that can affect those who are transgendered; higher suicide rates among the teen LGBT community thanks to homophobia; difficulties trans youth face in negotiating the local school system; the need for “transinclusive” policies in local government and institutions; and the empowering effect of the new equality laws.

L to R| Lynn Moracco, Lane Co. Bus Project Director, and Maceo Persson, BRO Field Organizer, introduce the last segment of Brewhaha. Photo|Ted Taylor

The group also talked about terminology and its significance. “Queer,” for example, has been gaining popularity in the community because it recognizes the complexity of sexuality and includes more than two genders. — Ted Taylor

For more by Ted Taylor - Keep reading the Eugene Weekly, or check out his EW! Blog

——-
Brewhaha is a monthly event organized by the good work of many dedicated Bus Project volunteers as well as the Eugene Weekly. These nonpartisan educational forums often occur on the last Wed. of the month. Keep your eyes peeled on this very blog for updates on our next event.

I began writing a blog post about a very unpleasant discovery that Comcast began deliberately blocking our port 25 this morning — without informing us. All day we were not able to send outgoing email — and if I didn’t work in the software industry, I would likely take more than just an hour troubleshooting and creating a temporary workaround. I had a entire post written about how unimpressed I am with Comcast and their business procedures, their outsourcing residential customer service to India, Net Neutrality in general, and the slow erosion of the rights of an Internet customer.

And I could write lengthy articles about the business model that Dex Media engages in, where it is more profitable for them to provide poor service than good service. Regulations or competition are the only things that could change this. We have all had these experiences with large companies. You probably can think of at least three immediately. And there are no benevolent alternatives because for many industries there are so few choices the it is a battle between a poor company, a worse one, and not having the service at all. Some examples are national news companies, Internet access, cell phone service, cable service, satellite radio, and radio conglomerates. And luckily this is not the case for some services like water — at least in most of the US.

We have been hearing since the early 80’s that free markets are the cure-all for any industries. Conservative politicians and some political pundits still cite this as common knowledge. Graduating from the conservative University of Chicago school of economics, we were taught that a free market naturally leads to many desirable properties including enormous efficiencies and cost-savings to the customer.

But.

There are some assumptions that must be in place for free markets to lead to these desirable properties. There must be significant competition. And customers must have ability to readily switch from one competitor to another. Four cell phone companies is not significant competition. One high-speed, residential Internet company is not real competition. When there is little or no competition then businesses will immediately maximize their profit by charging more money, locking customers in, provide poorer service, making customer service less helpful, creating policies that weed out the most costly customers. The most costly usually are the highest risk, those with the least money, or those with the most demands or complaints relative to their revenue.

This is not a problem for high-end sports car oligopolies. This is a problem when there is a monopoly on the sale of water. For example when water became a monopoly (aka privatized into a single company) in Bolivia — they drastically raised the prices because that would increase their profits even though it would price people out. On the scale between sports cars and water, where does Internet access lie? Where does cell phone service lie? Where does access to investigative journalism lie? The only protection to monopolies are regulations and restrictions for industries that either structurally require few companies (such as electric companies with their power lines) or end up that way through mergers and acquisitions.

Consumers don’t have the advocacy organizations, the will, or the money to compete with these companies. We, as consumers, have no voice but our ability to take our business elsewhere. Or in the case of these monopolies and oligopolies, take our business nowhere. Our government is the only entity that is in the position to create a level playing field where consumer rights are just as important as corporate profits.

UO MEChA would like to invite community members to Xicano Xplosion on Tuesday March 4th at 6pm, at Agate Hill.

Teatro Milagro’s Production of “Zapatista” will be shown and a Panel after the play. Agate Hall is near 17th and Agate Street, on the east side of the University of Oregon Campus, in Eugene.

Apparently, Oregon spends the largest percentage of its budget on prisons of any state. LINK
 
Before we get into the inevitable attacks on Measure 11, we might want to look at a few factors.  First, Oregon has a low overall budget for a state of its size because, well, Oregonians are cheap when it comes to funding state government.  Second, Oregon doesn’t have some of the economies of scale of larger states, so having any prison system at all is going to eat up a bunch of money.  Third, Oregon’s per capita incarceration rate is actually below the national average. Fourth, the prison budget also includes spending on county jail incarceration, something not paid out of prison budgets in other states.  Also, it includes some community corrections payments, another item not generally included in prison budgets in other states.

You would expect Kevin Mannix to defend incarceration, but perhaps not in this way.  He said that the reason we pay so much is because we have well-compensated corrections officers.  He admitted that this is a good thing, saying, “You get what you pay for,” and stating that the high compensation was one of the reasons we don’t have as many problems with drugs in our prisons as other states. 

There are some changes on the horizon.  Mannix’s mandatory minimums measure would mandate a huge increase in prison spending.  If it passes, it seems like we would have to take a look at what “prison” means, moving away from politically popular, but ineffective, large, secure, and expensive prisons in Eastern Oregon for a cheaper, more effective, community-based minimum security model.
 
If, instead, SB 1087 passes, that would actually fund treatment programs.  The hope is that this would boost Oregon’s abysmal spending on rehab programs and offset the increased incarceration that it mandates for repeat offenders.

So, if the bad news is that we spend a lot on prisons, perhaps it’s not that we have too many people in prison, but rather that we spend a lot on prisons.  It’s heartening to see that there’s some consensus that we shouldn’t be cutting corrections officer salaries to make it cheaper, although maybe we should be looking at the system to figure out how to make it less expensive and more effective.  However, you needn’t look farther that the current debate over community supervision for the mentally ill to see how popular these sorts of community placements are.  Everyone agrees that they’re a good idea, but no one wants one in their town.

The fundamental conflict in Oregon politics isn’t between Republicans
and Democrats.  It’s between Progressives and Conservative Populists.
(For a great development of this thesis, buy the book …)
 Put another way, Oregon politics is the endless internal struggle of
voters who love progressive ideals, but hate paying taxes to support
them.  Historically, this means we chronically underfund education and
law enforcement.

Our schools do well for what we give them, but we don’t give them
much.  One influential ranking of the top 100 high schools in the US
listed 5 from a single Maryland county with one of the highest per
capita student spending, while listing none in Oregon.  On the law
enforcement side, we can’t keep troopers on the highways 24/7, and,
despite the howls of many good old fashioned liberals about the
“draconian” Measure 11, rapists, robbers and burglars do less time in
prison here than in almost anywhere else in the country.  By and
large, we’d love to educate our kids and to lock criminals up, but
we’re just too damn cheap.

The November election presents the classic “rob Peter to pay Paul”
scenario.  Kevin Mannix has gathered enough signatures to qualify his
tough-on-crime Measure 40 for the ballot.  The Oregon District
Attorney’s Association introduced a competing bill, SB 1057, to refer
a different approach to the ballot.  I won’t belabor the details,
which are available at The Statesman Journal.
 However, briefly, the main differences are - 1) Measure 40 has
mandatory prison time for some first time felony offenders, while SB
1087 only does so for repeat offenders; 2) SB 1087 significantly
increases funding for drug treatment programs, while Measure 40
provides none; and 3) Measure 40 will cost $250-$400 million per two
year budget cycle, while SB 1087 would only cost $140 million.  If
both pass, as seems probable, the one with more votes will take
effect.  Without additional revenue, both will significantly siphon
off the funds available for education.

So, what’s a good law-and-order, progressive Democrat to do?  Fixing
the criminal justice system to either put crooks in prison or finally
fund some rehab programs sounds great, but gutting the education
system to do so seems, well, “self-perpetuating” seems like a good way
to put it.  Estimates of the cost to provide full day kindergarten for
every child in Oregon come in well below either of these price tags.
Ah, to be back in the days of Guv Kitz, who would have just said that
he’d push new taxes through if either passed.  The great benefit of
having a doctor as governor was that the loss of the government
paycheck by losing an election actually would have meant a pay
increase.

Instead, we’re left with damage control.  In the grand scheme of
things, SB 1087 concedes the popularity of anti-crime measures and
seeks to limit the fiscal damage that Measure 40 would cause.  It
reinforces Oregon’s rehabilitative philosophy, popular among
progressives for its emphasis on second chances and among conservative
populists for it low price tag, makes it more honest by actually
funding rehab, and puts some steel in the spine by providing prison
time for more repeat offenders.  In my 10 years of experience, this is
pretty reasonable approach.  Most of the crimes in question have at
least a 75% correlation with drug abuse.  In the case of identity
theft, I have yet to see a single case that did not have an aspect of
drug abuse.  So, rehab seems reasonable.  However, the opportunity for
rehab means very little without some consequence for failing to follow
through.  The increased penalties for repeat offenders provide that
level of accountability.  The lack of a funding mechanism is
troubling, but what do you expect out of a low paid, part-time
Legislature - the political courage to pay as they go without gutting
education?  No, that would be too much to ask, wouldn’t it?