Criminal Justice Failed General Election
✓

PEAPAC Recommends: YES

Civil government wields the sword to punish evil (Rom 13); current system is too lenient; protects citizens.

Summary

Imposes mandatory minimum prison sentences for various property and drug crimes.

Biblical Reasoning

The Bible promotes a system in which judges are to have discretion over sentencing. This is made clear in Exodus 21:22. A man who, in the course of a fistfight, accidentally injures an innocent pregnant bystander is to pay “as the judges determine.” While the woman’s husband is involved, the judges make the final determination of the just recompense for the crime. Indeed, most of the Old Testament criminal penalties seem to be the maximum penalties a judge could impose…

But there is much frustration today with liberal judges… We favor replacing much of our prison system with Biblical restitution. ( See our sidebar “Crime and Restitution”.) Still, we think Measure 94 [Note: Text refers to M94 but discussion is M61 context] should be defeated… But here: We sympathize with a public that is increasingly threatened and frustrated by the criminal element. And we thus support this Measure, which would impose mandatory minimum sentences on a wide variety of property and drug crimes.

Exodus 21:22 — “A man who, in the course of a fistfight, accidentally injures an innocent pregnant bystander is to pay “as the judges determine.””

Election Results

49%
51%
YesNo

Voters rejected Measure 61 (51% No) in favor of the Legislature’s Measure 57.

Full PEAPAC Analysis

PEAPAC Explanation: As noted above, Measure 61 is in direct competition with Measure 57. If both pass, the Measure receiving the most votes becomes law. So if you prefer Measure 61, you should vote No on Measure 57 and Yes on Measure 61.

We wish that Measure 61 was not necessary. The Bible promotes a system in which judges are to have discretion over sentencing. This is made clear in Exodus 21:22. A man who, in the course of a fistfight, accidentally injures an innocent pregnant bystander is to pay “as the judges determine.” W hile the woman’s husband is involved, the judges make the final determination of the just recompense for the crime. Indeed, most of the Old Testament criminal penalties seem to be the maximum penalties a judge could impose, as he attempted in his decisions to correctly apply God’s sanctions as set forth in the Bible.

But there is much frustration today with liberal judges. Because of this, Oregon voters have approved a series of “get tough on crime” measures. We sympathize with a public that is increasingly threatened and frustrated by the criminal element. And we thus support this Measure, which would impose mandatory minimum sentences on a wide variety of property and drug crimes. While prison is not the best alternative, it is the only way at present to protect law-abiding citizens from the sort of rampant crime being perpetrated by meth addicts and other criminals. Presently, criminals such as car thieves have little to worry about as they are not routinely jailed for any significant p eriod of time. Measure 61 would reduce crime, keep some criminals from engaging in selfdestructive behavior, and protect Oregon’s citizens. We strongly urge a Yes vote on Measure 61

Related Measures

Measure 57 (2008) — Competitor measure; PEAPAC recommends voting NO on 57 and YES on 61 View →

← PreviousMeasure 60 (2008)