Criminal Justice Passed General Election
✗

PEAPAC Recommends: NO

While well-intentioned, it reduces judicial discretion which is biblical; solution is better judges, not mandatory rules; promotes prison over restitution.

Summary

Grants constitutional rights to crime victims and changes court procedures regarding evidence and juries.

Biblical Reasoning

The Scriptures posit judges, proven in character and ability, as the normal determiner of guilt and innocence. While the frustration many feel with the criminal justice system is real and understandable, the solution is not to do what is right in our eyes. The solution is to follow God’s Word, which says judges are the normal means of determining guilt, and then determining the appropriate penalty.

God’s Word provides for double restitution to victims in most cases, not jail. The Bible says that those who commit violent rape, murder and repeat violent offences should be executed. This is the answer to our crime problem, not imposing a non-biblical system which would further restrict the rights of God-fearing, honest citizens.

Election Results

62%
38%
YesNo

Voters approved the Crime Victims’ Rights measure (62% Yes).

Full PEAPAC Analysis

Like 1994’s “tough on crime” Initiative, this may look good, but we believe it is potentially very bad. For instance, under this Measure, victims could insist that your fate in a criminal proceeding be in the hands of a jury of today’s citizens, instead of a judge. The Scriptures posit judges, proven in character and ability, as the normal determiner of guilt and innocence. While the frustration many feel with the criminal justice system is real and understandable, the solution is not to do what is right in our eyes. The solution is to follow God’s Word, which says judges are the normal means of determining guilt, and then determining the appropriate penalty.

Last year, our Executive Director who also pastors at a Portland-area church became personally acquainted with a direct effect of 1994’s similar “tough on crime” initiative. That measure mandated certain prison terms for particular crimes, unbiblically taking the determination of appropriate sentencing away from judges and putting it into the hands of the electorate. The result in the above-mentioned case was that a Christian man, new to our country, served six months in jail rather than risk a mandatory six year prison term for hitting (with a cane) a man that attacked him… Though innocent, the fear of the mandatory long prison term pressured him into compromise.

Like the 1994 Measure, this Measure is well-intentioned, but the wrong answer. We must be more diligent to hold our judges accountable. We should give up on the whole prison approach to criminal justice. God’s Word provides for double restitution to victims in most cases, not jail. The Bible says that those who commit violent rape, murder and repeat violent offences should be executed. This is the answer to our crime problem, not imposing a non-biblical system which would further restrict the rights of God-fearing, honest citizens. We recommend a NO vote on this measure.

Related Measures

Measure 11 (1994) — Previous ‘tough on crime’ initiative creating mandatory minimums View →

← PreviousMeasure 39 (1996)