In the wake of a child sex abuse scandal that rocked Penn State University, lawmakers in Oregon are considering a new requirement for coaches and other university employees to report child abuse to authorities.

The proposal also would apply to employees or volunteers of church groups, summer camps, scout troops and most other organizations that work with youth. They would be subject to the same abuse reporting requirements that apply to teachers, doctors and law enforcement officers.

Proponents hope the bill would encourage more reporting of child abuse and reduce the number of abuse-related deaths.

“They’re not dying because we’re not doing everything we can to save them. They’re dying because nobody told,” Tonia Hunt, director of The Children’s Center in Clackamas County, told the House Education Committee Thursday. Hunt’s organization works with victims of child abuse.

Opponents worry that the measure, House Bill 4016, is too broad and might expand liability for schools and youth organizations.

It’s one of several bills under consideration aimed at protecting potential victims of child abuse.

House Bill 4048 would allow prosecutors to bring felony charges against parents and guardians who fail to promptly report the death or disappearance of a child if the parent could reasonably suspect criminal activity. The measure was introduced in response to the trial of Casey Anthony, a Florida mother acquitted of murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony, who was missing for a month before authorities were notified.

House Bill 4100 would eliminate the statute of limitations for child sex abuse cases

The proposal to expand required reporting of child abuse arose primarily from allegations that volunteer Boy Scout leaders abused children in Oregon, said Rep. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis. Those cases have been highlighted by recent lawsuits in several Northwest states.

The Penn State abuse scandal led to a review of Oregon higher education policies, which revealed that employees aren’t required to report abuse, Gelser said. Penn State football coaches and administrators faced accusations that they didn’t do enough to tell authorities about alleged abuse by retired assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

At least 12 states are considering mandatory reporting legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and more are expected to craft bills as their sessions get into full swing.

Mandatory abuse reporters are required to tell police or the state Department of Human Services when they suspect a child has been abused, even if they learn of the abuse outside of work.

Opponents of the bill worry that it would discourage people from volunteering for organizations that work with youth or expose those organizations to lawsuits if they fail to report abuse that’s unrelated to the organization.

“This is a complex issue, and regular people who volunteer, they’re not going to be sure what exactly their duty is,” said Roger Williams, legislative director of the Oregon Christian Home Education Network. “And there’s going to be a chilling effect on volunteerism in the state of Oregon.”

Lobbyists for organizations representing school administrators and school board members said they were not concerned about increased liability and did not think it would increase their training costs. The bill’s proponents say they intend for it to apply only to volunteers given direct care and control of children, not parents who volunteer to read to a class or chaperone a school dance.

The Oregon University System has not taken a position on the bill but expects all employees and staff to report wrongdoing, spokeswoman Di Saunders said.

Politics is a messy process, full of arcane rules and bureaucracies. It’s about as insider as insider can get. But it’s also true that the people — you — own the system.

The lawmakers in Salem work for you, and it’s up to you to tell them what you want. You can do it — fourth-graders have — but it takes a lot of work and persistence.

To help you, we’re launching a new online tool, a Civic Engagement page, that will be a permanent part of The Oregonian’s Your Government site. The page lays out how to get legislation passed, links to important resources, a map of the Capitol and other information and advice.

We also have four stories about ordinary folks who took causes to the Oregon Legislature. There’s no one way to  make a difference, but the stories we offer today show that government isn’t just for insiders.

As one advocate put it: “This is what we’re supposed to do.”

Here are there stories:

– Wendy Davis: Pushed for legislation to help new mothers dealing with postpartum depression.

– Anne Marie Gurney: Went to Salem when a bill threatened to shut down her son’s online charter school.

– Liz Baxter: Used personal stories to try and persuade lawmakers to pass a bill to improve health equity for communities of color.

– Stephanie Buzbee: Led a class of fourth graders through the legislative process to get the Dungeness crab named Oregon’s official crustacean.

You can also watch a video of them in which they give out their best advice for folks new to the system.

How real people lobby the Oregon Legislature Four citizen advocates share their best piece of advice for folks looking to make a difference in Salem. Watch video

“No life is disposable.” What an awesome and important message. Especially when it comes from one of the political right’s rising stars as he described his plan for mandatory drug treatment in lieu of prison for first-time offenders.

Last week in his State of the State address, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made the most eloquent and able case for ending our prison-first mentality I’ve ever heard. And after 20 years of working for sentencing reforms, I’ve heard a lot.

Governor Christie spoke of the need for bail reform to keep violent criminals off the streets, something one might expect from a former U.S. Attorney.

No life is disposable. That’s a message I hear every day from prisoners and their families who write to me and say they feel like society has forgotten them. But it is extremely rare to hear it from an elected official who knows the quickest route to an easy ovation is to rail against all offenders. While Christie acknowledged that drug treatment is far less expensive than prison, his pitch was not budgetary. It was moral, it was human, and it was hopeful.

The reason our sentencing policies, especially with regard to nonviolent, drug offenses, remain so punitive is that we have learned to dehumanize people who break the law. They have become The Other, the ones who asked for it and now are going to get it. This lack of empathy is bewildering in light of the fact that almost all of us know someone good who did something bad.

Governor Christie’s words — and plan for nonviolent drug offenders — call all of us to the better angels of our nature. To the addict and abuser, Christie says, “Your life has value… We want to help you, not throw you away.” This is the exact opposite message that prisoners and their families receive from today’s judicial system and bureaucratic prison-industrial complex.

To the rest of us, Christie says, “Everyone deserves a second chance,” a belief praised and preached so often in our society that all we have left to do is practice it. We know the uncomfortable truth that, even with a second chance, not everyone can be saved. Some will refuse or be unable to choose a better path. But for those hoping for a shot at redemption, we should stand ready to help.

I have always believed that significant criminal justice reform could not happen until political conservatives and Republicans agreed that change is needed. This is the “Nixon goes to China” view of American politics. Over the past few years, I have been encouraged by the emergence of strong voices on the right speaking out against irrationally harsh sentencing laws. Governor Christie’s plan for nonviolent offenders — coming as it does from a former U.S. Attorney and Republican statewide leader — has the potential to be a game-changer.

Everyone wants to live in safe houses on safe streets in safe communities. What Christie’s speech teaches is that there are smarter ways to achieve this common objective. But all of our plans must begin with the recognition that no life is disposable.

Here’s a good editorial from Julie Stewart:

George Orwell said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” I have been reminded of that sentiment recently after watching politicians and pundits criticize the imposition of excessive mandatory minimum sentences and then blame everyone and everything except the actual sentencing law that required the excessive punishments.

The latest example of this is playing out in New York City. According to a news report, Ryan Jerome, a 28-year-old former Marine Corps gunner, went to the Big Apple last September with the hope of selling $15,000 worth of jewelry. Mr. Jerome carried a gun to protect his valuable stash. After reading some inaccurate information on the Internet, he mistakenly believed that he could carry the firearm in New York because he was licensed to carry one in his home state of Indiana.

The trip to New York was Mr. Jerome’s first and he decided to go sightseeing. He tried leaving his gun in the hotel safe but it was full, so he brought it with him. When he arrived at the Empire State Building, Mr. Jerome approached a security guard to ask where he should check his gun. The security officer called the police. Mr. Jerome was arrested and forced to spend the next two days in jail.

Because of New York’s mandatory minimum sentencing law for guns, Mr. Jerome faces a minimum prison sentence of 3 1/2 years. He could receive as much as 15 years. He also happens to be the latest of many tourists who have been arrested for unknowingly violating New York’s tough gun law. Football fans will recognize this law as the same one that sent New York Jets wide receiver Plaxico Burress to prison.

The case has generated some buzz in the blogosphere. Gun rights supporters want the Manhattan district attorney to decline prosecution. Other commentators note that Mr. Jerome is a former Marine and sought to comply with the law by researching it before his trip. As Mr. Jerome told the New York Post, “If I had known, I never would have brought that gun with me, no matter how much gold I had.”

Perhaps the prosecutor should exercise discretion in this case and not bring charges, but the reason the stakes are so high is because the law carries a mandatory minimum sentence that certainly does not fit people like Ryan Jerome. Without the mandatory minimum, a dutiful prosecutor’s insistence on charging every technical violation of the law could be tempered by a judge’s willingness to consider the unique facts and circumstances of each case and defendant, and to fashion an appropriate sentence. But a mandatory minimum sentence eliminates any judicial discretion.

In many ways, the Jerome case reminds me of the prosecution of U.S. border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They were sentenced in 2006 to more than a decade in prison after a jury found them guilty of shooting an unarmed illegal immigrant and covering it up. The agents’ long sentences were required by a federal mandatory minimum sentencing law. Nevertheless, members of Congress hauled the prosecutor who tried the case to Washington for a grilling. They couldn’t believe he had the audacity to use the law they had written. Seeing that the judge had no discretion, many members of Congress then asked President George W. Bush to intervene, which he ultimately did by commuting the agents’ sentences.

The problem with these cases (and thousands of others just like them) is that one-size-fits-all-sentencing laws do not deliver the kind of individualized justice that Americans have a right to expect. Not all crimes and offenders are alike. That doesn’t mean New York needs two laws for every offense – i.e., one gun law to prosecute armed robbers and another to prosecute inadvertent offenders such as Ryan Jerome. But it does mean politicians should refrain from inserting mandatory minimum penalties into their laws since they cannot foresee every situation to which they might be applied.

Ramos and Compean were relatively lucky. Perhaps Mr. Jerome will get lucky, too, and the Manhattan D.A. will find some way to resolve the case without Mr. Jerome going to jail. But it’s not reasonable to expect that presidents and governors are going to be able (or willing) to save every unforeseen defendant from being saddled with an ill-fitting mandatory sentence. The only way to make sure that the time fits the crime is to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences and let judges consider all the relevant factors in crafting individualized sentences.

The Obama administration on Friday announced a significant expansion of the FBI’s definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.

Justice Department officials said that the revision would make reporting of the crime more accurate and would provide a better understanding of its effects on victims.

Since 1929, rape has been defined as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, which included only men having sex with women without their consent, excluded other forms of sexual assault, such as oral penetration and rape of men.

The new wording, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., covers those and several other forms of sexual assault. It will be used in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, which draws on data submitted by local police departments, and will likely prompt a rise in reported rapes nationwide, law enforcement officials said.

Although most state rape statutes already contain a broader definition of the crime, officials said the federal revision holds deep significance, since the FBI’s reports are often synonymous in the public mind with crime rates. The FBI data is also used by policymakers to understand crime and propose anti-crime initiatives.

“This send a powerful message that … rape is rape,’’ Susan B. Carbon, director of the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women, said in a conference call with reporters. “And it’s rape even if you’re a man; it’s rape even if you are raped with an object and even if you were too drunk to consent.’’

Administration officials said the change, which will take several years to fully implement, was driven primarily Vice President Biden — author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate — and the White House Council on Women and Girls.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Obama and the council’s chairwoman, said the revised definition is “a major policy change that will lead to more accurate reporting and a far more complete understanding of this devastating crime.’’

An FBI police advisory board recently recommended the change, which had been pushed by supporters of womens’ rights. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III signed off last month.

In 2010, there were an estimated 84,767 rapes reported nationwide under the FBI’s current definition. Officials could not specify how much they expect the reporting of rapes to increase.

The new wording drew immediate praise from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and from advocates for women.

“All victims of these horrendous crimes deserve justice and should have access to the comprehensive services that will help them rebuild their lives,” Leahy said. “This updated, more inclusive, definition will bring added emphasis to sexual assault, which often goes unreported, and as a result, unprosecuted.”

Calling the change “a big win for women,’’ Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said, “With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women’s lives.”

A report on sentencing in Oregon’s criminal justice system was delivered to Gov. Kitzhaber Dec. 29. The Commission on Public Safety started work last August, charged with looking at how to streamline the state’s $1.4 billion corrections budget without hurting public safety. The report recommends that the commission continue its work through 2012. It also recommends changes that could mean shorter sentences for some.

Experts who spoke Dec. 9 at a Multnomah County conference on children and teens in the criminal justice system, argued for a complete policy rethink.

We need to take a more holistic approach,” said Judge Patricia Martin. “What if we thought of juvenile court like an emergency triage.”

Under Measure 11, Oregon teens who commit serious crimes are charged and sentenced as adults. And DA’s around the state have used their powers under Measure 11 to lengthen youth sentences. Currently more than one in 10 of those charged with Measure 11 crimes, and one in five of those charged with Robbery II are teens, resulting in 100 – 200 more imprisoned young people (aged 15- 23). But that approach found no support from Martin and other experts, who said harsh sentences do nothing to help troubled kids become responsible adults.

One Family One Judge

Judge Martin said families should be assigned one judge who deals with every problem facing that family, whether the issue is neglect, abuse or delinquent behavior.

“Our judicial system is segregated. The problem is my families and kids don’t come segregated.”

Juvenile courts should be able to call on experts in mental health, education, drug treatment: whatever a family needs to deal with all of its problems, and legal issues in one place.

“And if we can have drug courts, why not mental health treatment courts?” she said.

A juvenile and family judge in Cook County, Ill., Martin is President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She has seen thousands of kids and families go through the court system. Most of those young people would become productive citizens with the right help, she says, but the justice system sets them up to fail.

“We shouldn’t leave them with convictions,” said Judge Patricia Martin. “Why haven’t we thought about automatic expungement for juveniles?

“Do you know how many kids in child protection can’t get a job because they have a conviction?”

United States of Incarceration?

A staggering one in three Americans have been arrested by the time they are 25,  a new federal study reported this month. The crimes? Most common are arson, disorderly behavior, vandalism, burglary and theft.

Researchers said the figures may reflect a criminal justice system that has become increasingly inflexible and focused on punishment to the detriment of prevention.

International studies show the United States jails more people than any other Western democracy: 714 for every 100,000 people, compared to 96 for Germany, 91 for France and 142 for Britain which has the highest rate in Europe.

At the Dec. 9 conference, Judge Martin condemned what she called “fake” crimes. A boy in a state institution took a candy bar from the storeroom, she said, and was charged with trespassing on state property and robbery. Consequences? Yes, she said. Criminal charges? No.

“It just doesn’t make sense. We have to be smarter about how we help kids and families.”

Safety and Joy Can Prevent Crime

Jonathan Cloud, a delinquency prevention specialist, said brain development research should guide policy. Children are hardwired to mirror the adults around them, and the experiences they have, he said. Comfort and safety are essential and so are joy and pleasure.

“The best things you all can do, is construct experiences that turn the brain on and help kids understand what they can do.”

Cloud said that young people from their teens to mid-20s are hardwired to take risks, challenge authority and seek excitement. Breaking rules and making mistakes have to be understood as efforts to find their own unique path in life.

“The kids you’re working with don’t have a lot of positive “files” to draw from: The guy down the street who beats people up; the drug dealer on the corner; whatever is on late night TV. A kid in domestic violence will have the neuro track for aggression locked in.

“I want to load his file cabinet up with tons and tons of possible files to draw from, so that when he gets to 14 or 15 he has a lot of successful experiences to draw from.

“You can punish and contain all you want, but it adds nothing to the file system.”

Early Intervention Needed

Hill Walker, a researcher from the University of Oregon, called for more investment in prevention. Children with problems can be identified very early, he said. The research shows that when families get support from pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade, children don’t turn to crime.

“We wait and wait and wait to identify these children, while in meantime they are experiencing school failure and all kinds of chaos,” Walker said.

“If we could implement well half of what we know, we could radically improve the lives of students.”

The Commission on Public Safety weighed the costs of Measure 11 and other sentencing guidelines as well as its impact on young offenders, adult offenders and crime victims.

A draft report by Gov. John Kitzhaber’s Commission on Public Safety says ballot measures instead of business principles have come to dominate prison sentencing in Oregon and that needs to change.

“Public safety demands a shift from using the heart to guide our investments to using rational business-like approaches,” according to the report, which is to be submitted to the governor on Friday.

The commission has been charged with examining long-term planning efforts on sentencing and public safety, specifically the felony sentencing system. It will require balancing the will of the voters, who have twice approved expensive mandatory minimum sentencing ballot measures, with scarce state dollars.

Costs have risen significantly in the prison system, what the report calls “Oregon’s most expensive resource.” The state Department of Corrections has been allotted $1.3 billion by the state general fund for the 2011-2013 budget, outpacing all other departments except schools and human services.

The report sets forth principles it hopes the Legislature adopts in the next biennium, including a greater reliance cost-benefit analysis when considering sentencing reforms and giving judges more discretion when they hand down sentences. The report contains few specific recommendations.

The commission is comprised of the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, two Republican legislators, two Democratic state legislators, former Gov. Ted Kulongoski — a Democrat — and a Salem business executive.

Prison costs have ballooned in recent years due in part to mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes, which have kept offenders in prison longer, and to higher health care costs for an aging prison population, the commission said.

Taxpayers spend on average more than $30,000 per year for each Oregon prisoner. The state Office of Economic Analysis released a prison forecast this year projecting that the number of prisoners will increase by 2,000 by the end of the decade, to nearly 16,000.

Prison costs have spiked since voters approved Measure 11 in 1994, which created mandatory minimum sentences for some violent crimes. Subsequent ballot measures —including one passed last year during the Great Recession — have added stiff sentences for other crimes and are forecast to cost the state more money.

In response to the draft report, the Oregon District Attorneys Association said the state’s sentencing policies are working, and said the commission’s focus solely on sentencing is an error.

“We believe that the Commission has missed the mark by focusing on only one aspect of the criminal justice system: sentencing,” according to the statement issued Thursday.

Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis said the commission’s proposed guidelines could affect the length of time offenders serve in prison. Marquis said he wants to see offenders serve the sentences given them without reductions.

“The most important single value is truth in sentencing, not necessarily severity,” Marquis said.

When it comes to public safety in Oregon, perception is reality, the commission report said: Voters pass statewide ballot measures enforcing mandatory minimums, believing crime is on the rise. The opposite is true, the report argues. The crime rate has fallen in Oregon during the past 20 years and continues to fall.

Shannon Wright, associate director for the Partnership for Safety and Justice, said the commission rightly focused on alternatives to mandatory minimum sentences.

“It’s been almost two decades since Oregon began its experiment with mandatory minimums and they are a huge cost driver,” said Wright, whose group opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

The commission must balance its work with the will of the voters and the Legislature, which the report notes, but goes on to argue, “Neither the Legislature, nor the ballot initiative can adequately craft a ‘one size fits all’ sentence.”

“Appropriate sentencing law requires individual application,” the report says. “The new sentencing guidelines must empower the court by better distributing and structuring discretion between the executive and judicial branches of state government than does our current system.”

A report by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission about mandatory minimum sentences has earned it a top national award.

The report formally is known as “Longitudinal Study of the Application of Measure 11 and Mandatory Minimums in Oregon,” by Michael Wilson, Craig Prins, and Kelly Officer. It won the 2011 Phillip Hoke Award from the Justice Research and Statistics Association, and is presented to statistical analysis centers for translating statistics and research into informational reports on public policy.

The Oregon report won the award in the category of research/policy analysis for small centers with five or fewer full-time professional staff members. There are only two categories, and awards in each category are given to small and larger centers.

Update from FAMM President Julie Stewart:

The case against mandatory minimums grows stronger every day!!!

On October 31, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a comprehensive new report criticizing the most widely used mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The report echoes many of the arguments that FAMM has been making against mandatory sentences for years.

To make sure that the politicians and public heard about the new government report, FAMM distributed a press statement and I published an op-ed outlining some of the report’s major conclusions. Then, just this morning, The New York Times weighed in with an outstanding editorial that cites the new report as a sufficient basis for repealing all mandatory minimums. Of course, we couldn’t agree more.

There is a lot of work to do to make it happen, but every day our case gets a little stronger.