Early-Release Law Fuels Heated Debate February 21, 2010
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News , trackbackNew arguments flared Thursday in the fiery debate about a controversial new law that expanded early release for state prison inmates.
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, sharply criticized a radio ad campaign sponsored by the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance.
The group’s ad campaign, aired statewide Monday through Wednesday, featured a case in which a former inmate was freed late last year by the new early-release law. The ex-convict recently was accused of new criminal charges.
The ad said: “A woman is asleep in her own apartment. Suddenly, she’s attacked by a registered sex offender and convicted burglar. Even worse, he got out of prison early because of a law Oregon politicians passed last summer. And he’s not the only one.”
Prozanski described the ad as distorted and inflammatory because it didn’t provide specifics about Oregon’s early-release law, or key timeframes about the featured inmate’s case.
The 2009 Legislature expanded so-called “earned-time” sentence reductions for prison inmates from 20 percent to 30 percent.
Under the new law, the inmate featured in the ad was released in early October after receiving a 30 percent sentence reduction. Without the extra 10 percent shaved off his sentence, he would have been released in late November.
The ads failed to point out that the new accusations against the released inmate stemmed from a crime committed in January, Prozanski said.
“It seems very disingenuous, at best, if not outright deceiving,” he told the Statesman Journal during an interview Thursday. “The person would have been out anyway under the 20 percent rule, and (his alleged new crime) was not committed in that window of the additional 10 percent.”
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
Loading ...
Comments»
So what you are saying, beacuse of one re-offence there should be punishment for all offenders? I have known many rehabilitated offenders that the are ready for release qurter way through there sentence. i am not saying they deserve less time, i think offenders should be reviewed periodically to make sure that they are doing what there supposed to do, then decide if they deserve that 20-30% rule. It should not be discriminated aginst unless they actually know what is going on in OYA (Oregon Youth Athority) or DOC (Department of Corrections). Beacuse there are individuals that deserve a break! The only way to help someone is to let them make mistaks and learn from them!!!