Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance
The Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance is an organization that brings together citizens with a mission of reducing crime in Oregon. This will be accomplished through reforms affecting prevention, investigation, prosecution, the courts, indigent defense, accountability, transition programs, prison work, treatment, and rehabilitation. We are actively engaged in Oregon communities and in legislation and statewide policy development. We want the public to better understand the positions of our political leaders and issues affecting criminal justice.
Our Mission:The Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance seeks to reduce crime and enhance public safety by bringing Oregon’s citizens together to reform Oregon’s government and policies.
OREGON ANTI-CRIME ALLIANCE MOVES FORWARD ON FOUR POLICY PROJECTS
The Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance is uniquely positioned to move a public safety agenda forward and help make Oregon one of the five safest states in the nation. The OAA Board of Directors is composed of two former, experienced legislators, who understand how to change the law, as well as a retired sheriff’s department sergeant, who has extensive “on the ground” experience. The professional staff of the OAA includes Tara Lawrence, a former District Attorney as the Executive Director. The Senior Policy Advisor is a retired District Attorney, Doug Harcleroad, who served for 24 years in Lane County.
OAA is currently working on projects in four issue areas: Intoxicated Driving, Domestic Violence, Human Trafficking, and Prisoner Reentry. Progress in each of these areas will help improve public safety in Oregon.
OREGON CRIMEFIGHTING ACT MAKES THE BALLOT
The Secretary of State announced that Initiative Petition 13, known as the Oregon Crime Fighting Act, has gathered enough valid signatures to be on the November 2010 ballot.
The explanatory statement committee composed of Kevin Mannix, Mark Wiener, Jennifer Williamson, and Greg Chaimov completed the explanatory statement with everyone agreeing on the final language. This statement will appear in the voters’ pamphlet which is mailed to voters before the election. [ Click here for more information and to read the statement. ]
IP 13, SECTION 2
By: Steve Doell, President, Crime Victims United
The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens from harm. When, according to the National Institute for Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately one in six American women will be a victim of a sexual assault in their lifetime,[1] government is clearly not doing enough to protect against the harm of sexual violence. According to the American Journal of Public Health every year, an estimated 300,000 women are raped and 3.7 million are confronted with unwanted sexual activity.[2] Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[3] Oregon in particular can do more to protect Oregonians from sexual predators. In 2008 there were 1,156 reported rapes in Oregon. That number is significantly higher than states with comparable populations such as Utah, Iowa, and Connecticut. [ Read More ]
A Former Prosecutor’s Perspective on THE TRUE COSTS OF VICTIMIZATION
By Janine Robben, Director of Oregon Crime Victims Law Center
Recently, I read an article that referred to the “horror of crime.”
The phrase gave me pause, even though I was a prosecutor for more than 20 years and tried many horrific cases.
That’s because as a prosecutor, I was focused on the provability and usefulness of facts, not on their nature.
I vividly remember one weekend when I went to my office in the Clackamas District Attorney’s Office, down a long, dimly lit corridor and then into the basement portion of the courthouse’s daylight basement.
The building was deserted.
When I got to my office, there was an unfamiliar file on my desk. I opened it, and the account of the crimes that it contained – two serial killers’ attack on a family at night in their own home – was so horrific that I literally backed out of my office, hurried down that dimly lit corridor and left the building. But on Monday, when I learned that the file was on my desk because it had been assigned to me, my analytical lawyer’s brain saw the facts in a completely different light. [ Read More ]
