Victims left out of early-release program

Opinion: State more concerned with suits from convicts than safety of vulnerable citizens

. The Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, where convicted sex offender Joaquin Cowart was being held, is one of 14 state prisons in Oregon.

Oregonians deserve to know of the gross incompetence of some elements of our government. It’s not a question of whether your politics are left, right or center. Everyone should be able to agree we want competence and transparency in government.

A current example of where we are not getting that is in a decision by the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) to grant early release for hundreds of violent offenders based on an incompetent interpretation of a state court decision.

I belong to a nonpartisan organization, the Oregon Criminal Justice Truth Project, that is representing a victim of sexual abuse in trying to get DOC to stop its unlawful actions in releasing convicted criminals including the one that victimized her. Quoting from a letter our attorney sent to DOC Director Mike Reese on Oct. 24:

“My clients recently learned that the Department of Corrections unlawfully released (Joaquin) Cowart (her abuser) earlier this year on Sept. 15, nearly four years prior to his projected release date of Sept. 11, 2029. This intentional, but legally unlawful, release occurred with no prior notice to my client as required by Oregon law or to the Jackson County District Attorney’s Office. Perhaps even more telling there was no prior consultation with the judge who sentenced him or the lawyer in the Department of Justice who handled the case [DOC is basing its decision on] and who would of course be the best placed fellow state official you could have turned to ascertain its meaning.

This unlawful release is apparently due to DOC’s recently adopted, incorrect and extraordinary application of presentence incarceration credit in cases involving consecutive sentences. Remarkably, DOC interpreted the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. (Abraham) Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion [to require repeated credit for the same pretrial time served in each count of a consecutive sentence].

In this individual case, your decision to unlawfully release Cowart significantly imperils the safety of the community and violates the rights of Ms. ******. In assessing her damages for your actions, a court will no doubt consider the shocking development that she unexpectedly encountered Cowart earlier this week. Although she does not believe he saw her, this was a searing and traumatic experience for her.

Unfortunately, this case is only the tip of the iceberg, similar unlawful releases have occurred or are imminent in as many as 350 additional cases or more...”

I quote at such length because this situation is a telling example of the failure of our government to act competently and without transparency.

I also want to mention a few aggravating factors:

1. Providing misleading information: DOC’s representatives spoke on the topic of Torres-Lopez at the summer conference of the Oregon District Attorneys Association. The statements given by DOC there as to the effect of the case were in stark contrast to the policy DOC ultimately adopted. Indeed, they appropriately indicated the effect of the case would be minor;

2. Failure to notify: DOC failed to notify district attorneys, crime victims or any element of law enforcement when it reached its decision;

3. Failure to respond: DOC Director Reese failed to respond to letter by Jackson County District Attorney Patrick Green outlining why its policy decision was in error;

4. Failure to protect the public and victims: DOC’s primary concern appears to be not crime victims or the safety of the public, but the fact that DOC fears it may face litigation from inmates in its custody. This is bureaucratic self-protection run amok at the expense of the public and victims. DOC has taken no steps to protect the public or crime victims from the criminals it has already released;

5. Disproportionate implementation: DOC has demanded that district attorneys set hundreds of hearings around the state—with attorneys being appointed, inmates being transported and victims being notified—to stave off release of dangerous criminals. Yet, it has simply accepted the representation of district attorneys in some cases that the repeated credit for the same pretrial time was not intended. Does one DOC hand not know what the other is doing?

I hope readers demand better of their government by notifying Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Gov. Tina Kotek that they disapprove of DOC’s decision and asking them to overturn it.

Norm Frink is a former Multnomah County prosecutor who tried felony cases from 1977 until his recent retirement.