Oregon Ballot Measure 72 (1999)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Oregon Ballot Measure 72 (1999) or House Joint Resolution (HJR) 92 is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that would provide that a person can be convicted of murder if 11 members of a 12-person jury vote to convict.

In 1999, the Oregon Constitution required that all 12 members of a 12-person jury vote to convict in order to convict a person of murder. The change made by this measure would not apply to those murder cases for which the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release is a possible sentence. Those types of murder, called aggravated murder, would still require a unanimous verdict of a 12-person jury. This measure would not change the current constitutional provision for other crimes, which allows a 10 to 2 verdict for conviction or acquittal.[1]

Official Ballot Title

HJR 92 - Amends Constitution: Allows Murder Conviction By 11 to 1 Jury Verdict[2]

Results

This measure failed at the November 1999 Special Election.

Support

[3] Many supporters of the measure were crime victims who knew first-hand how one juror can subvert justice. Steve Doell of Crime Victims United recalled when his young daughter was struck by a car and killed while walking down the street. The driver fled the scene but was later caught, where he admitted that he struck the girl on purpose. The driver was brought to trial.

"Luckily [for the accused]" says Doell, "one of the jurors refused to vote for murder because her son had been involved in a traffic accident involving a child. To their disgust, the other jurors were forced to settle for a lesser crime of second-degree manslaughter in order to avoid the case ending in a hung jury. As a result, Whitaker served only 28 months in prison!"

Others supported the measure for similar reasons, also pointing out that in a death penalty case, a unanimous vote would still be required.

Opposition

[4] The opposition takes the other side, arguing that innocent people could be put in jail due to that "one" juror's opinion being thrown out.

Attorney Elden Rosenthal has experienced several cases where clients were convicted, only to be released later when new evidence was found to clear them. Rosenthal said Measure 72, "would significantly weaken those procedures and requirements, and would allow mistakes to happen more often, would allow more innocent people to be convicted".

Much of the opposition pointed out that people can and have been wrongfully accused, and the system should make it as difficult as possible to convict an innocent person.

References

  1. ↑ Explanatory Statement of Measure 72 from the State Voting Guide
  2. ↑ Detailed information about this measure from the Secretary of State
  3. ↑ Arguments in Favor
  4. ↑ Arguments in Opposition

See also

Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_72_(1999)"
Personal tools