Yes on Measure 61, no on Measure 57

When it comes to dealing with people who sell meth, heroin, cocaine or ecstasy, what we care about most is making sure those people can’t continue to commit crimes.

Same with people who break into houses to steal someone’s possessions.

Or their actual identity.

Merely hoping that such people will forego the criminal life is a nice sentiment, and a worthwhile goal to pursue.

But hoping isn’t a sure enough solution for us.

That’s why we urge Oregonians to vote yes on Measure 61, and no on Measure 57.

Those are the two anti-crime measures competing for votes in the Nov. 4 election.

If both measures receive a majority of yes votes, then the one that gets the most yes votes becomes law.

We prefer Measure 61 because it, unlike Measure 57, mandates that criminals go to prison for many offenses which, under current law, usually result in probation.

In 2007, for instance, 69 percent of people convicted for felony drug dealing in Oregon were sentenced to probation rather than prison.

The figure for identity theft was 62 percent, for residential burglary 53 percent, and for burglary of a business 70 percent.

If voters approve Measure 61, then almost everyone convicted of those crimes would go to prison.

Measures 61 requires a minimum sentence of 36 months for making or selling heroin or ecstasy, making or selling meth or cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school or selling meth or cocaine to a minor.

The minimum sentence is 30 months for people convicted of making or selling meth or cocaine in any other circumstance.

The minimum prison term for identity theft or first-degree burglary is 36 months.

As for Measure 57, there’s much about it that we like. But its fatal flaw is that it lacks the mandatory minimum sentences that Measure 61 requires.

Measure 57 would increase the maximum sentences for many drug crimes — for example, from 45 months to 130 months for making or selling 500 or more grams of meth or cocaine, or making or selling 100 grams or more of heroin or ecstasy.

Measure 57’s most valuable provision, though, is its requirement that certain criminals undergo treatment for drug or alcohol addiction.

Proponents of Measure 57 point out that 85 percent of people who are incarcerated in an Oregon prison for committing property crimes are or were addicts, but that just 12 percent of them get “intensive drug or alcohol treatment,” according to a Joint Legislative Committee.

We agree with Measure 57 supporters that helping criminals overcome their addictions will make them much less likely to commit crimes in the future.

We wish Measure 61 included a treatment requirement.

But given the choice between requiring drug dealers, burglars and identity thieves to undergo treatment, and requiring them to go the prison — which is essentially the choice voters have with Measures 57 and 61 — we’ll take the prison sentence.

Convicted criminals can commit more crimes while they’re in treatment.

Criminals who are in prison can’t — unless they’re nimble enough to quickly scale a fence topped with razor wire.

Measure 57 proponents also tout its lower estimated cost to taxpayers compared with Measure 61.

Officials project that Measure 61 would require the state to borrow $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion to build new prisons between 2010 and 2017. Interest payments would total $709 million to $844 million over 25 years.

The comparable figures for Measure 57 are borrowing $314 million for new prisons, with interest payments of $203 million.

Although those estimates are hardly definitive — the state exaggerated by about 50 percent the cost of complying with 1994’s Measure 11, which requires mandatory prison sentences for several violent crimes — there’s no doubt that Measure 61 carries a bigger bill than Measure 57.

But we believe that the government’s most important job is to protect citizens, and as taxpayers we believe that job is the highest use of our dollars.

Measure 61, though not ideal, offers more protection to Oregonians than Measure 57 does.

And protection is not something that should have a price tag.