This is not political, this is about SQ 805 and not a candidate of either party. I’ve been asked about this frequently because of my career path.

Right now when a person commits a felony offense, after having previously committed a felony offense, they can receive additional time (an enhancement of their sentence) because it isn’t their first time to be convicted of a felony. In other words, they are a repeat offender.

The repeat offender enhancement is a court’s recognition that although someone has already committed one or more felonies they are still continuing to commit more felonies. Passing SQ 805 would remove the courts ability to recognize and consider the “nonviolent” repeat offender as being a repeat offender.

Voting yes on SQ 805 would prevent a district attorney or court from even considering past history and prior offenses for repeat offenders. That means a five time “nonviolent” felony offender would be treated just the same as a first time offender. So the guy that breaks into your house when you’re not home and steals all your stuff, repeatedly, is always effectively committing his “first offense.”

What the proponents of 805 don’t say is that in many cases, if not most cases, the felony conviction that appears on a record is generally not a first offense.

The first “non violent” offense is often deferred. The second offense is often adjudicated in some manner other than a felony conviction through alternative sentencing programs.

In some cases, for “nonviolent” offenders they may have 3, 4, 5 or more felonies that didn’t count towards their journey to prison before they finally got recognized, and treated, as a repeat offender because nothing else was working.

The words above are not my opinion, they are simply the facts about how our system currently operates based on my experience over three decades dealing with offenders.

Rather than my thoughts on SQ 805 let me tell about one of my cases from around 1994 and then you draw your own conclusion on whether or not we need to be more lenient in dealing with offenders.

In 1994 a young man was walking down the side of a highway in Pontotoc County when he was struck and killed by a drunk driver. The driver did not stop and the young man laid in a ditch for several days until his partially decomposed body was found.

It was the driver’s 4^th or 5^th DUI. DUI is a “non-violent” crime. The driver was charged with 2^nd degree murder (death while in the commission of a felony). We went to trial and, with his statements and the physical evidence found at the scene, he was convicted of 2^nd degree murder.

At sentencing the jury recommended a 16 year sentence and the court agreed. On August 18, 1994 he was delivered to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) to begin serving his 16 year sentence. On January 21, 2001 he was released from the ODOC.

He served 6 years and 5 months of the 16 year sentence. That equates to about 40% of the actual sentence handed down.

After his release he was once again arrested on another felony and received a 5 year sentence. He was delivered to ODOC on June 3, 2011 and released on December 5, 2012.

He had served 1 year and 6 months of that 5 year sentence. That equates to about 30% of the sentence handed down.

In total, since running over that kid and killing him, he has received sentences totaling 21 years and was released after serving just under 8 years, total.

SQ 805 is going to make sentencing, and by its nature the amount of time served, even more lenient than it already is today. SQ 805 takes away sentencing options for repeat offenders including someone who is a repeat DUI offender.

It is worth noting that the sentencing enhancement right now is an option, it is not mandatory. It’s an option that can be implemented or NOT implemented based on the offenders history, current offense, and on-going likelihood of offending again.

If you believe that removing a courts ability to consider past criminal convictions, and that a person with 5 (or more) previous felony convictions should always be treated like it is their first, then vote yes on SQ 805.

If you believe serving 6-1/2 years for running over and killing a kid while drunk, for the 4^th or 5^th time, then vote yes on SQ 805 and let’s make it even more lenient.

If you believe that serving 37% of what the court sentenced a person to is sufficient then vote yes on SQ 805 and let’s make it even less time.

Proponents of SQ 805 cite how much money it will save taxpayers making the assumption that letting a repeat offender off easier will mean they won’t reoffend again. I’m not sure I follow that logic.

Eliminating a ‘repeat offender’ enhancement does NOT eliminate repeat offenders, it just means we are going to ignore the fact that they are repeat offenders.

We can have a whole other conversation about the escalation of offenses by repeat offenders. We can also have a whole other conversation about how quickly a “non violent” crime can turn into a violent crime.

For me, in this case, I wish we would have done something with the drunk driver on his 3^rd or 4^th DUI (“non-violent felonies”).

Or that Texas had done something with him for his two robbery convictions in 1987.

Or that another Oklahoma court had done something with him for his weapons conviction in 1991.

But we didn’t and, in 1994, he ended up killing a kid during the commission of his “nonviolent” crime of driving drunk for the 4^th or 5^th time.

Perhaps if we treated him as the repeat (habitual) offender that he was, a family would not have had to bury their child.

But we didn’t and SQ 805 lays the foundation for making sure we repeatedly make that mistake when dealing with offenders who choose to repeatedly commit felony crimes.