The final days of Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt’s term are marked by controversy as he seeks to reduce the sentences of eight violent criminals, a move his successor has labeled a “last-minute giveaway.” Among the beneficiaries of this potential leniency are individuals convicted of murder, assault, and other serious offenses. This decision has sparked outrage among some victims and their families, who argue that these criminals deserve to serve their full sentences and that reducing their punishments minimizes the severity of their crimes and the lasting impact on their victims. The debate highlights the complex interplay between justice, rehabilitation, and the political pressures inherent in the criminal justice system.
One of the most contentious cases involves Frank Swopes Jr., convicted of felony murder for the death of a 75-year-old woman during a 1993 home invasion. Just a week later, Swopes Jr. committed another violent crime, terrorizing and sexually assaulting a 76-year-old woman. Despite serving 32 years of a 35-year sentence, Schmidt’s petition seeks to reconsider his sentence, potentially leading to his release. This move has been met with strong resistance, particularly given the brutality of Swopes’ crimes and the short time remaining on his original sentence. The potential for his early release raises serious concerns about public safety and the message it sends to victims of violent crime.
Another case fueling the controversy revolves around Shane Ebberts, who pleaded guilty to first-degree and second-degree assault for a brutal attack on two college students in 1995. Ebberts, who has already completed his 7.5-year sentence, is now the subject of a petition by Schmidt’s office to withdraw his original guilty pleas and enter a new plea to a lesser charge. This would allow Ebberts to have the crime expunged from his record, a move that one of his victims, Evan Gardner, strongly opposes. Gardner argues that the attack inflicted irreparable harm and that reducing Ebberts’ conviction diminishes the gravity of the crime. The case highlights the tension between allowing individuals to move on from past mistakes and acknowledging the lasting impact of violent acts on victims.
The petition also notes the strong opposition of David Clarke, Gardner’s friend and the other victim of Ebberts’ attack. Clarke, who survived a skull fracture and was placed in a medically induced coma, considers Ebberts a danger to society and opposes any reduction in his sentence. The trauma Clarke experienced continues to affect him, and the prospect of Ebberts’ record being expunged further compounds his suffering. This underscores the importance of considering victims’ perspectives in sentencing decisions and the potential for re-traumatization when their experiences are not fully acknowledged.
Adding further complexity to the situation, Schmidt’s actions are occurring just days before his successor, Nathan Vasquez, takes office. Vasquez, a Republican-turned-independent who ran on a tough-on-crime platform, has criticized Schmidt’s decision, characterizing it as a politically motivated attempt to release dangerous individuals. This transition of power adds a political dimension to the debate, raising questions about the timing of Schmidt’s actions and whether they are consistent with the will of the voters who elected Vasquez on a platform that prioritized public safety. The controversy underscores the significant influence elected officials have on the criminal justice system and the potential for their decisions to be shaped by political considerations.
Schmidt, however, defends his actions, stating that the petitions are in line with his office’s commitment to seeking justice beyond mere convictions. He claims that each case has undergone a thorough review process, including input from a community advisory board, and that this work represents the ongoing efforts of his administration throughout his term. He emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation and second chances, suggesting that these individuals deserve the opportunity to reintegrate into society. This defense encapsulates a broader philosophical debate about the goals of the criminal justice system – whether it should primarily focus on punishment or offer avenues for redemption and rehabilitation. The differing perspectives on this issue highlight the complex ethical and societal considerations involved in sentencing decisions.
