Oregon's Measure 11 Sentencing Reform Implementation and System Impact
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION Jump down to document ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING organization providing objective analysis and effective PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Public Safety and Justice View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discus- sions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research profes- sionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Oregon's Measure 11 Sentencing Reform Implementation and System Impact Nancy Merritt, Terry Fain, Susan Turner Prepared for the National Institute of Justice The research described in this report was conducted by RAND's Public Safety and Justice for the National Institute of Justice, under grant 98-CE-VX-0030. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Merritt, Nancy. Oregon’s Measure 11 sentencing reform : implementation and system impact / Nancy Merritt, Terry Fain, Susan Turner. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. “TR-142.” ISBN 0-8330-3578-9 (pbk.) 1. Mandatory sentences—Oregon—History. 2. Sentences (Criminal procedure)—Oregon—History. I. Title: Oregon’s Measure Eleven sentencing reform. II. Fain, Terry. III. Turner, Susan, 1954– IV. Title. KF02983.2.M47 2004 345.795'0772—dc22 2004003117 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2004 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2004 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] iii Preface In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, a measure that imposed long mandatory prison terms for 16 designated violent and sex-related offenses, prohibited “earned time,” and provided for mandatory waiver of youthful offenders to adult court. This measure stood in sharp contrast to sentencing practices at the time, overlaying the state’s existing sentencing guidelines system for selected offenses, increasing the length of prison terms imposed, and reducing judicial discretion at the sentencing phase. Proponents of the measure felt that it would improve public safety by both deterring future criminal behavior and increasing the length of time that serious felons spend in prison. Opponents, on the other hand, believed that the measure would adversely affect criminal justice system operations and reduce system integrity. In 1998, the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (OCJC) received funding from the National Institute of Justice to study the implementation and outcomes of Measure 11 across the state as a whole, and within three counties: Multnomah, Lane, and Marion. This study, conducted by the RAND Corporation under subcontract to the OCJC, draws upon a number of state level databases and interviews with state and county stakeholders to answer key questions about how the measure was developed, its relationship to the existing sentencing practices in the state, impacts on the types of sentences imposed, admissions to prison, and sentence lengths imposed, as well as how sentencing practices changed for both adults and youths. Our original proposal included an analysis of prosecutorial decisions. Though extensive efforts were made to obtain county prosecutor data during the study time frame, these data were not available. Further, preliminary analyses showed the statewide Oregon Judicial Information Network (OJIN) data to be unsuitable for this type of analysis. This research should be of interest to researchers and practitioners who are involved in sentencing reforms. This report is one in a series of RAND studies on the impact of truth-in-sentencing and other “get-tough” policies on state and local corrections. Other reports for interested readers include: Susan Turner, Terry Fain, Peter W. Greenwood, Elsa Chen, and James Chiesa, with Stella Bart, Judith Greene, Daniel Krislov, Eric Larson, Nancy Merritt, and Albert Hyun Yoon (2001), National Evaluation of the Violent Offender iv Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant Program, DRU-2634-NIJ, Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. Susan Turner, Peter Greenwood, Elsa Chen, and Terry Fain (1999), “The Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing and Three-Strikes Legislation: Prison Populations, State Budgets, and Crime Rates,” Stanford Law and Policy Review, Volume 11:1. Joan Petersilia, Susan Turner, and Terry Fain (1999), Profiling Inmates in Los Angeles County Jail: Risks, Recidivism, and Release Options, DRU-2394-NIJ, Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. Nancy Merritt, Susan Turner, Peter Greenwood, and Terry Fain (1999), Implementation and Impact of Violent Offender and Truth-in-Sentencing Legislation: How Counties Respond to the Challenge, DRR-2110-NIJ, Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. Susan Turner, Laura J. Hickman, Judith Greene, and Terry Fain (2001), Changing Prison Management Strategies in Response to VOI/TIS Legislation, DRU-2721-NIJ, Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. The research described in this report was conducted by RAND’s Public Safety and Justice Program and supported by grant #98-CE-VX-0030 from the National Institute of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. v Contents Preface .....................................................................................................................iii Figures ..................................................................................................................... ix Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi Summary................................................................................................................xiii Background...................................................................................................xiii Findings.......................................................................................................... xv Concluding Remarks .................................................................................... xx Acknowledgments................................................................................................ xxi 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................1 2. Evolution of Sentencing Reform ....................................................................5 Indeterminate Sentencing ...............................................................................5 Structured Sentencing......................................................................................5 “Get-Tough” Sentencing .................................................................................7 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing..................................................................8 Effectiveness of Mandatory Minimums.....................................................8 Effect on Balance of Courtroom Power....................................................12 Importance of Prosecutorial Discretion ...................................................13 Expected Impacts ...........................................................................................14 3. History of Criminal Sentencing in Oregon .................................................15 Parole Guidelines ...........................................................................................15 Sentencing Guidelines ...................................................................................16