Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:55 am
Time: 1:55 am
Results for sentencing (oregon)
3 results foundAuthor: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Longitudinal Study of the Application of Measure 11 and Mandatory Minimums in Oregon Summary: Nationally, very few studies have examined how mandatory minimum sentencing laws have been applied from indictment through conviction. Even fewer studies have looked specifically at how Oregon’s Measure 11 (M11) changed the disposition of cases. Prior Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) research studied how mandatory minimum sentences have been imposed after conviction, but no data has been available to track the impacts of M11 on affected-cases from indictment through conviction, until recently. Previous CJC research has examined crime rates, criminal justice spending and incarceration rates. The purpose of this report is to analyze M11 and how it has been applied over the past 15 years. This analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the differences between Oregon counties, crime types and other factors in the dispositions of M11 indicted cases. The report also attempts to quantify the discretion used in M11 application, and how discretion has changed hands over time. The analyses of these dynamics show that M11 did not eliminate tough individual sentencing choices, rather it continued the transfer of discretion from judges to prosecutors which started when Sentencing Guidelines were passed by the legislature and went into effect on November 1, 1989. M11 went into effect in 1995 and required mandatory minimum sentences that were longer than Guideline sentences and furthered the power and discretion of prosecutors to control sentences through charging practices and plea bargaining process. This sentencing discretion is now controlled, to a large degree, by how the various prosecutors in the state choose to apply M11. This discretion “flip” by Sentencing Guidelines and M11 has had a substantial impact on sentencing in Oregon. Details: Salem, OR: Criminal Justice Commission, 2011. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 16, 2011 at: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 122405 Keywords: Prison SentencesSentencing (Oregon) |
Author: Oregon. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission Title: Measure 57 Implementation and Impact Summary: In a 1996 special session, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3488 (HB 3488) and created the Repeat Property Offender law (ORS 137.717). The law was created by a workgroup that flowed out of the Community Corrections Task Force that created the Community Corrections Act and resultant grants with Senate Bill 1145 in 1995. The context of the Repeat Property Offender (RPO) law’s passage was that the legislature had just passed SB 1145, creating a system where offenders sentenced to a prison term of 12 months or less served the sentence in local jails rather than a state correctional institution. HB 3488 created sentences of 13 months for certain property offenders with the intent that these offenders would serve their time in state prison, and take pressure off Oregon’s jail system. The legislative fiscal office estimated the measure would require the state to operate 769 more prison beds by 2001. ORS 137.717 has been substantially amended by several subsequent legislatures, and it is this statute that was amended in 2008 by Measure 57. The RPO law was passed at a time when Oregon’s property crime rate was consistently one of the highest in the nation. Throughout the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, Oregon continued to have one of the highest property crime rates in the country. Oregon’s property crime rate began dropping precipitously in 2005. From 2005 to 2010 Oregon experienced the largest property crime rate drop of any state. Measure 61 was filed in August 2006 at a time when the most recent reports on property crime rates in Oregon and the United States published by the FBI was the 2004 crime data. Measure 61 would have created mandatory minimum prison sentences for various property crimes and manufacturing or delivery of a controlled substance. This measure was expected to add thousands of prison beds and did not provide any funding for drug or alcohol treatment. As a response to Measure 61 the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1087 in the February 2008 session which was referred to the voters as Measure 57 (M57) in the November 2008 general election. Details: Oregon: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2011. 4p. Source: 2011 Briefing Paper: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_57b.pdf?ga=t Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_57b.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 124417 Keywords: Property Crime (Oregon)Recidivism (Oregon)Repeat Offenders (Oregon)Sentencing (Oregon) |
Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Commission of Public Safety Report to the Governor, December 30, 2011 Summary: On July 15, 2011 Governor Kitzhaber, by executive order (EO11-06), created the Commission on Public Safety to focus Oregon’s longterm planning efforts on sentencing and public safety as envisioned by the Reset Cabinet. Planning for the future was the purpose Governor Kitzhaber set for the Commission on Public Safety in his executive order: “In the 2011-13 biennium, Oregon faces a multibillion dollar deficit and substantial general fund cuts. In the midst of this economic crisis, we must take a strategic look at our sentencing policies. With limited dollars, we must ensure the public’s safety by making smart investments across our adult and juvenile justice system, including law enforcement, courts, local jails, state prisons, community corrections and other critical public safety partners.” The Governor asked the Commission to develop specific concepts on comprehensive public safety policy for consideration by the public and policy makers, informed by the recommendations of the Reset Cabinet. The charge asked the Commission to focus on four outcomes: The safety of our citizens in their homes and communities; Accountability for criminal offenses; An efficient system that controls costs; and A system that is smart and fair. The Governor made the Commission small and bipartisan. He directed that it consist of leaders from all three branches of government and the public. He gave the Commission a short, five-month time frame in which to work, to make clear the Commission’s purpose was to recommend the path for a broader discussion with all stakeholders before the 2013 legislative session. This report outlines the work of the Commission, identifies key findings, recommends future work, and establishes the principles to guide that work. Details: Salem, OR: Criminal Justice Commission, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2012 at http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/CPS_report_to_Governor_12_30_11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/CPS_report_to_Governor_12_30_11.pdf Shelf Number: 124965 Keywords: Criminal Justice Administration (Oregon)Criminal Justice Reform (Oregon)Public Safety (Oregon)Sentencing (Oregon) |