Oregon measure

Introduction In 1994, voters of surgery courseed footmark 11,which forced long compulsory prison house basis for 16 designated cherry-red and perk up-related offenses, prohibited earned time,1 and provided for mandatory spillage of spring chickenful offenders to bountiful court. This beak stood in sharp contrast to sentencing practices at that time, overlaying the differentiates existing sentencing guidelines scheme for selected offenses, increasing the length of prison terms imposed, and reducing judicial discreetness at the sentencing phase.The main altercate facing e preciseone is Should monetary standard11 be repealed. YesClaims For Removal Of Measure 11According to studies downstairs pointn, if circular 11 were repealed, operating room would save over $612 cardinal in the next 10 years. The savings on new prison structure alone would be $153.6 million dollars between 2000 and 2010. For some villainys that are property worth degenerateing, scarcely for st ealing two tires, or stealing a petty amount, and bus pass or fighting, that is wasting our tax dollars that should be going to schools/ rearing, instead of prisons. needed negligible sentencing means one has to serve every hour of every twenty- four-spot hours of ones sentence no matter what. No corking time, no archean release, no boot camp. As high as 67% people, under Measure 11 Are First Time Offenders and 35% are under 21 years of age.Instead of warehousing people and spending money on more prisons, we should be investing in prevention programs, and formula for a substitute to sentencing plans that take a leak been proven to be far more successful with far less(prenominal) cost.In the present form, Measure 11 sentences bruise any lesser existing guideline sentences for 21 violent and sex offenses the original 16, plus 5 more added later. Sentences range from 70 months for second-degree assault, kidnapping, robbery, and trusted sex offenses, to 300 months for murder. Penalties may non be reduced because of the offender s prior record regardless of whether an offender has a roughshod record, or the length of such record, minimum sentences are the identical for solely offenders.Thus, some penalties are actually higher under sentencing guidelines in instances where an offender has an extensive criminal record. In general, however, Measure 11 penalties are longstanding than those imposed under sentencing guidelines. Juveniles aged 15 years or sometime(a) are to a fault subject to the measure. Many people believe that the measure would negatively affect criminal justice scheme operations, and reduce system integrity. In terms of system operation, opponents expected the measure to lead to an add in jury trials and prison populations, overburdening twain the courts and the correctional system. At the same time, they expected an increase in jail sentences.People opposing this feel that Measure 11 trials are an undesirable risk, because mandato ry sentences eliminate any chance of judicial caution in sentencing. Rep. Bowman believes that a judge should have some liberty, in setting the sentence for the person found guilty, later investigating all the facts in the case and the background of the defendant. Many of them depend that lates deserve some consideration from the judge. Judges feel that Measure 11 is too harsh in some cases. Some Assault II and Robbery II charges are uncertain, and sex offenses are serious because of life sentence registry requirements, but judges have no choice but to impose the obligatory sentences.Judge Sullivan remarks opponents concerns roughly lengthy sentences for juveniles. There are very few services provided to those in the adult system. With no possibility of archean release, juveniles have no incentives to re-establish themselves. Defense attorney Wehmeyer also mentions that prisoners cannot earn good time for earlier release and have no enthusiasm to behave. capital of Mississipp i County officials are concerned that Measure 11 focuses on punishment instead of rehabilitation. Rep. Bowman believes that funds would be bettered spent on treatment and therapy than on mandatory prison terms.Rep. Bowman is concerned that Measure 11 discriminates against racial minorities and the poor, who cannot afford high-priced lawyers. She points to statistics that show that although African-Americans comprise completely 2 share of the states juvenile population, they are 16 percent of the juveniles destiny time under Measure 11. Multnomah Countys Juvenile Crime Trends narrative of March 1999 confirms that despite being approximately 10% of the total youth population (10-17 yrs.). In Multnomah County, African-Americans are over-represented in the juvenile justice system at 21% to 23% of the offender population.Opponents point out that juvenile curse had been decreasing both nationally and in Oregon in front Measure 11 was implemented. They believe that the measure was ha rsh and inflexible, and that it discriminated against racial minorities and the poor.Counter ArgumentProponents of the measure believed that these enhanced penalties would improve public arctic by deterring future criminal behavior and increasing the length of time that felons who commit serious crimes spend in prison.District attorney Hehn believes that the certainty of mandatory prison terms is a real deterrent to criminal behavior by juveniles. She feels that juveniles did not take the previous juvenile justice system seriously. District attorney Heiser also feels that Measure 11 has been a restriction for younger teens and a reflectance that the public was fed up with coddling teenagers.Measure 11 did have an touch on the crime rates in Oregon. Crime rates, particularly for violent crime, declined in Oregon after 1995. According to various surveys the findings are lucid with the possibility that Measure 11 may have been at least partly responsible for this decline, such find ings do not provide come about evidence of a causal link. An examination of otherfactors, different opinions, and further surveys, would ask to be made before definite conclusions can be drawn.The only things unforeseen about Measure 11 are, that the drop in crime has been far great than expected and the cost has been far less than predicted. As per studies, Oregons violent crime rate dropped 41 percent from 1995 to 2001 while the modus operandi of extra prison beds required by Measure 11 was less than half the original estimate.ConclusionMeasure 11 has been in effect for only four years. It is difficult to determine its total, long-term effects on public safety and justice in Oregon. It remains a highly charged and steamy issue.The result of various studies indicate that passage of Measure 11 has adapted sentencing and case processing practices for those charged with serious person offenses in the state of Oregon. While some of these were planned system changes, others were un planned and are not in effect(p)y understood. The measure can be considered a success in that it has accomplished its intended goal of increasing the length of prison sentences for offenders convicted of Measure11- entitled offenses. However, since passage of the measure, fewer offenders have been sentenced for the Measure 11 offenses, and a greater proportion have been sentenced for Measure11-alternate offenses.Analyses suggest that this move resulted from the use of prosecutorial caution and the lessening of cases which, though technically Measure11-eligible, were not deemed appropriate for the associated mandatory minimum penalty. Although the selective use of Measure 11, along with Oregon s prison construction program and reduced crime rates, has enabled the state to avoid the negative consequences of prison overcrowding, the process by which cases are being chosen for either full or partial prosecution is unclear. Prosecutors who were interviewed were confident in their abil ity to slang the measure properly however, it is not clear what criteria were used in fashioning their decisions, or whether these criteria were constantly and equitablyapplied. Further research should address how discretion is exercised and charging decisions made under Measure 11.Oregon s Measure 11 introduced overvaliant changes into the sentencing structure of the state. Surveys addressed the execution and impact of the measure on prosecution, sentencing, and convictions, both statewide and in three other counties also. As with many form _or_ system of government changes, some of the observed consequences were expected, others were not. Further research and experience with the measure lead provide more definitive answers to the questions raised.There are many things said about Measure 11. This measure has its share of pros and cons. Whatever be it, offenders above 15 should be given a fair chance for rehabilitation, proper education and good facilities. The offenders should have separate premises and not be clubbed with the adult offenders. The introduction of the Measure 11 is mainly to reduce the rate of crime in teenagers, and it should focus on that aspect only.Hence it is very necessary that Measure 11 should live up to its standards and abide by the rules and regulations of the law.Works CitedOregon Mandatory Min Sentencing Law Measure 11 Oregon Department of corrections Statistics, 6 December 2006. http//www.angelfire.com/ms/oregonmeasure11/.Bob, Dee Dee Kouns, Crime Victims United, 6 December 2006http//www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/rebuttal.htm.League of Women Voters of Oregon Education Fund, 6 December 2006,