Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.4 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, which 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. 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, while opponents believed that it would adversely affect criminal justice system operations and reduce system integrity.

This report presents the findings of a study of the implementation and outcomes of Measure 11 across the state as a whole and within three counties, undertaken at the request of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. It draws upon 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; and changes in sentencing practices for both adults and youths.

The analyses presented show trends in crime and its prosecution in Oregon before and after implementation of Measure 11. The measure has increased the length of prison sentences for offenders convicted of serious crimes, but fewer offenders have been sentenced for these crimes. This shift may have resulted from the use of prosecutorial discretion and the downgrading of cases deemed inappropriate for the mandatory minimum penalties. Some of the changes in sentencing and case processing practices were planned system changes, but others were unplanned and are not fully understood. The report concludes with suggestions for further research that can provide more-definitive answers to the questions posed.

The research described in this report was conducted by RAND’s Public Safety and Justice for the National Institute of Justice.

This report is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.