Oregon Mandatory Sentencing for Felonies, Ballot Measure 11 (1994)
See article talk page for discussion.
Measure 11 was a citizens' initiative passed in 1994 in the U.S. State of Oregon. This statutory enactment established mandatory minimum sentencing for several crimes. The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election with 788,695 votes in favor, and 412,816 votes against.
In 2011, the Partnership for Safety and Justice and the Campaign for Youth Justice released a report that indicated that following Measure 11 African Americans account for an estimated 19 percent of indictments, although they represent only 4 percent of the state's youth. According to the report, a fourth of the 19 percent of indictments were convicted. However, 61 percent generally take plea deals but result in adult convictions. Additionally, the report argues that Measure 11 has "done nothing to reduce the juvenile crime rate and forces young people into adult jails."
Critics of the 2011 report, however, call it an opinion report. Oregon Distract Attorneys Association responded with a written response supported by the Marion, Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington and Wasco county district attorneys. The response noted that crime rates dropped 51 percent between 1995 and 2009.
- Mandatory Sentences for Listed Felonies; Covers Persons 15 and Up
The sentencing judge cannot give a lesser sentence than that prescribed by Measure 11, nor can a prisoner's sentence be reduced below the minimum for parole or good behavior.
The measure applies to all defendants over the age of 15, requiring juveniles over 15 charged with these crimes to be tried as adults.
The measure was placed on the ballot via initiative petition by Crime Victims United, a tough-on-crime political group. Then-State Representative Kevin Mannix, who sponsored the measure, has since argued that violent criminals cannot be reformed through probation or short prison sentences, and that the time they are kept incarcerated is itself a benefit to society.
|1st degree Manslaughter||10 years|
|2nd degree Manslaughter||6 years, 3 months|
|1st degree Assault||7 years, 6 months|
|2nd degree Assault||5 years, 10 months|
|1st degree Kidnapping||7 years, 6 months|
|2nd degree Kidnapping||5 years, 10 months|
|1st degree Rape||8 years, 4 months|
|2nd degree Rape||6 years, 3 months|
|1st degree Sodomy||8 years, 4 months|
|2nd degree Sodomy||6 years, 3 months|
|1st degree Unlawful sexual penetration||8 years, 4 months|
|2nd degree Unlawful sexual penetration||6 years, 3 months|
|1st degree Sexual abuse||6 years, 3 months|
|1st degree Robbery||7 years, 6 months|
|2nd degree Robbery||5 years, 10 months|
Proponents of Measure 11 argued that judges had been too lenient in sentencing violent offenders. They saw the measure as critical for lowering crime rates.
Opponents of Measure 11 argued that judges should be allowed discretion in sentencing and should be able to account for the particular circumstances of a given crime. They also objected to the requirement that many teenage defendants be tried as adults.
Oregon's prison population increased after Measure 11, and as of 2004, 41% of the growth was attributed to the direct or indirect impact of Measure 11. Crime rates in Oregon decreased between 1994 and 2000, but increased in 2001; opponents of Measure 11 noted that the trend mirrored national trends, while acknowledging that some likely re-offenders were imprisoned as a result of the law.
Background and context
Prior to 1989, Oregon judges would decide whether a convicted felon should be put on probation or sent to prison, and for those sent to prison, set a maximum sentence (known as an "indeterminate sentence.") Based on a subsequent decision by the Parole Board, the average offender would serve a fraction of the sentence handed down by the judge.
- Proportional punishment, imposing the most severe sentences on the most serious offenders
- Truth in sentencing, so the judge's sentence would more closely reflect actual prison time
- Sentence uniformity, to reduce disparities among judges
- Maintenance of correctional capacity consistent with sentencing policy, so the criminal justice system would be able to deliver proposed penalties.
Parole release was also abolished by the establishment of these guidelines, and prisoners began serving at least 80% of their sentences.
Measure 11, passed in 1994, affected only specific crimes, which were covered by the sentencing guidelines from 1989 to 1994.
Various exceptions exist to the guidelines, and to Measure 11 restrictions on sentencing.
The passage of Measure 11 was a central issue of Governor John Kitzhaber's first term, and remains a matter of controversy in Oregon politics. Supporters credit Measure 11 for reducing crime rates. Opponents argue Measure 11 pressures innocent defendants into plea bargains for lesser (non-Measure 11) crimes, due to fear of mandatory sentences.
In 2000, Measure 94 was put on the ballot in an attempt to repeal Measure 11. This measure was defeated 387,068 to 1,073,275.
- Chief Petitioner Kevin Mannix on BallotPedia.org
- Overview of Measure 11 from oregon.gov
- Crime Victims United (supporters)
- Families Against Mandatory Minimums (opponents)
- Text of the measure
- Multnomah County Measure 11 information for juveniles
- The Development of Oregon's Sentencing and Corrections Policy, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Accessed January 2, 2008.
- Sentencing Practices: Summary Statistics for Felony Offenders Sentenced in 2001, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, January 2003.
- 1994 Election Results
- Measure 11 Brings Justice and Lower Crime, Guest Viewpoint By Doug Harcleroad and Joshua Marquis for The (Eugene) Register-Guard, October 17, 2005.
- ↑ "Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 1988-1995". Oregon Blue Book. State of Oregon. http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/elections/elections21.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The Oregonian,"Report: Measure 11 disproportionately pushes black youths into adult criminal system," August 9, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Taylor, Bill. Background brief on Measure 11, Legislative Committee Services. May, 2004. Accessed on January 2 2008.
- ↑ "Effects of Measure 11 on Juvenile Justice in Oregon". League of Women Voters. 2000. http://www.lwvor.org/documents/JuvenileJustice2000.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
- ↑ "Full Text of Measure 11". Crime Victims United. http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/measure11fulltext.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Oregon's sodomy laws only apply in cases in which one person is under 16 years old or does not consent. text of law
- ↑ http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/measure_11.shtml#What_is_Measure_11_
- ↑ "Measure 11 Arguments". Crime Victims United. http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/measure11arguments.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Taylor, Bill. Background brief on felony sentencing. May, 2004. Accessed on January 2 2008.
- ↑ "Portland Violent Crime Statistics". Crime Victims United. May 192000. http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/portlandstats.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
- ↑ Phyllis A. Lincoln, JD Staff. "Comment on Measure 11". Justice: Denied. http://www.justicedenied.org/comment.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
- ↑ "Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 2000-2006". Oregon Blue Book. State of Oregon. http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/elections/elections22a.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.
This article was taken from the Oregon Ballot Measure 11 (1994) article under the GFDL license on October 8, 2008.
|state ballot measure article is a stub. You can help people learn by expanding it.|