Oregon's Measure 11 Summary

Laws and policies are written in different aspects of the criminal justice system. Some of these policies are written within the federal government and some are written on a smaller scale in the state government. The two seem rather simple to understand on the surface. The federal government handles the entire United States whereas the state government handles just what it says and that is within that specific state, such as New Jersey (N.J.). The following paper will contain information which will compare and contrast the policies written from both types of governments and how they relate to the criminal justice system. There will be information on how these policies have been developed and how they are implemented. Some

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.

If mass incarceration is a cancer of society, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are the tumors that exacerbate society’s condition. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws require a certain length of prison time if

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

Mass incarceration is a major problem in the United States. Since the tough on crime movement that began to emphasize more punishment and creating new policies such as; three strikes law, truth-in sentencing laws, mandatory sentencing, and determinate sentencing, our prisons and jails have become overcrowded. The three strikes law increases the prison sentence of an offender convicted of three felonies or serious crime. Usually the punishment ranges from a minimum of 25 years to life in prison. The truth-in sentencing laws require the offender to serve a substantial amount of their prison sentence (usually around 85 percent) before they are eligible for release on parole. The mandatory sentencing requires a minimum period of incarceration that the offender must serve regardless of the history of the offender or the nature of the circumstance. These get tough policies have implicated longer prison and jail sentences and has reduced the amount of discretion that the judges, parole/probation officers and prison and jail administrators. These actions have consequently increased the prison and jail population, which causes an increase in money spent on jails and prisons.

The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing has been plaguing the justice system of the United States of America for too many years and therefore must be abolished. If mandatory minimum sentencing were to be done away with, then the criminal justice system could finally start to bring desperately needed change to itself and start to get back to where it needs to be; a system that takes people with a problem and returns a reformed individual capable of positively contributing to society. By getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, the prison populations could be reduced, allowing for more attention to be given to the reformation of each individual giving them a better chance at success. The research shows that getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing will be more cost effective, keep prison populations lower, limit unjust sentencing, and make sure that the punishment that an individual receives is proportional to the crime that they have been convicted of.

Today, more than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in either a state facility, federal correctional facility or a local installation (Batey,2002). Due to longer sentences, incorporating harsh sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum punishments (NeSmith,2015). With each inmate costing taxpayers an average of $30,000 annually. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were increased sentences for a broad range of offenses, as well as establishing federal penalties for most murders and a large number of other crimes already subject to state law (Batey,2002). In addition to reducing the discretion of state judicial systems; as well as 85 percent of sentence satisfaction and establishing a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses (NeSmith,2015). .

Currently Arizona holds the ninth highest incarceration rate in the nation. Responsible for the drastic rate of incarcerated inmates, is the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have named Arizona the incarceration capital. By implementing the mandatory minimum sentencing law, the discretion that lay within the position as a judge is challenged by that of the prosecutor. With Arizona’s sentencing enhancement making little distinction between individuals who are responsible for either serious or petty crimes,

An open dialogue would be required between the legislature, department of correction personnel and the public. This dialogue would provide policy changes to the early release credit programs that focused on the reduction in prison population of non-violent offenders, establish rehabilitative programs to provide re-entry guidance and most importantly, always keep public safety at the forefront of the discussions. “The earned credits are viewed as incentivizing inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs that, in turn, should reduce recidivism after release from prison” (Turner, 2011). The prison system should not be viewed as a warehouse for humans but rather as a much needed form of justice that provides public safety by removing violent offenders and rehabilitating those that are deemed non-violent. All parties involved should take note that the major flaws in credit programs are not the programs themselves but rather the lack of accountability and

Mandatory sentencing has been a big driver in the large population of incarcerated individuals in the United States. District attorneys are more aggressive in how they file charges against the arrestee. While the country has seen a decline in crime, new

There are several organizations that are concerned about Measure 11 as a social welfare problem specifically the stipulation involving minors. The Campaign for Youth Justice advocates for cases involving children as the perpetrator to stay within juvenile court system instead of being waived to adult court as Measure 11 does for 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds (Mission and Goals, n.d.). This organization has produced reports highlighting a social injustice toward people of color who have been shown to be incarcerated at a higher rate in Oregon from Measure 11 and is one group that is concerned about the statute. Another group concerned with Measure 11’s impact on youth is the Partnership for Safety and Justice which advocates for policies that make the State of Oregon approach people who are convicted a of crime

This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].

This mission statement seems to indicate that the state of Oregon is a no tolerance state that will hold its offenders accountable for their actions with little or no hope for rehabilitation. Basically, if an individual commits a crime in the state of Oregon he/she will definitely serve the time. Consequently, this state is willing to invest its time, energy, and budget to ensure its offenders will serve their time and their victims are comforted. The state of Oregon also acknowledges that the development of other services such as alcohol/drug treatment, sex offender treatment, employment, and mental health services are important for long-term behavior change. Hence, Community Corrections provides a cost-effective means to hold offenders accountable while at the same time addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and reducing the risk of future criminal behavior (Oregon Department of Corrections).

When looking at the history of criminal punishment in the United States, you can see many different approaches that have changed over time connected to the social and political changes (Gollwitzer and Keller, 2010). These changes have increased programs for offenders and victims and over time decreased these programs as well. These programs for reducing the amount of recidivism in the criminal justice systems have also met their counterparts in punishment in the hard on crime programs.

Criminologist and politicians have debated the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation programs since the 1970’s when criminal justice scholars and policy makers throughout the United States embraced Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” (Shrum, 2004). Recidivism, the rate at which released offenders return to jail or prison, has become the most accepted outcome measure in corrections. The public's desire to reduce the economic and social costs associated with crime and incarceration has resulted in an emphasis on recidivism as an outcome measure of program effectiveness. While correctional facilities continue to grow, corrections make up an increasing amount of state and federal budgets. The recidivism rate in