| rdfs:comment
| - Measure 11, also known as "One Strike You're Out", 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. The sentencing judge cannot give a lesser sentence than that prescribed by Measure 11, nor can a prisoner's sentence be reduced for good behavior. Prisoners cannot be paroled prior to serving their minimum sentence. Legislative Attempts to Alter or Repeal Measure 11: (en)
|
| has abstract
| - Measure 11, also known as "One Strike You're Out", 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. The sentencing judge cannot give a lesser sentence than that prescribed by Measure 11, nor can a prisoner's sentence be reduced for good behavior. Prisoners cannot be paroled prior to serving their minimum sentence. The measure applies to all defendants aged 15 and over, requiring juveniles 15 and over charged with these crimes to be tried as adults. The measure was placed on the ballot via initiative petition by , 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. Ballot Measure 10, also passed in 1994, permitted the Oregon Legislative Assembly to change Measure 11, but only with a 2/3 vote in each chamber. The legislature has done so several times. Legislative Attempts to Alter or Repeal Measure 11:
* House Bill 3439 passed June 1995: Added Attempted Murder and Attempted Aggravated Murder.
* Senate Bill 1049 passed July 1997: Added Arson I (when a serious physical threat is involved), Compelling Prostitution, and Use of Child in Display of Sex Act. This also allowed for departures from the mandatory minimum sentencing for some Assault II, Kidnapping II, and Robbery II convictions.
* House Bill 2494 passed August 1999: Allowed for departures from the mandatory minimum sentence for some Manslaughter II convictions committed after October 23, 1999.
* Measure 94 defeated November 2000: Attempt to repeal mandatory minimum sentencing in Oregon; defeated 387,068 to 1,073,275.[14]
* House Bill 2379 passed July 2001: Allowed for departure from the mandatory minimum sentence for some Rape II, Sodomy II, Sexual Penetration II, and Sexual Abuse I convictions after January 1, 2002.
* Senate Bill 1008 passed in May 2019 (pending signature from the Governor): The bill is a major overhaul of many Measure 11 stipulations. Key parts of the bill seek to address the impacts of Measure 11 on youth reported by the Oregon Justice Resource Center, such as:
* "Second Look" hearings for any juvenile convicted in adult court after completion of half their sentence. Judges are to consider factors such as remorse and rehabilitation, and may reduce the remainder of the juvenile's sentence to community-based supervision.
* Prohibiting life without parole for minors.
* Ensuring minors of 15 years or older are not automatically tried as adults for major crimes. 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 youth 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. The effectiveness of Measure 11 to deter crime is further questioned when compared to research about mandatory minimums. Research has repeatedly disproven mandatory minimums as public safety tools. For example, a 1993 meta-analysis report compiled from 50 different studies found mandatory minimums’ lengthier prison sentences produced higher rates of recidivism and a tendency for lower-risk offenders to experience more negative outcomes. (en)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)