Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 9, September 1, 2024
(1) The primary objectives of sentencing are
to punish each offender appropriately, and to insure the security of the people
in person and property, within the limits of correctional resources provided by
the Legislative Assembly, local governments and the people.
(2) Sentencing guidelines are intended to
forward the objectives described in section (1) by defining presumptive
punishments for felony convictions, subject to judicial discretion to deviate
for substantial and compelling reasons; and presumptive punishments for
post-prison or probation supervision violations, again subject to
deviation.
(3) The basic principles
which underlie these guidelines are:
(a) The
response of the corrections system to crime, and to violation of post-prison
and probation supervision, must reflect the resources available for that
response. A corrections system that overruns its resources is a system that
cannot deliver its threatened punishment or its rehabilitative impact. This
undermines the system's credibility with the public and the offender, and
vitiates the objectives of prevention of recidivism and reformation of the
offender. A corrections system that overruns its resources can produce costly
litigation and the threat of loss of system control to the federal judiciary. A
corrections system that overruns its resources can increase the risk to life
and property within the system and to the public.
(b) Oregon's current sentencing system
combines indeterminate sentences with a parole matrix. Although many citizens
believe the indeterminate sentence sets the length of imprisonment, that
sentence only sets an offender's maximum period of incarceration and the matrix
controls actual length of stay. The frequent disparity between the
indeterminate sentence length and time served under the matrix confuses and
angers the public and damages the corrections system's credibility with the
public. Sentences of imprisonment should represent the time an offender will
actually serve, subject only to any reduction authorized by law.
(c) Under sentencing guidelines the response
to many crimes will be state imprisonment. Other crimes will be punished by
local penalties and restrictions imposed as part of probation. All offenders
released from prison will be under post-prison supervision for a period of
time. The ability of the corrections system to enforce swiftly and sternly the
conditions of both probation and post-prison supervision, including by
imprisonment, is crucial. Use of state institutions as the initial punishment
for crime must, therefore, leave enough institutional capacity to permit
imprisonment, when appropriate, for violation of probation and post-prison
supervision conditions.
(d) Subject
to the discretion of the sentencing judge to deviate and impose a different
sentence in recognition of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the
appropriate punishment for a felony conviction should depend on the seriousness
of the crime of conviction when compared to all other crimes and the offender's
criminal history.
(e) Subject to
the sentencing judge's discretion to deviate in recognition of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, the corrections system should seek to respond in a
consistent way to like crimes combined with like criminal histories; and in a
consistent way to like violations of probation and post-prison supervision
conditions.
Stat. Auth.: ORS
137.667
Stats. Implemented: ORS
137.667 - ORS
137.669
