Oregon Administrative Rules › Chapter 213 - OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION › Division 2 - STATEMENT OF PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES › Section 213-002-0001 - Statement of Purposes and Principles

Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 7, July 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.