Court Opinion

ID: 9550287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:33:30.057818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:20.230868
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
dissenting.
While there is much logic in the majority opinion, I do not believe that ORS 144.110(1) authorizes the judiciary to speculate what the exact life span of a given individual will be and then sentence accordingly.1 I think it is more likely that either the legislature did not think of the problem of a mandatory minimum in the case of a life sentence, other than for aggravated murder; or that if it thought of the problem, it decided that in the case of a life sentence only the Parole Board should determine the period of actual incarceration of the individual so sentenced. The latter possibility is consistent with our analysis of the extensive revision of Oregon’s statutory scheme relating to sentencing enacted by the 1977 Legislative Assembly. In State v. Dinkel, 34 Or App 375, 579 P2d 245 (1978), rev den 285 Or 195 (1979), we noted that the legislature had, with minor exceptions, adopted the concept that "the parole board * * * is in the best position to determine * * * actual incarceration time * * * because, unlike trial and appellate courts, it can follow the activities and behavior of the defendant while he is in custody and best estimate his future potential.” 34 Or App at 386.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

 Mortality tables undoubtedly are very accurate as to classes and almost always very inaccurate as to individuals.