| 000 | 01324nam a2200205 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 21940 | ||
| 090 | _a21940 | ||
| 100 | _a20090218c2006 y0pory50 ba | ||
| 101 | _aeng | ||
| 200 |
_aOregon's get tough sentencing reform _ea lesson in justice system adaptation |
||
| 330 | _aOregon's Measure 11, a mandatory minimum sentencing policy passed in 1994, had fewer negative system impacts than had been anticipated by many state and local criminal justice administrators, due largely to the fact that prosecutors exercised the discretion provided them under the law to selectively prosecute cases. Consequently, fewer Measure 11- eligible cases were sentenced under the relevant statues than before passage of the measure, and more were sentenced to lesser related offenses. At the same time, incarceration rates and sentence lengths increased for both Measure 11 and lesser related offenses. Trial rates increased for two years after Measure 11 took effect before reverting to previous levels. | ||
| 461 |
_vV.5,n.1 _dFeb. 2006 _pp.5-36 _tCriminology & Public Policy _cNew York |
||
| 606 |
_aREFORMA PENAL _91052 |
||
| 700 |
_aMERRITT _bNancy _918948 |
||
| 701 |
_aFAIN _bTerry _9115295 |
||
| 701 |
_aTURNER _bSusan _918949 |
||
| 852 | _jP.323 | ||