Question

For at least the last decade, the US Supreme Court and Congress have been warring over how much discretion federal judges should have over sentencing criminal defendants. Oregon has had similar disputes with the passage of Measure 11 and mandatory sentencing for certain crimes. Do you agree with mandatory sentencing or allowing judges discretion? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Measure 11 and mandatory sentencing is good for society to protect civilians from criminals.

In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, a measure that imposed long mandatory prison terms for 16 designated violent and sex-related offences and provided for mandatory waiver of youthful offences to adult courts. This measure overlaid the state's existing sentencing guidelines system for selected offences, increased the length of prison terms imposed and reduced judicial discretion at the sentencing phase.

The imposition of Measure 11 would improve public safety by deterring future criminal behavior and increasing the length of time that serious felons spend in prison. The rules can lead to a decrease in serious crimes in the nation and they would stop unjust sentencing practices by eliminating personal bias from all parties. The rules can provide society for longer time periods from crimes.