U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Proportionality and Parsimony in American Sentencing Guidelines: The Minnesota and Oregon Standards (From Politics of Sentencing Reform, P 149-167, 1995, Chris Clarkson and Rod Morgan, eds. -- See NCJ-166953)

NCJ Number
166959
Author(s)
A Von Hirsch
Date Published
1995
Length
19 pages
Annotation
Sentencing guidelines in the United States are designed to achieve certain reformist aims, such as proportionality and parsimony.
Abstract
Only a few States have adopted numerical sentencing guidelines, including Minnesota and Oregon. Minnesota's sentencing guidelines took effect in 1980, while Oregon's sentencing guidelines were implemented in 1989. The two guideline systems are similar since both purport to be guided by proportionality and restraint in the use of imprisonment. The two guideline systems, however, have structural dissimilarities related to elevation of the "in/out" or dispositional line, emphasis on previous criminal record and manner in which that record is scored, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Further, standards governing the duration of imprisonment are different in the two States. Implications of structural differences in sentencing guidelines between Minnesota and Oregon are explored in terms of proportionality and parsimony, and advantages and disadvantages of sentencing commissions are noted. 48 footnotes and 3 figures

Downloads

No download available

Availability