skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 76569 Find in a Library
Title: Justice and Parole - The Oregon Experience (From Justice as Fairness, P 100-117, 1981, David Fogel and Joe Hudson, ed. - See NCJ-76564)
Author(s): I Blalock
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 18
Sponsoring Agency: Anderson Publishing Co
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
Publicity Director
2035 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45202
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article describes the development of parole board reform in Oregon in which release dates are set early in the term according to published guidelines.
Abstract: At the start of the guideline development process, the Oregon board was a traditional parole board, differing only from other parole boards in that it was willing to examine its role and to adopt explicit criteria and rules to govern its decisionmaking. In the few months between July 1975 and the early part of 1976, the board developed and adopted explicit release guidelines and criteria, moving in the direction of the justice model. This was in response to the failure of the rehabilitation model with its concurrent indeterminate sentences. Two other ways of looking at the criminal justice system (besides rehabilitation or the justice model) are also discussed: the crime control model and just deserts. The Oregon legislation for the new guidelines accomplished these objectives: (1) it delegated to the parole board the authority to fix sentences through parole decisionmaking, and (2) it removed the parole board's exemption under the State's Administrative Procedures Act and required the board to follow the rulemaking procedures of that act. These two procedures reduced the disparity in prison terms by making the rules explicit and public knowledge. The guidelines are displayed in five tables and computation of the history/risk score is explained, including guidelines on revocation of parole. Finally, the necessary elements of the justice-as-fairness approach requires that the term of actual incarceration should be related to the severity of the offense and the offender's criminal history, and that the term itself should be established at or shortly after the sentence is imposed. A total of 22 footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Oregon; Parole board; Probation or parole decisionmaking; Sentencing guidelines
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.