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
• Sale Source: Oxford University Press
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

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