Oregon Measure 11: Essential Guide to Mandatory Minimum Sentences (2025)

Oregon voters made a decisive choice in 1994 that would revolutionize the state's criminal justice system. Measure 11 Oregon passed with 65.64% support and established mandatory minimum sentences for 21 serious crimes. This fundamental change reshaped how Oregon handles criminal cases and significantly impacted crime rates in the state.

The measure's original guidelines set strict sentences that ranged from 70 months for second-degree offenses to 300 months for murder. These mandatory minimums targeted violent crimes, sexual offenses, and serious assault cases without the possibility of parole or early release. The changes affected the system deeply - average sentence lengths jumped from 77 months in 1995 to 118 months by 1999. These new sentencing guidelines drove 41% of Oregon's prison population growth and had a substantial effect on prison admissions.

This detailed piece will help you understand what are Measure 11 crimes in Oregon, sentencing guidelines, covered offenses, and recent modifications. You'll find how these mandatory minimums affect both adult and juvenile offenders. The guide explains available legal defenses and explores the latest reforms that shape Oregon's criminal justice system, including the impact on case processing and disposition methods.

What is Measure 11 in Oregon: Origins and Purpose

Oregon's Ballot Measure 11 became known as "One Strike You're Out." The measure emerged when public fears about violent crime hit record levels. Crime Victims United put this measure on the ballot that changed how the state handled criminal sentencing, introducing a new era of get-tough policies aimed at deterrence and incapacitation.

The 1994 Ballot Initiative: Historical Context

Before Measure 11, Oregon employed sentencing guidelines that gave judges considerable discretion. Despite this, supporters claimed judges were too lenient on violent offenders. State Representative Kevin Mannix, the measure's sponsor, maintained that violent criminals couldn't be rehabilitated through probation or brief prison stays.

The ballot initiative aimed to set mandatory minimum sentences for specific felonies. Offenders couldn't receive early release or shorter sentences for good behavior. The measure also ensured that individuals 15 and older would face trial as adults when charged with these Measure 11 crimes in Oregon.

Key Provisions of the Original Legislation

The measure initially covered 16 offenses and expanded to include 21 crimes. These mandatory minimums started at 5 years and 10 months for crimes like Assault II and Robbery II, reaching up to 25 years for murder. It also came with Ballot Measure 10, which required a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the Legislative Assembly to modify Measure 11.

The most crucial aspects of the legislation were:

• Elimination of parole or sentence reductions for good behavior
• Automatic waiver of juveniles 15 and older to adult court
• Establishment of minimum sentences for specific violent and sex-related crimes

Public Support and Opposition at Passage

The public strongly backed this measure. It passed with 788,695 votes supporting and 412,816 opposing. Voters showed their continued support in 2000 with 73% saying yes.

Supporters predicted these benefits:

• Consistent sentences for similar types of cases
• Reduced violent crime rates
• Effective punishment for criminals

Critics worried about:

• Increased jury trials and overcrowded prisons
• Packed jails from longer pre-trial holds
• Prosecutors having too much power over sentences through prosecutorial discretion

The state needed major upgrades to implement the measure. Experts predicted a need for 6,085 new prison beds by 2001. Direct state construction would cost $461.80 million over five years. Operating costs would start at $3.20 million in 1995-96 and grow to $101.60 million annually within four years, significantly impacting prison admissions and incarceration rates.

Oregon Measure 11 Crimes and Sentences in 2025

Oregon's Measure 11 lists mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes and serious sex offenses as of March 2025. The data shows these offenses make up 80% of Oregon's High-Level Felony cases, demonstrating the measure's significant impact on case processing and disposition methods.

Violent Offenses and Their Mandatory Minimums

Current prison population statistics reveal the distribution of violent offenses under Measure 11. Assault 2 Oregon Measure 11 cases make up 8.2% of all cases. First-degree robbery comes with a 7.5-year minimum sentence, while second-degree robbery in Oregon carries a sentence of 5 years and 10 months.

The numbers for manslaughter cases stand out. First-degree manslaughter accounts for 8% of current incarcerations. Murder convictions carry the harshest punishment at 25 years minimum. Attempted murder cases in Oregon comprise 1.1% of the prison population, with the attempted murder sentence in Oregon typically being severe but less than that for completed murder.

Sex Crimes Under Measure 11

Sex offenses represent a significant portion of Measure 11 convictions. First-degree rape cases make up 11.8% of the current prison population. Sexual abuse has become the most common offense at 16.5% of all Measure 11 incarcerations.

The mandatory sentences for sex crimes include:

• First-degree rape: 8 years, 4 months or 25 years
• Second-degree rape: 6 years, 3 months
• First-degree sodomy: 8 years, 4 months or 25 years

It's worth noting that Jessica's Law Oregon, which imposes even harsher penalties for certain sex crimes against children, works in conjunction with Measure 11 to ensure severe punishment for these offenses.

Property Crimes Subject to Mandatory Sentencing

Measure 11 primarily targets violent crimes and sex offenses. Most property crimes don't fall under its scope. First-degree arson is the only property-related offense included when it threatens serious physical injury. Arson cases make up 0.5% of the Measure 11 prison population. It's worth noting that the minimum sentence for burglary 1 in Oregon is not covered under Measure 11 but is still a serious felony offense.

Recent Additions and Modifications to Covered Offenses

Several changes took effect in January 2025. The guidelines now include new offenses related to encouraging aggravated animal abuse. Reform efforts continue, especially with second-degree assault and robbery charges that show racial disparities in sentencing.

Recent data shows Native American, Latino, and Black Oregonians face higher rates of assault and robbery charges than white, Asian, or Pacific Islander individuals. Some lawmakers have suggested changes to address these disparities in demographic characteristics. Many district attorneys still want to keep the measure's core provisions, citing its role in maintaining lower crime rates.

The categorization system updates every quarter to reflect changes in statutes and court orders. The next detailed review should happen in mid-2025. The basic structure of mandatory minimums remains in place to ensure consistent sentencing for serious offenses in Oregon's courts, maintaining the principle of truth-in-sentencing.

How Oregon Measure 11 Sentencing Guidelines Work

Oregon's criminal justice system sets Measure 11 sentencing guidelines apart from regular sentencing practices. This creates a unique framework to handle serious felony offenses, emphasizing incapacitation as a primary goal.

Mandatory Minimum Structure

Prison terms now range from 70 months for second-degree offenses to 300 months for murder. These penalties remain consistent regardless of the offender's criminal history - a first-time offender receives similar minimum sentences as someone with an extensive record.

Some offenses now lead to longer sentences than previous sentencing structures. This occurs most often when offenders have extensive criminal histories. The measure affects about 25 violent crimes, and each one comes with specific non-negotiable minimum terms, exemplifying the concept of incapacitation in criminal justice.

Judicial Discretion Limitations

Measure 11 significantly limits judicial discretion by removing judges' traditional sentencing power. When a criminal charge falls under Measure 11, judges must impose the mandatory minimum sentence, except in rare cases.

However, Senate Bill 1049 created some exceptions in 1997. Judges can consider reduced sentences for:

• Second-degree assault
• Second-degree kidnapping
• Second-degree robbery
• Select sex offenses

Comparison with Pre-Measure 11 Sentencing

Before this law, Oregon employed a guidelines-based system that afforded judges much more flexibility. Robbery cases illustrate this clearly - previous guidelines meant an offender with a C5 criminal history received 56-60 months, including possible good behavior reductions. Now, similar cases require at least 70 months, as seen in the robbery 2 Oregon sentence guidelines.

This change has altered how cases move through the system. Prosecutors now have more control over sentencing through their charging decisions and plea negotiations. In fact, all but 15% of cases end in plea agreements instead of jury trials, significantly impacting the disposition method of Measure 11 cases.

Earned Time and Release Restrictions

Measure 11's strictest rules deal with sentence reductions. People convicted under it cannot:

• Get early release
• Reduce time for good behavior
• Use alternative incarceration programs

This marks a significant shift from previous practices where inmates could reduce their sentences by up to 20% through good behavior. The only exception allows inmates to be released three days early to avoid weekend releases.

The measure affects more than individual cases. Prison data shows offenders with Measure 11 charges are 36% more likely to go to prison, and their median stays have increased by 81%. These numbers demonstrate how Oregon's sentencing approach has shifted to focus on fixed penalties and incapacitation instead of judicial discretion and rehabilitation.

Juvenile Prosecution Under Measure 11

Oregon's juvenile justice system has significantly altered how young offenders face Measure 11 charges. The state's approach to prosecuting minors has undergone substantial changes, especially after the passage of Senate Bill 1008.

Automatic Waiver to Adult Court

Oregon processed youth aged 15 and older through adult courts for Measure 11 offenses until 2020. The state ranked second nationwide in youth transfers to adult court. Black youth faced Measure 11 indictments at 26 times the rate of white youth in 2012, highlighting troubling racial disparities in the treatment of juvenile offenders.

The automatic waiver system raised major concerns about:

• Impact on youth development
• Limited focus on rehabilitation opportunities
• Disproportionate effects on minority communities

Age Requirements and Exceptions

Youth cases now begin in juvenile court, regardless of the alleged offense. Prosecutors must request a waiver hearing before a juvenile court judge when seeking adult court prosecution. Judges assess several factors:

• Youth's rehabilitation potential
• Public safety needs
• Case-specific details

This new approach builds on recent brain science findings that show adolescent decision-making skills develop well into their twenties. Judges can now consider each case's unique risk factors and protective elements.

Second Look Hearings for Youth Offenders

Second Look hearings provide youth serving Measure 11 sentences a crucial opportunity for review. These occur after they complete half their original sentence. Here's how it works:

The Oregon Youth Authority prepares detailed reports on:

• Treatment progress
• Program completion results
• Behavior assessments

Judges consider:

• Severity of the offense
• Signs of rehabilitation
• Community safety concerns

Recent Reforms in Juvenile Processing

Governor Kate Brown introduced major reforms through commutation plans in October 2021. Some individuals serving time for juvenile offenses could now seek parole or release. The 2019 legislative changes brought fundamental shifts by:

• Ending automatic adult prosecution
• Creating detailed review processes
• Prohibiting life sentences without parole for under-18 offenders

Oregon Youth Authority's new review procedures for Measure 11 youth cases include:

• New parole standards
• Enhanced case planning
• Clear growth milestones

These reforms indicate progress in youth rehabilitation, but there's still work to be done. The governor's 2021 commutations benefited more than 70 people who committed crimes as juveniles. These changes align with U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing young people's capacity for change and rehabilitation.

Each case now receives individual attention instead of automatic processing. Prosecutors must demonstrate why adult court better serves justice in specific situations. This radical alteration focuses on rehabilitation possibilities rather than solely on punishment, potentially impacting recidivism rates among juvenile offenders.

Legal Defenses and Strategies in Measure 11 Cases

Legal teams need strategic approaches to defend against Measure 11 charges due to the life-altering effects of mandatory minimum sentences. Recent data shows that more than 70% of people charged with Measure 11 offenses ultimately receive convictions for lesser charges, highlighting the importance of effective case processing and disposition methods.

Pre-Indictment Negotiations

Early action is crucial in Measure 11 cases. Prosecutors wield substantial power in determining whether cases meet the legal requirements for mandatory minimum charges. Defense attorneys can often secure better outcomes through careful pre-indictment talks to:

• Present evidence that reduces severity
• Demonstrate potential for rehabilitation
• Address victim concerns early

Cases settled before grand jury indictment typically lead to better outcomes because prosecutors have more flexibility during this stage, showcasing the importance of prosecutorial discretion in Measure 11 cases.

Plea Bargaining to Non-Measure 11 Charges

Plea negotiations are a key defense strategy. Studies show 85% of Measure 11 cases are resolved through plea deals, making Measure 11 plea bargains a critical aspect of case disposition. Defense lawyers often work to reduce charges to non-Measure 11 offenses to avoid mandatory minimums.

Strong plea negotiations usually focus on:

• Highlighting mitigating factors
• Emphasizing clean or minimal criminal histories
• Addressing underlying causes of the offense

Defendants who accept plea offers typically receive sentences ranging from probation to significantly shorter prison terms compared to Measure 11 minimums.

Constitutional Challenges

Legal challenges to Measure 11 have established important precedents. Oregon's Supreme Court has found some mandatory sentences unconstitutional for violating the state's proportionality rules. These rulings mandate that sentences must be proportionate to:

• Individual circumstances
• Offense severity
• Prior criminal record

A landmark case demonstrated this principle when the court deemed a 75-month sentence excessive for a defendant with no prior offenses.

SB 1008 and Other Legislative Relief Options

SB 1008 introduced major reforms that created new defense strategies. The law ended automatic adult prosecution for young offenders, now requiring prosecutors to request waiver hearings. New relief options also include:

• Second-look hearings after serving half the sentence
• Transfer hearings for eligible cases
• Parole review after 15 years for crimes committed by minors

Recent data indicates these reforms have helped more than 70 individuals obtain sentence modifications. The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission reports similar sentencing patterns across different demographic groups, though some offense categories still show disparate treatment.

Defense lawyers now combine these new laws with traditional strategies. Court records demonstrate improved outcomes in cases with minimal criminal history or clear evidence of rehabilitation. A comprehensive defense strategy today utilizes both legal challenges and rehabilitation-based evidence to achieve optimal results, potentially influencing future sentencing reform efforts.

Conclusion

Oregon Measure 11 remains the cornerstone of the state's criminal justice system. It has profoundly shaped how courts sentence serious offenses since 1994. The legislation's mandatory minimum sentences range from 70 to 300 months. These changes have significantly increased average sentence lengths and led to substantial growth in prison admissions and the overall prison population.

The system has undergone notable changes in recent years, particularly concerning juvenile cases. Senate Bill 1008 has transformed the handling of youth offenders, eliminating automatic adult prosecution and establishing detailed review processes that consider rehabilitation potential. These changes align with emerging research on adolescent development while maintaining a focus on public safety.

A robust legal defense strategy is crucial for defendants facing Measure 11 charges. Data indicates that early intervention and skilled pre-indictment negotiations often result in reduced charges or alternative resolutions. These cases involve complex legal issues, and seeking professional legal counsel is advisable to understand your options and construct a solid defense plan.

The measure continues to evolve through new legislation and court decisions. It maintains strict penalties for violent crimes and serious sex offenses while recent reforms address issues such as racial disparities and equitable sentencing. Oregon's approach to criminal justice strives to balance accountability with fairness, ensuring appropriate consequences while considering individual circumstances and rehabilitation opportunities.

As Oregon moves forward, the impact of Measure 11 on crime rates, incarceration, and recidivism will continue to be closely monitored. The ongoing debate surrounding mandatory minimums and their effectiveness in deterrence and crime prevention remains a critical aspect of criminal justice policy in the state. Future sentencing reform efforts may further refine the balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety in Oregon's criminal justice system.

FAQs

Q: What are the minimum sentences under Oregon's Measure 11? Measure 11 imposes mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 5 years and 10 months to 25 years, depending on the severity of the crime. For example, murder carries a 25-year minimum sentence, while second-degree robbery requires 5 years and 10 months.

Q: How has Oregon's Measure 11 changed in recent years? Recent reforms have significantly altered juvenile prosecution under Measure 11. As of 2019, automatic waiver of 15-17 year-olds to adult court for Measure 11 crimes has been eliminated. Additionally, life without parole sentences for offenders under 18 are now prohibited, emphasizing rehabilitation for young offenders.

Q: Are there any exceptions to Measure 11's mandatory minimums? Yes, there is a limited "escape clause" for certain Measure 11 charges. For instance, in cases of second-degree assault where the victim wasn't injured by a weapon or didn't suffer significant physical injuries, or second-degree kidnapping where the victim is over 12 years old, judges may consider reduced sentences.

Q: How does Measure 11 affect plea bargaining in Oregon? Measure 11 has significantly impacted plea bargaining. About 85% of Measure 11 cases are resolved through plea agreements. Defense attorneys often negotiate for reductions to non-Measure 11 offenses to avoid mandatory minimums, resulting in sentences ranging from probation to reduced prison terms.

Q: What legal strategies are commonly used in Measure 11 cases? Common legal strategies include pre-indictment negotiations, plea bargaining to non-Measure 11 charges, and constitutional challenges. Early intervention is crucial, as cases resolved before grand jury indictment often have more favorable outcomes. Defense attorneys also utilize recent legislative changes and focus on rehabilitation-based evidence to achieve better resolutions, potentially influencing case processing and disposition methods.