Wouldnt focusing on what works on which offenders result in disparate treatment, and wouldnt that undermine the benefit of the guidelines in avoiding unequal treatment?
First, Oregon law already recognizes that differences in amenability to rehabilitation justifies different responses to offenders. ORS 161.025(1)(a), derived from the existing (1962) Model Penal Code, declares the purposes of the Criminal Code as including “To prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders.” Equal treatment means that people similarly situated should be similarly treated. There is no reason doing more dependably what works on the offenders it works on is inconsistent with similar treatment for similarly situated offenders, unless of course one community has something that will prevent recidivism by a given offender, when another community with an identical offender lacks that sanction, treatment, or other disposition. Id argue that the availability of such a sanction, treatment, or other disposition is a difference that makes the offenders
Related Questions
- Wouldnt focusing on what works on which offenders result in disparate treatment, and wouldnt that undermine the benefit of the guidelines in avoiding unequal treatment?
- Treatment of cardiac risk factors in diabetic patients: How well do we follow the guidelines?
- How does cryotherapy destroy prostate cancer?
