Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025 (2026)
Purposes; principles of construction
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
161.025 Purposes; principles of construction. (1) The general purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, are:
(a) To insure the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized, the correction and rehabilitation of those convicted, and their confinement when required in the interests of public protection.
(b) To forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests.
(c) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense and of the sentences authorized upon conviction.
(d) To define the act or omission and the accompanying mental state that constitute each offense and limit the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it is without fault.
(e) To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses.
(f) To prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders.
(g) To safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.
(2) The rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed shall not apply to chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, or any of its provisions. Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms, to promote justice and to effect the purposes stated in subsection (1) of this section. [1971 c.743 §2]
Note: See note under 161.015.
161.030 [Amended by 1955 c.660 §20; 1967 c.372 §10; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977).
Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). “See ORS 161.025, which enumerates the purposes sought to be accomplished by Oregon's Criminal Code.”
State v. Ryan, 396 P.3d 867 (Or. 2017). “025(1)(f); see also ORS 161.025(1) (identifying other Cite as 361 Or 602 (2017) 633 purposes and principles of the criminal code).”
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). “Sentencing practices must conform to the stated purposes of the revised criminal code in ORS 161.025: "[t]o prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses," and "[t]o safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.”
State v. Buttrey, 651 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1982). “In the "purposes" section of the code, ORS 161.025(1)(d), this legislative purpose is stated: "(1) The general purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, are: "* * *.”
State v. Duggan, 622 P.2d 316 (Or. 1981). “* * *" Although ORS 161.025 states a "purpose" and "principle of construction" for application in the interpretation of the penal statutes as defined in ORS Title 16, we believe that it states a well-established legislative policy which is equally applicable in the…”
State v. Shumway, 630 P.2d 796 (Or. 1981). “The underlying philosophy of offenses and penalties under the present code is stated in ORS 161.025(1), which includes the following principles, all of which are in harmony with Article I, section 15: "The general purposes of the provisions of this Act [the Criminal Code] are:…”
State v. Stroup, 620 P.2d 1359 (Or. 1980). “" ORS 161.025. [4] How does "driving while suspended" fit into this framework? First, it is an offense "defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal Code.”
State v. Reams, 636 P.2d 913 (Or. 1981). “" (ORS 161.025(1)(d)). In our best judgment, neither of these statutory provisions can properly authorize this court to construe provisions of the 1971 Criminal Code to reach a result contrary to what this court believes to have been the intention of the legislature as expressed…”
State v. Peterson, 689 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “The legislature has directed that the criminal code "shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms, to promote justice and to effect the purposes stated in subsection (1) of [ORS 161.025]." ORS 161.025(2). Among the general purposes enumerated in ORS 161.”
State v. Tippetts, 43 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 161.025(1) sets out the general purposes of the criminal code.”
State v. Cunningham, 880 P.2d 431 (Or. 1994). “ORS 161.025(1) in part provides: "The general purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, are: "* * * * * "(f) To prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among…”
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “ORS 161.025(g) states as a purpose of the 1971 revision of the criminal code, "[t]o safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1) — 14 cases
Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). “See ORS 161.025, which enumerates the purposes sought to be accomplished by Oregon's Criminal Code.”
State v. Ryan, 396 P.3d 867 (Or. 2017). “025(1)(f); see also ORS 161.025(1) (identifying other Cite as 361 Or 602 (2017) 633 purposes and principles of the criminal code).”
State v. Cunningham, 880 P.2d 431 (Or. 1994). “ORS 161.025(1) in part provides: "The general purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, are: "* * * * * "(f) To prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among…”
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). “Sentencing practices must conform to the stated purposes of the revised criminal code in ORS 161.025: "[t]o prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses," and "[t]o safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.”
State v. Shumway, 630 P.2d 796 (Or. 1981). “The underlying philosophy of offenses and penalties under the present code is stated in ORS 161.025(1), which includes the following principles, all of which are in harmony with Article I, section 15: "The general purposes of the provisions of this Act [the Criminal Code] are:…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Schoen, 211 P.3d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1)(c) — 10 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
State v. Parra-Sanchez, 527 P.3d 1008 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Cornell, 741 P.2d 501 (Or. 1987).
State v. Blair, 601 P.2d 766 (Or. 1979).
State v. Pyritz, 752 P.2d 1310 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1)(d) — 9 cases
State v. Buttrey, 651 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1982). “In the "purposes" section of the code, ORS 161.025(1)(d), this legislative purpose is stated: "(1) The general purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, are: "* * *.”
State v. Miller, 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990).
State v. Reams, 636 P.2d 913 (Or. 1981). “" (ORS 161.025(1)(d)). In our best judgment, neither of these statutory provisions can properly authorize this court to construe provisions of the 1971 Criminal Code to reach a result contrary to what this court believes to have been the intention of the legislature as expressed…”
State v. Blanton, 588 P.2d 28 (Or. 1978).
State v. Smith, 571 P.2d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1)(e) — 1 case
State v. Berry, 429 P.3d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1)(f) — 5 cases
State v. Ryan, 396 P.3d 867 (Or. 2017). “025(1)(f); see also ORS 161.025(1) (identifying other Cite as 361 Or 602 (2017) 633 purposes and principles of the criminal code).”
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). “Sentencing practices must conform to the stated purposes of the revised criminal code in ORS 161.025: "[t]o prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses," and "[t]o safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.”
State v. Shumway, 630 P.2d 796 (Or. 1981). “The underlying philosophy of offenses and penalties under the present code is stated in ORS 161.025(1), which includes the following principles, all of which are in harmony with Article I, section 15: "The general purposes of the provisions of this Act [the Criminal Code] are:…”
State v. Moore, 695 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Ryan (Or. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(1)(g) — 1 case
State v. Perkins, 607 P.2d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(2) — 19 cases
State v. Reams, 636 P.2d 913 (Or. 1981). “" (ORS 161.025(1)(d)). In our best judgment, neither of these statutory provisions can properly authorize this court to construe provisions of the 1971 Criminal Code to reach a result contrary to what this court believes to have been the intention of the legislature as expressed…”
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992).
State v. Partain, 239 P.3d 232 (Or. 2010).
State v. Peterson, 689 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “The legislature has directed that the criminal code "shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms, to promote justice and to effect the purposes stated in subsection (1) of [ORS 161.025]." ORS 161.025(2). Among the general purposes enumerated in ORS 161.”
State v. Scott, 483 P.3d 701 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(g) — 2 cases
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “ORS 161.025(g) states as a purpose of the 1971 revision of the criminal code, "[t]o safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.”
Deschutes Cnty. Sheriff's Ass'n v. Deschutes Cnty., 9 P.3d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Cruz, 855 P.2d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Schoen, 211 P.3d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(l)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Sanderson, 575 P.2d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Duggan, 622 P.2d 316 (Or. 1981). “* * *" Although ORS 161.025 states a "purpose" and "principle of construction" for application in the interpretation of the penal statutes as defined in ORS Title 16, we believe that it states a well-established legislative policy which is equally applicable in the…”
State v. Henry, 717 P.2d 189 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Schoen, 211 P.3d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Milburn, 134 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(l)(d) — 11 cases
State v. Andrews, 27 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Buttrey, 651 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1982). “In the "purposes" section of the code, ORS 161.025(1)(d), this legislative purpose is stated: "(1) The general purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, are: "* * *.”
State v. Rutley, 171 P.3d 361 (Or. 2007).
State v. Tippetts, 43 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 161.025(1) sets out the general purposes of the criminal code.”
State v. Rainoldi, 235 P.3d 710 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(l)(f) — 3 cases
State v. Shumway, 630 P.2d 796 (Or. 1981). “The underlying philosophy of offenses and penalties under the present code is stated in ORS 161.025(1), which includes the following principles, all of which are in harmony with Article I, section 15: "The general purposes of the provisions of this Act [the Criminal Code] are:…”
State v. Harris, 25 P.3d 404 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Prock, 681 P.2d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.025(l)(f)(g) — 1 case
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). “Sentencing practices must conform to the stated purposes of the revised criminal code in ORS 161.025: "[t]o prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses," and "[t]o safeguard offenders against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.