Oregon's longstanding policy of treating juvenile offenders accused of serious crimes as adults is "harsh and costly" and fails to account for adolescents' capacity for change, the Oregon Council on Civil Rights says in a new report issued Tuesday.

The seven-member council reviewed Measure 11's impact on young offenders. The law spells out mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, such as rape, murder and robbery. Juveniles accused of those crimes are moved into the adult court system.

Among the council's recommendations: Give judges discretion over those cases. The move would allow judges to impose tough sentences in some cases but consider "mitigating circumstances" in others, the report says.

It also recommends allowing all juveniles accused of serious crimes to go before a judge half-way through their sentence to argue for release.

It said the state should do a better job of consistently collecting detailed data about young offenders and invest more in job training and programs that keep young people out of the criminal justice system.

The council is appointed by the state's Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian and advises him and his agency about education and issues that deal with civil rights enforcement. It has previously examined gender pay disparities, unpaid interns and racial profiling.

The state has 543 juveniles in custody; 154 are serving time under Measure 11, according to the Oregon Youth Authority.

Minors convicted as adults for crimes such as murder, assault, rape and other Measure 11 offenses stay with the youth authority through age 24. At 25, they're sent to an adult prison run by the Oregon Department of Corrections.

Under Measure 11, for instance, a first-degree sexual abuse conviction carries a sentence of six years and three months. A first-degree robbery conviction carries a sentence of seven years and six months.

Advocates of public safety reform have for years sought changes to Measure 11, which was passed by voters in 1994. They argue that it hasn't reduced crime, is too severe and has disproportionately hurt African Americans.

"Measure 11 has not lived up to many of the promises made about it," the report says.

Avakian said Measure 11 has lasting implications for an offender's ability to find housing and employment.

"Oregon's juvenile justice system brings high costs and poor outcomes," he said.

Bobbin Singh, executive director of the Oregon Justice Resource Center and a member of the council, said mandatory minimum sentences are out of step with what's known about adolescent brain development. The Oregon Justice Resource Center has advocated sentencing reform.

"The fundamental conclusion is harsh sentences have not kept pace with our modern understanding of brain science," he said.

A 2011 report issued by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission reached similar conclusions, finding the threat of tough sentences isn't the crime deterrent proponents had envisioned. The commission concluded Measure 11 had shifted power to prosecutors, who use the threat of a mandatory sentence to win plea deals on lesser crimes.

District attorneys were surprised to learn about the latest review of the sentencing law.

In a written statement, Baker County District Attorney Matt Shirtcliff, president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, said the association needs time to vet the council's analysis before offering a response.

Meanwhile, John Foote, Clackamas County district attorney, blasted the council, saying the recommendations aren't based in reality. He said many of the juveniles facing Measure 11 charges have killed someone or sexually assaulted children.

Advocates for getting rid of mandatory minimums ignore crime victims' experiences, he said.

"Where is their concern for the people they hurt, for the victims they hurt and killed? Where is their concern for them?" Foote said. "This is an irresponsible report put out on partial information. It is ideologically driven, not fact based."

-- Noelle Crombie

ncrombie@oregonian.com

503-276-7184

@noellecrombie