Is there a legal requirement that judges give a “sentencing speech” while sentencing defendants to prison? If a speech isn’t required by law, why don’t judges simply state the sentence and adjourn the court?
Generally when it comes to sentencing a judge has a degree of discretion — there are relatively few crimes where there is a single mandatory sentence that the judge must impose regardless of context or circumstance. Because the judge is exercising a discretion, it’s proper for him to set out his reasons for exercising it in the way he does, not least because the sentence may be appealed and the appeal court will need to consider whether he has exercised his discretion properly.
Also, in most states judges are elected. A stemwinder speech condemning a defendant just convicted of some heinous crime is usually good politics.
Bolding mine. Very much this. If, in the sentencing, the judge does not address every legally relevant factor raised by the prosecution and defense in regard to sentencing along with the judicial opinion he has reached on the matter the inference can be made that he did not in fact consider those relevant factors that he did not mention in delivering his sentence. Those factors he made no mention of are then grounds for appealing the sentence, by both the prosecution and the defense.
Because it is required by law.
@UDS1 nailed it in one.
Judges have choices in sentencing with harsh conditions or lenient ones. They are required to state factors in mitigation (for leniency) and/or factors in aggravation (for harsher sentencing) on the record. These can then form a basis for an appeal most usually by the defendant.
Showboating. The judge loves to deliver a haughty lecture.
Are they required to do this orally? Is there any legal or procedural reason they can’t just say, “I sentence you to X years, the full explanation is in my written ruling, (bang gavel)”?
This is" Factual Questions" . “Making up My Own Bullshit Answers” is over in IMHO.
Judges do dozens of sentencings a day. It’s much easier for them to simply state their reasons orally on the official record, every word taken down by the official court reporter, for which a transcript will be prepared if needed.
The specific findings in mitigation/aggravation are also noted in the clerk’s minute order, which is also an official written record.
It’s just more efficient, as well as cheaper and easier.
ETA: Believe me, they get sick of it.
In my state, the court is required to pronounce sentences “in open court.” It’s an open courts law that ensures that such things don’t happen in secret. It also relates to some of the same concepts behind the right to confront witnesses. The defendant gets to look the judge in the eye as the sentence is pronounced, and vice versa.
There will also be a written judgment that should contain all of the terms of the sentence that was pronounced. No work is saved one way or the other.
Not so much law as procedure, but the effect is the same.
In California, it’s the law. Penal Code § 1193:
There are procedures for exceptions, but the law reads “shall be pronounced.”
(a) If the conviction is for a felony, the defendant shall be personally present when judgment is pronounced against him or her, unless the defendant, in open court and on the record, or in a notarized writing, requests that judgment be pronounced against him or her in his or her absence, and that he or she be represented by an attorney when judgment is pronounced, and the court approves his or her absence during the pronouncement of judgment, or unless, after the exercise of reasonable diligence to procure the presence of the defendant, the court shall find that it will be in the interest of justice that judgment be pronounced in his or her absence; provided, that when any judgment imposing the death penalty has been affirmed by the appellate court, sentence may be reimposed upon the defendant in his or her absence by the court from which the appeal was taken, and in the following manner: upon receipt by the superior court from which the appeal is taken of the certificate of the appellate court affirming the judgment, the judge of the superior court shall forthwith make and cause to be entered an order pronouncing sentence against the defendant, and a warrant signed by the judge, and attested by the clerk under the seal of the court, shall be drawn, and it shall state the conviction and judgment and appoint a day upon which the judgment shall be executed, which shall not be less than 60 days nor more than 90 days from the time of making the order; and that, within five days thereafter, a certified copy of the order, attested by the clerk under the seal of the court, and attached to the warrant, shall, for the purpose of execution, be transmitted by registered mail to the warden of the state prison having the custody of the defendant and certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by registered mail to the Governor; and provided further, that when any judgment imposing the death penalty has been affirmed and sentence has been reimposed as above provided there shall be no appeal from the order fixing the time for and directing the execution of the judgment as herein provided. If a pro se defendant requests that judgment in a noncapital case be pronounced against him or her in his or her absence, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent the defendant in the in absentia sentencing.
(b) If the conviction be of a misdemeanor, judgment may be pronounced against the defendant in his absence.
Moderator Note
Feel free to ask if they have a factual cite for that, or to question the factual validity of a statement, but don’t go so far as to tell others how or where to post. That’s junior modding.
Cite?
This website says that elections are used in 22 states, which is a significant number, but hardly “most.”
As your own article states, 22 states appoint judges through competitive elections but in a further 17 states judges are subject to retention elections.
And that is not something to underestimate. In most situations, a retention election is a paper drill, but if a judge pisses off the wrong business interests in a civil matter, next thing you know those interests are digging through court records to find the case where the judge ordered a new trial in a murder case where, yes, the accused looks guilty as hell, but it turns out the police might just have beat a confession out of them and that’s not cool.
The recall campaign ads say “Judge Judy let convicted murderer Willie Joe Racism go free [while conveniently neglecting the whole “because police beat a concession out of him” bit]. Say no to murder. Vote to recall Judge Judy this November.” But the real story is Mega Corporation is pissed off that Judge Judy said it had to allow workers to leave the killing floor to receive medical treatment in the event they suffered a traumatic amputation, and cost Mega Corporation $500 dollars per year in evil-doer club membership fees.
And how money do you think judges have lying around to run an impromptu anti-recall campaign?
Damn, and I thought Judge Judy only did small claims equivalent arbitration on daytime TV.
Well, yeah, after that recall, what else was she going to do? It’s the judicial equivalent to flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong.
I’m guessing that neither one of you have any experience with retention elections.
Despite the fact that they are “elections,” and despite the fact that they theoretically make judges accountable to the public, it is EXTREMELY rare for a judge to be voted out of office. I speak from experience, because for the last 28 years I have been voting in Colorado, which has retention elections. Judges are reviewed by an independent commission, which issues recommendations on whether each one should be retained on the bench. Somehow or another, this commission virtually always recommends retention, even when they recognize that a judge has issues of one sort or another.
To give parity to retention elections and elections where judges actually run on the ballot is roughly the same as saying that there is no difference between a presidential election and choosing a prom queen. The two types of elections are equivalent in name only, and are different in every other way.
No one’s disagreeing with you, buddy. @ASL_v2.0 notes that these are often paper elections, and I stated that in most states judges are subject to election (which is true). It’s rare, but voters can and do reject judges in retention elections – in this last election cycle, Maricopa County, AZ, booted three judges facing retention elections.
https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2022/11/15/voters-rejecting-three-maricopa-county-judges