Panel weighs cost as factor in sentencing
The Associated Press | January 26,2013
MONTPELIER — A Senate committee heard testimony Friday on a bill that would require judges to consider the expected financial costs before imposing possible sentences.
Under the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Corrections Department would develop a database that would be available to the courts listing the costs of individual sentences.
The head of the state’s attorney’s association and the defender general testified Friday that they welcomed more information about the costs of sentences, but they disagreed about whether to mandate that judges consider it.
“We don’t have a problem with financial costs being treated as relevant information, relative evidence in sentencing, in certain sentencing. We do have a problem with it being one of the criteria for sentencing,” said Bram Kranichfeld, executive director of the Department of State’s Attorney’s and Sheriffs’ Association. Kranichfeld said that requiring a consideration of the financial cost to be part of the sentencing criteria could result in unfair sentences.
Of the 14 state’s attorneys in Vermont, nine weighed in and were opposed to the proposal.
Kranichfeld argued that such a consideration would be litigated in court, using up court resources.
But Defender General Matthew Valerio told the committee that such litigation likely wouldn’t happen. Most cases result in plea agreements, which means that both sides agree to the sentences, he said.
“I don’t think that it’s an inappropriate thing for cost, in today’s day and age, to be part of a consideration. It’s what judges do all the time. They take in evidence, they listen, they weigh what’s most important, what’s least important, and they make a decision,” he said. And he said he believed that financial considerations would not be high on the list of factors considered by a judge in sentencing, including public safety and the likelihood of rehabilitation.
Sponsor Sen. Tim Ashe said the bill doesn’t bind judges to make decisions based on financial costs.
“But it makes sure that they’re making the best decision in their judgment considering in an evolving world where we now appreciate that early intervention, particularly on substance abuse, is the most effective thing that we can do,” he said.