After the Verdict: How Judges Decide on Punishment for Criminals
- Sabrina Soto
- Apr 11
- 4 min read
Justin Stanley
In most courtroom dramas, the jury reads the verdict, the judge bangs a gavel, and the bailiff takes the defendant away to serve their time in prison. In reality, it’s not quite that simple. For starters, most judges rarely use their gavel, certainly much less than on TV shows. The bailiff does take the defendant away once they are found guilty, but they must return to court later for a separate sentencing, where the judge will decide on the punishment for the defendant, called a sentence.
Juries decide whether someone accused of a crime is guilty or innocent, but the judge determines the punishment if the accused is found guilty (unless the death penalty is involved, in which case a separate jury trial occurs to determine whether or not the person should be sentenced to death or life in prison). Even if someone pleads guilty, the judge still must hold a hearing to sentence the defendant. Judges do not have unlimited power to impose whatever sentence they want, but they are given leeway to determine an appropriate sentence based on the facts of the case and a variety of other factors.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s it was observed that there were sometimes great disparities in the length of sentences given out to different people convicted of the same crime. To remedy this disparity, Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984. This act set sentencing guidelines for federal offenses and led to the creation of the US Sentencing Commission, a panel of federal judges and other legal experts that recommends updates to the sentencing guidelines. Some concerns have also been raised that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh or do not give judges enough discretion to take into account all factors pertaining to the case and the defendant.
Regardless of the impact of sentencing guidelines, what happens after the verdict is read is not widely understood. To shine a light on how sentencing actually works, I attended a federal sentencing hearing at the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to observe the process. Most federal sentencing hearings last 30 minutes, but they can be much longer if there are any unresolved disputes over any part of the case. For example, at the sentencing I attended, the defendant pled guilty to the primary charge but contested that he destroyed evidence of his crime. The hearing lasted 2 hours. Generally, the prosecutor delivers an opening statement where they state the length of sentence they are requesting and explain their reasoning. Then, the defense lawyer requests a (usually much shorter) sentence and explains why their client should be given the sentence they requested. If necessary, either the prosecutor or the defense can call a witness to testify, and then the other lawyer has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The victim is also given an opportunity to tell the judge about the impact of the crime on them, and the defendant may choose to speak. If they do choose to speak, they can take responsibility for their actions in the hopes of getting a lighter sentence or explain to the judge any factors that they believe should result in them getting a lesser sentence.
After everyone from both sides has had an opportunity to speak, the judge will consider everything they have been told, as well as any written documents submitted by the prosecutor and defense attorney prior to the sentencing, and make a decision about the punishment for the defendant. At least in federal court, the judge will consult the sentencing guidelines for the crime committed. Based on a variety of factors including prior criminal record, whether the defendant accepted responsibility for their actions, cooperation with the investigation, etc., the judge will derive a number that corresponds to the length of sentence. The judge may adjust the length of the sentence based on other factors brought up by either side to arrive at the final sentence. If the sentence given is significantly different from the recommended sentence based on the sentencing guidelines, the judge must explain their reasoning for the deviation.
While there is no law that sets the definitive sentence for each crime, sentences are not completely arbitrary either. To determine whether someone is guilty or innocent, a jury is asked to answer a question based on the facts presented in court, where there are only two options, guilty or innocent. For sentencing, judges must take into account a wide variety of factors and decide on a sentence that they believe accomplishes the 4 goals of sentencing, which are retribution (punishment), rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation (preventing offender from further harming the community). Often, some factors suggest a longer sentence, while others in the same case recommend a shorter sentence. For example, if a defendant attempted to destroy evidence but ultimately took responsibility and expressed regret for their actions. It is ultimately up the the judge to weigh conflicting factors and impose a sentence they believe is fair for everyone involved.
Resources
