Sentenced By the Press



March 3, 2001



BOB GARFIELD: Editorial pages have frequently weighed in with discontent about criminal sentences --whether too heavy, too light, too open-ended or too inflexible. At least one judge, however, has asked the press for its opinion not ex post facto but in advance! In the conviction of Avon Lake, Ohio Mayor Vincent Urbin on corruption charges, visiting Judge Richard M. Markus, through another court officer solicited from four newspapers comments or recommendations on the mayor's fate. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, one of the newspapers invited to comment, all four editors declined. Judge Markus joins us now. Welcome to On the Media.

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS: I'm pleased to be with you.

BOB GARFIELD: You asked newspaper editors to offer their opinions about a, a forthcoming sentencing. What was your motivator?

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS: Ohio has a specific statute that directs that the judge at a sentencing hearing shall permit various persons to make any comments and may permit any others. The legislature gives me specific directions about how to accomplish the sentence, and those are the standards that I must apply. But to the extent that anyone can give me information that helps me apply those standards, I am pleased to receive it.

BOB GARFIELD: And sometimes a judge simply has to solicit this information.

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS:Well I didn't solicit in that sense. You know it's not unusual for news media to express their views. That's what editorial opinions are for. Seems to me that it would be more sensible if they wished to express such opinions that the do so before the sentencing occurs instead of afterwards. I think of it as something like making a political endorsement shortly after the election occurs! It has no impact then.

BOB GARFIELD: In your long and distinguished career have you taken your share of criticism from newspapers in your jurisdictions?

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS:Indeed, I've had the comments that my sentence was too harsh. I've had comments that my sentence was not sufficiently harsh, and again I think that's one of the reasons why news media might better communicate earlier, because I can better explain why the legislature commands the decision that I make. Really this is not whimsical. I typically have to make something in the area of 50 factual decisions in deciding on the appropriate sentence!

BOB GARFIELD:But you weren't in any way being pointed with this request, were you? You weren't kind of twisting the knife and saying all right, wise guys, if you're so smart, why don't you recommend a sentence beforehand instead of--

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS: Hardly. Hardly.

BOB GARFIELD: -- waiting to Monday morning quarterback?

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS: The letter expressly says that the judge will follow the legislature's directions and looks only for any information that will facilitate that process.

BOB GARFIELD: What would motivate a judge after all these years on the bench to suddenly start seeking input from such an unexpected source.

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS:First I don't consider it an unexpected source, and I would like to suggest that all of these years, as you put it, helps me to think and learn and consider other options that may help me do my job more effectively!

BOB GARFIELD:Had a newspaper editor weighed in with a point of view directly to the judge in--instead of on the editorial pages of the newspaper, do you think this raises ethical concerns?

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS: Not to me. We believe in our nation that you should have a right to express your views and express your views to your government! And I, part-- as part of that government, am quite willing to listen to other people's views.

BOB GARFIELD: All right. Thank you Judge Markus. Thanks so much for joining us.

JUDGE RICHARD M. MARKUS: Pleasure chatting with you. Thank you.