(A) It is proper for the judge to grant charge and sentence leniency to defendants who enter pleas of guilty or nolo contendere when the interests of the public in the effective administration of criminal Justice are thereby served. Among the considerations which are appropriate in determining this question are:
(1) that the defendant by entering a plea has aided in ensuring the prompt and certain application of correctional measures; (2) that the defendant has acknowledged guilt and shown a willingness to assume responsibility for conduct; (3) that the leniency will make possible alternative correctional measures which are better adapted to achieving rehabilitative, protective, deterrent or other purposes of correctional treatment, or will prevent undue harm to the defendant from the form of conviction; (4) that the defendant has made public trial unnecessary when there are good reasons for not having the case dealt with in a public trial; (5) that the defendant has given or offered cooperation when such cooperation has resulted or may result in the successful prosecution of other off engaged in equally “serious or more serious criminal conduct; (6) that the defendant by entering a plea has aided in avoiding delay (including delay due to crowded dockets) in the disposition of other cases and thereby has increased the probability of prompt and certain application of correctional measures to other offenders. (B) The judge should not impose upon a defendant any sentence in excess of that which would be justified by any of the rehabilitative, protective, deterrent or other purposes of the criminal law merely because the defendant has chosen to require the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt at trial rather than to enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
