That's fair enough. I appreciate your question.
As far as mandatory reasons into a decision are concerned, a judge already provides reasons in the sentencing. It's an obligation that's established in law. A statutory requirement specifically targeting this provision implies distrust of the judiciary, and it may invite formulaic compliance rather than genuine deliberation. It also adds procedural weight to a mechanism deliberately designed to be streamlined and victim-centric.
If the committee finds comfort in making this explicit in the language, it certainly would have to be very carefully drafted to avoid constraining the very judicial system the bill was designed to create. I feel that it is not necessary, and it would certainly be a fair question to pose of our departmental witnesses.