Whether or not wrongdoers show remorse and how they show remorse are matters that attract great interest both in law and in popular culture. In capital trials in the United States, it can be a question of life or death whether a jury believes that a wrongdoer showed remorse. And in wrongdoings that capture the popular imagination, public attention focuses not only on the act but on whether the perpetrator feels remorse for what they did. But who decides when remorse should be shown or not shown and whether it is genuine or not genuine? In contrast to previous academic studies on the subject, the primary focus of this work is not on whether the wrongdoer meets these expectations over how and when remorse should be shown but on how the community reacts when these expectations are met or not met. Using examples drawn from Canada, the United States, and South Africa, the author demonstrates that the showing of remorse is a site of negotiation and contention between groups who differ about when it is to be expressed and how it is to be expressed. The book illustrates these points by looking at cases about which there was conflict over whether the wrongdoer should show remorse or whether the feelings that were shown were sincere. Building on the earlier analysis, the author shows that the process of deciding when and how remorse should be expressed contributes to the moral ordering of society as a whole. This book will be of interest to those in the fields of sociology, law, law and society, and criminology.

The primary focus of this work is, unlike previous studies, not on whether the wrongdoer meets our expectations over how and when remorse should be shown, but on how the community reacts when these expectations are met or not met. Using examples drawn from Canada, the United States, and South Africa, the author demonstrates that the showing of remorse is a site of negotiation and contention between differing groups. This study also shows that the process of deciding when and how remorse should be expressed contributes to the moral ordering of society as a whole.

This multi-disciplinary collection brings together original contributions to present the best of current thinking about the nature and place of remorse in the context of criminal justice. Despite the widespread and long-standing nature of interest in offender remorse, the topic has until recently been peripheral in academic studies. The authors are scholars from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, South Africa and Australia, from diverse academic disciplines. They reflect on the role of remorse in law, for better or for worse; on how expressions of remorse are affected by the legal contexts in which they arise; and on the impact of these expressions on the individual, the court and the community. The work is divided into four parts – Part I Judging Remorse addresses issues concerning the task of assessing remorse in the courtroom, usually prior to determining sentence. Part II Remorse Beyond the Courtroom explores the place and significance of remorse in various post-court settings. Part III Remorse, War and Social Trauma addresses remorse in the context of political violence and social trauma in the former Yugoslavia and South Africa. Finally, Part IV Reflections seeks to underscore the multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary nature of the collection as a whole, through personal and disciplinary reflections on remorse. The work provides a showcase for how diverse academic disciplines can be brought together through a focus on a common topic. As such, the collection will become a standard reference work for further research across a range of disciplines and promote inter-disciplinary dialogue.

This book investigates how defendants are assessed by criminal justice decisionmakers, such as judges, lawyers, probation officers, parole board members and those involved in restorative justice. What attitudes and emotions are defendants expected to show? How are these expectations communicated? The book argues that defendants, at various stages of the criminal justice process, are expected to show a (more or less) free acceptance of guilt and individual responsibility along with a display of 'appropriate' emotions, ideally including 'genuine' remorse. It examines why such expressions of individual responsibility and remorse are so important to decision-makers and the state. With contributors from across the world, the book opens new comparative possibilities and research agendas.

Though the Christian church has a well-developed theology of Godward-facing remorse about sin, it has paid little attention to the interpersonal implications of the remorse that people feel when they wrong one another. Since the nineteenth century, important work has been done by psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers, ethicists, scientists, and lawyers that has implications for the way theologians might think about remorse. This book draws on the biblical record in its ancient settings as well as on insights from contemporary scholarship to offer a new and distinctively Christian contribution to an understanding of remorse.

This monograph addresses a contested but under-discussed question in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's remorse affect the sentence he or she receives? Answering this question involves tackling a series of others: is it possible to justify mitigation for remorse within a retributive sentencing framework? Precisely how should remorse enter into the sentencing equation? How should the mitigating weight of remorse interact with other aggravating and mitigating factors? Are there some offence or offender characteristics that preclude remorse-based mitigation? Remorse is recognised as a legitimate mitigating factor in many sentencing regimes around the world, with powerful effects on sentence severity. Although there has been some discussion of whether this practice can be justified within the literature on sentencing and penal theory, this monograph provides the first comprehensive and in-depth study of possible theoretical justifications. Whilst the emphasis here is on theoretical justification, the monograph also offers analysis of how normative conclusions would play out in the broader context of sentencing decisions and the guidance intended to structure them. The conclusions reached have relevance for sentencing systems around the world.

Remorse is a powerful, important and yet academically neglected emotion. This book, one of the very few extended examinations of remorse, draws on psychology, law and philosophy to present a unique interdisciplinary study of this intriguing emotion. The psychological chapters examine the fundamental nature of remorse, its interpersonal effects, and its relationship with regret, guilt and shame. A practical focus is also provided in an examination of the place of remorse in psychotherapeutic interventions with criminal offenders. The book's jurisprudential chapters explore the problem of how offender remorse is proved in court and the contentious issues concerning the effect that remorse - and its absence - should have on sentencing criminal offenders. The legal and psychological perspectives are then interwoven in a discussion of the role of remorse in restorative justice. In Remorse: Psychological and Jurisprudential Perspectives, Proeve and Tudor bring together insights of neighbouring disciplines to advance our understanding of remorse. It will be of interest to theoreticians in psychology, law and philosophy, and will be of benefit to practising psychologists and lawyers.