An individual's complicated emotional display of regret
An individual's complicated emotional display of regret. A person forgives another person because of the merciful feelings that are present in this situation. It can also be described as having a strong sense of remorse after doing something that is viewed negatively by society. Criminals and other violators are sentenced in part based on their level of regret. Judges frequently grant the minimum sentence to offenders who exhibit remorse. The 18th century saw a rise in the importance of regret. This resulted from modifications made to the legal structure. There was a change from the fixed sentences to indeterminate sentences. Hence, people could use remorse to take advantage if the system and hence be given less sentences. The change from the fixed sentences to the indeterminate sentence was due to the changes in the views of the judges (Eisenberg et al., 1997). They started to view sentencing as a way of punishing and also reforming an individual. Hence, a person could get a less sentence for a certain crime provided he showed that he regretted committing the offense and that he would not repeat the offences in future.
The role of remorse in the legal system
The reason why remorse became a valuable current for the offenders was because the judges used it to gauge or measure the potential a person had for rehabilitation. People who are remorseful after committing offenses had a high likelihood of being rehabilitated successfully. The consideration of remorse as a mitigation factor is allowed in many judicial systems around the world (Niedermeier et al., 2001). This is allowed due to the modern system of criminal punishment. It has four divisions which include deterrence, rehabilitation, Retribution and incapacitation. Remorse is not just the discomfort a person exhibits after committing offences. It is also the emotions exhibited and also the cognition about the situation that lead to the emotions. Therefore, understanding the roles of four theories of remorse in the legal system can help in determining the role remorse plays in the legal changes (Maroney, T.A., 2006).
Rehabilitation
The firs reason for punishment is rehabilitation. In this case, the punishment an individual receives is meant to make sure that he does not commit another crime. It aims to improve the behavior of the offender and hence make sure that there is a reduction in the criminal activities (Bibas and Bierschbach, 2004). Hence, rehabilitation is attained when an individual shows remorse for what he or she did. Hence, remorse is one of the indicators of rehabilitative success in the offender. It determines whether he is going to be given further punishment or not, depending on the crime committed and the need for rehabilitation. When a person expresses remorse of the offence he or she has committed, it shows that he has taken responsibility for his actions (Travers and Manzo, 2016). Hence, the person is less likely to repeat the crime. As a result, the judge or the jury that is determining the sentence can reduce it be case the individual has shown remorse and is therefore more likely to be change. It is important because one of the main objectives of giving out punishment to an individual is to rehabilitate the person and change his attitude towards the wrong deeds (Huang and Wu, 1994).
Retribution
The other theory is retribution. The theory considers the punishment to be an end in itself, and not just a way of reducing the harm caused by the offence a person commits. There are two broad divisions of the retribution theory. They are the character-based and act-based retribution. In the act-based case, emphasis is placed on giving the offender a punishment that is equivalent to the crime or offence he committed. On the other hand, the character-based retribution does not just focus on punishing the individual for the crime he committed. It also concentrates on the morals of the individual (Brudney, 2010). These include the external conditions, state of mind, and other factors that might have influenced the individual to commit the crime. Therefore, in the character-based retribution, the individual who is remorseful is given less punishment than the individual who has not shown any remorse. The character of a person is important in retribution. Hence, a person who shows genuine remorse is considered to be of good character. A person who has a good character might have made the mistake of committing a certain offense but this does not mean that he is a bad person (Ten Brinke et al., 2012). Hence, when he expresses remorse, it becomes easier to reduce the punishment to be imposed on him.
Incapacitation
Incapacitation refers to the process of disabling the ability of the offender to commit more crimes. This is done to ensure that he does not commit crimes in future. It is achieved through various actions taken against the individual such as imprisonment and execution in diverse cases (Corwin et al., 2012). In the incapacitation theory, the person who is able o express or show remorse can be given a less sentences or a less severe punishment. This is because he is much less likely to commit the crime or offense again. However, if a person fails to shop remorse, the punishment given to him or her is much greater than the punishment given to a remorseful person. Hence, remorse plays a huge role when it comes to giving punishments that are based on incapacitation. In order to incapacitate an individual and prevent him or her from committing another crime, a judge or a jury has to make sure that it hands a sentence. However, if the person expresses remorse, then the judge or jury can reduce the sentences they give because a remorseful person is less likely to repeat the crime. Hence, it can be said that remorse is an important factor to consider when handing out a punishment that is supposed to prevent a person from committing another crime in future (Zhong et al., 2015).
Deterrence
Deterrence is the other theory whose punishment is affected by remorse. There are two types of deterrence. They include the Specific deterrence and general deterrence. The specific deterrence aims to prevent the individual from committing the crime again in future. On the other hand, general deterrence serves the purpose of deterring other individuals who have the potential of committing the crime being investigated (Murphy, 2006). Therefore, the punishment given to the offender in this case has to deter or discourage others from committing a similar offence or crime. Hence, less punishment is given to an individual who exhibits remorse .This is because the remorseful; person has a higher probability of being deterred from repeating the offense with less punishment than a person who does not show any remorse.
Arguments against the consideration of remorse
The show of remorse is justified in all the theories that explain punishment. However, some judges claim that the remorse a person shows should not be considered when passing a sentence. They argue that the people who are being punished should be punished specifically for the crime they committed rather than the other factors that lead to the consideration of remorse. Additionally, arguments have come up against the remorse principle due to the difficulty of determining whether a person is remorseful or not. Hence, some judges expect to see remorse in different forms (Weisma, 2016). There is no clear evidence of remorse because it is possible for a person to pretend to be remorseful so that he or she can get less punishment. Many people have used the technique to avoid lethal punishments and hence it is possible that remorse should not be considered when passing sentences.
Impact of remorse on legal decision-making
According to research, the remorse shown by the offenders has a huge impact on the legal decision makers. When an offender fails; to show remorse, jurors and judges tend to pass a sentence that is harsher. This is because they believe that the person who has failed to show remorse is more likely to commit the offense again in future. This is relevant even in serious cases such as murder trials. Additionally, the smaller crimes such as traffic offenses also show that remorse is the most effective way that people can use to decrease the punishment that they are facing (MacLin et al.,. 2009). Research has shown that remorse is related to the reduction of the recidivism rates.
Conclusion
Therefore, remorse is important because it combines well with the various theories of punishment. When it comes to the issue of deterrence, when a person shows remorse he is ready to make amends and he has accepted the responsibility (Weisman, 2004). Therefore, he is more likely to be given a more lenient sentence compared to a person who does not show remorse. Therefore, remorse should be considered when coming up with changes to the legal processes.
However, there are cases that cannot be influenced by remorse due to their seriousness. These include cases such as multiple homicides, multiple rape cases, and other crimes that have been committed frequently by an individual. Therefore, the judge cannot change the punishment as a result of the remorse shown by the accused in cases like this. The offender cannot rely on the expression been of remorse to reduce his or her sentence. It does not make the punishment less harsh. Additionally, research has also shown that the lack of remorse in serious cases like this does not warrant a harsher punishment.
Remorse is more useful and meaningful when it comes to minor cases that do not require heavy sentences. This is because the offender can have his sentence reduce slightly for the sake of ensuring that he gets another chance to do the right thing. Punishment should not just be a way of punishing a person for committing a crime, but also making sure that the person is rehabilitated (Proeve et al., 1999).
According to research, crimes that had victims are more likely to be affected by the show of remorse than those cases that do not have victims. However, there are types of crimes that do not have victims that remorse can be considered. An example is the remorse showed by a drug user. Moreover, crimes that have hypothetical victims can be determined by remorse. Those crimes that involve a person being reckless, negligent, or even impulsiveness also show that the expression of remorse is important and it matters when determining the punishment an individual will receive. These crimes include drunk driving, domestic violence, and other cases that are related to drug use (Komter, 2016).
According to judges, a person who does not show any kind of remorse is more dangerous, sociopathic, and hence he or she is most likely going to commit the crime again. However, it is good to mention that the show of remorse is not a necessity in the legal process. This is because as much as remorse can lead to a reduction of the sentence, a person who is facing certain charges does not have to exhibit remorse. According to law, the person who stands accused of committing crime is perceived to be innocent until proven guilty. Hence, a person cannot be considered to be innocent if he is remorseful. Remorseful people are the ones who have confessed to committing a crime and hence they are not innocent at all. A person who admits to committing a crime is no longer innocent.
Therefore, remorse is an important factor to consider in the legal processes. The expression of remorse by an offender has the potential of leading to a reduction in the punishment that the person is given by a judge or a jury. This is because the show of remorse shows that a person has taken the responsibility of his actions. A person who has taken responsibility of his actions clearly regrets committing the offense, and hence he or she is less likely to repeat the crime in future. Hence, remorse leads reduces the punishment. However, it is also clear that remorse sometimes cannot change the impact of the punishment. There are certain cases that the show of remorse lacks the ability of influencing the punishment. These include multiple crimes such as multiple homicides, multiple rape cases, and many more serious offenses. Additionally, remorse is sometimes undefined. This is because it is the show of emotions and regret for a certain thing, and hence people have different ways of showing. Hence, it is possible for a person to fake remorse. It is also possible for the judge or jury to fail to detect the remorse expressed by an individual. Therefore remorse is an important element in the legal process, especially when it comes to criminal justice. However, it should be manage well to avoid cases where people are unable to comprehend remorse or when they misuse it so that they can reduce their sentences.
References
Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S.P. and Wells, M.T., 1997. But was he sorry? The role of remorse in capital sentencing. Cornell L. Rev., 83, p.1599.
Niedermeier, K.E., Horowitz, I.A. and Kerr, N.L., 2001. Exceptions to the rule: The effects of remorse, status, and gender on decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), pp.604-623.
Maroney, T.A., 2006. Law and emotion: A proposed taxonomy of an emerging field. Law and human behavior, 30(2), pp.119-142.
Bibas, S. and Bierschbach, R.A., 2004. Integrating remorse and apology into criminal procedure. Yale Law Journal, pp.85-148.
Travers, M. and Manzo, J.F., 2016. Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to law. Routledge.
Huang, P.H. and Wu, H.M., 1994. More order without more law: A theory of social norms and organizational cultures. JL Econ. & Org., 10, p.390.
Brudney, J.J., 2010. Reluctance and Remorse: The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing with American Employment Law. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J., 32, p.773.
Ten Brinke, L., MacDonald, S., Porter, S. and O'connor, B., 2012. Crocodile tears: facial, verbal and body language behaviours associated with genuine and fabricated remorse. Law and human behavior, 36(1), p.51.
Corwin, E.P., Cramer, R.J., Griffin, D.A. and Brodsky, S.L., 2012. Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 40(1), pp.41-49.
Zhong, R., Baranoski, M., Feigenson, N., Davidson, L., Buchanan, A. and Zonana, H., 2015. So you're sorry? The role of remorse in criminal law.
Murphy, J.G., 2006. Well Excuse Me-Remorse, Apology, and Criminal Sentencing. Ariz. St. LJ, 38, p.371.
Weisman, R., 2016. Showing remorse: Law and the social control of emotion. Routledge.
MacLin, M.K., Downs, C., MacLin, O.H. and Caspers, H.M., 2009. The effect of defendant facial expression on mock juror decision-making: The power of remorse. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(2).
Weisman, R., 2004. Showing remorse: Reflections on the gap between expression and attribution in cases of wrongful conviction. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(2), pp.121-138.
Proeve, M.J., Smith, D.I. and Mead Niblo, D., 1999. Mitigation without definition: Remorse in the criminal justice system. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(1), pp.16-26.
Komter, M., 2016. 10 Remorse, Redress, and Reform: Blame-Taking in the Courtroom1. Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to law.
