Remorse Penal Theory And Sentencing

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.

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.

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.

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.

Considering both abstract arguments and factual evidence about the effects of punishing offenders, Ten links the moral justification of punishment by the state to more general issues about the nature of moral disagreements and our obligations to obey the law.

This book explains that penitentiaries were originally designed to bring about penance, and that this has been lost in the assembly line of mass incarceration.

Cragg combines the findings of contemporary studies, reports and papers focusing on crime, punishment and penal practice with philosophical argument and thereby constructs a radical theory of restorative justice.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.

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.