This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wood, L. A. Articles by MacMartin, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Constructing Remorse

Judges' Sentencing Decisions in Child Sexual Assault Cases

University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, wood{at}psy.uoguelph.ca.

Clare MacMartin

University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Remorse is an important consideration in sentencing, but the process of designating remorse has received little direct research attention. Using discursive psychology, the authors examine sentencing decisions in 74 cases of child sexual assault to identify the practices involved in judges' constructions of remorse. As expected, guilty pleas are used as evidence of remorse and vice versa. However, the judges do a good deal of additional work to support their assessments, particularly in cases that are exceptions to the pattern. Judges use text citation, appearance—reality contrasts, references to stake and interest, and other fact-construction devices, but there is variability in the devices that are selected and flexibility in how they are used. The authors discuss the problem of distinguishing appearance and reality and the possibility of omitting remorse as a mitigating factor but conclude that the discursive reformulation of the notion of remorse provides a viable alternative.

Key Words: discursive psychology • fact construction • legal decision making • plea • remorse • sentencing

References

• Bagaric, M., & Amarasekara, K. (2001). Feeling sorry?—Tell someone who cares: The irrelevance of remorse in sentencing. Howard Journal, 40, 364-376.[CrossRef]
• Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Costanzo, M., & Costanzo, S. (1992). Jury decision making in the capital penalty phase: Legal assumptions, empirical findings, and a research agenda. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 185-201.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology, 1, 515-542.
• Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology, 5, 271-291.[CrossRef]
• Edwards, D. (2004). Discursive psychology. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 257-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
• Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 63-92). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Komter, M. L. (Ed.). (2006). Talk and text: The relationship between spoken interaction and written documentation in legal settings [Special issue]. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39.
• MacMartin, C., & Wood, L.A. (2005). Sexual motives and sentencing: Judicial discourse in cases of child sexual abuse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 139-159.[Abstract]
• Pomerantz, A.M. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219-229.
• Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
• Proeve, M.J., & Howells, K. (2006). Effects of remorse and shame and criminal justice experience on judgements about a sex offender. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 12, 145-161.[CrossRef]
• Proeve, M.J., Smith, D.I., & Niblo, D.M. (1999). Mitigation without definition: Remorse in the criminal justice system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32, 16-26.[Web of Science]
• Ruby, C.C. (1994). Sentencing (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworths.
• Sundby, S.E. (1998). The capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy, remorse, and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1557-1598.[Web of Science]
• Weisman, R. (1999). Detecting remorse and its absence in the criminal justice system. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 19, 121-135.
• 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, 121-138.[Web of Science]
• Wood, L.A., & Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 343-362 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X07306979


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wood, L. A. Articles by MacMartin, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?