Year: 2006
Type: article
Abstract: State court judges in the United States have a great deal of discretion in assessing punishments for criminal defendants.Over time, through either statutory pronouncement or precedent, state courts have considered a distinct group of factors in determining the proper punishment for a convicted criminal defendant.One of these factors is remorse.Many state courts have found remorse to be an appropriate mitigating factor to consider when assigning criminal punishment. 1 However, many states have found the absence of remorse to be an appropriate aggravating factor when calculating an appropriate criminal punishment. 2 Unfortunately, remorse has proven to be an increasingly ambiguous concept, which state court judges have had a great deal of difficulty applying in any coherent or consistent manner.Rather, reflecting the myriad definitions of remorse, state courts have found a myriad of reasons to find remorse present or absent, many of which are illogical at best.Remorse presents problems for both prosecutors and defenders.Prosecutors may confront a savvy criminal defendant who is not remorseful, but who claims remorse in order to obtain a reduced sentence and is proficient in saying the right things before a susceptible judge.Defenders face a perceived lack of remorse, which may result in a more lengthy sentence for the defendant who is inarticulate or fails to behave or speak in the manner the judge believes indicates remorse.
Source: bepress Legal Repository
Author: Bryan H. Ward
Institution: Loyola University Chicago
Language: English
Topic: Criminal Law and Policy
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2259177440