Stemming from interviews with 151 probation officers in the United States, this study produces a qualitative model that illuminates the extent to and ways in which probation officers draw from principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence to consider remorse as evidence of a client’s potential for rehabilitation (remorse shows “therapeutic guilt” through which an individual being sentenced acknowledges wrongdoings, takes responsibility, and shows behavioral changes) and reconciliation (remorse is a device for “rebalancing power” by shifting responsibility for bad acts away from victims and community, as well as allows the individual being sentenced to seek and receive forgiveness via apologies and “payback”) during sentencing. Correspondingly, the model further suggests how these officers use their therapeutic views of remorse to inform their presentencing recommendations for sentencing plans that prioritize community reintegration. Finally, this article discusses the model’s implications and the potential adoption of Therapeutic Jurisprudence approaches in sentencing.
BennettC. (2021). Remorse, probation and the state. In TudorS.WeismanR.ProeveM.RossmanithK. (Eds.), Remorse and criminal justice (pp. 136–155). Routledge.
2.
BerryessaC. M. (2019). Judicial stereotyping associated with genetic essentialist biases toward mental disorders and potential negative effects on sentencing. Law & Society Review, 53(1), 202–238.
3.
BerryessaC. M. (2022). Modeling “Remorse Bias” in probation narratives: Examining social cognition and judgments of implicit violence during sentencing. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 452–482.
4.
BerryessaC. M.BalavenderA. (2021). The value of remorse as a “Therapeutic Tool” for probation officers in sentencing. In PerlinM.FrailingK. (Eds.), The therapeutic jurisprudence implications of judicial decision–making by non–judicial officers (pp. 68–80). Temple University Press.
5.
BibasS.BierschbachR. A. (2004). Integrating remorse and apology into criminal procedure. Yale Law Journal, 114, 85–148.
6.
BirgdenA. (2004). Therapeutic jurisprudence and responsivity: Finding the will and the way in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 283–295.
7.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
8.
BraithwaiteJ. (2002). Restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38(2), 244–262.
9.
BucklenK. B.ZajacG. (2009). But some of them don’t come back (to prison!): Resource deprivation and thinking errors as determinants of parole success and failure. The Prison Journal, 89(3), 239–264.
10.
BushwayS. D.ApelR. (2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming: Training completion as a desistance signal. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 21–50.
11.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
12.
CorwinE. P.CramerR. J.GriffinD. A.BrodskyS. L. (2012). Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 40(1), 41–49.
DewhurstD. (2012). Understanding the legal client’s best interests: Lessons from therapeutic jurisprudence and comprehensive justice. Phoenix Law Review, 6, 963–1016.
15.
DrassK. A.SpencerJ. W. (1987). Accounting for pre-sentencing recommendations: Typologies and probation officers’ theory of office. Social Problems, 34(3), 277–293.
16.
ErezE. (2004). Victim voice, impact statements and sentencing: Integrating restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence principles in adversarial proceedings. Criminal Law Bulletin, 40, 483–500.
17.
EtienneM.RobbennoltJ. K. (2007). Apologies and plea bargaining. Marquette Law Review, 91(1), 295–322.
18.
EtzioniA. (2000). Repentance: A comparative perspective. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
19.
EvansA.KingM. (2012). Reflections on the connection of virtue ethics to therapeutic jurisprudence. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 35(3), 717–746.
20.
EverettR. S.NienstedtB. C. (1999). Race, remorse, and sentence reduction: Is saying you’re sorry enough?Justice Quarterly, 16(1), 99–122.
21.
FeigensonN. (2010). Audiovisual communication and therapeutic jurisprudence: Cognitive and social psychological dimensions. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 33, 336–340.
22.
FreiburgerT. L.HilinskiC. M. (2011). Probation officers’ recommendations and final sentencing outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(1), 45–61.
23.
GlaserB. G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology. Sociology Press.
24.
GouldingC. (2017). Navigating the complexities of grounded theory research in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 61–70.
25.
HaganJ. (1975). The social and legal construction of criminal justice: A study of the pre-sentencing process. Social Problems, 22(5), 620–637.
26.
HayesH. (2006). Apologies and accounts in youth justice conferencing: Reinterpreting research outcomes. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(4), 369–385.
27.
HunterR.AnleuS. R.MackK. (2016). Judging in lower courts: Conventional, procedural, therapeutic and feminist approaches. International Journal of Law in Context, 12, 337–360.
28.
KingM. S. (2008). Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and the rise of emotionally intelligent justice. Melbourne University Law Review, 32, 1096–1126.
29.
LeBelT. P.BurnettR.MarunaS.BushwayS. (2008). The chicken and egg of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5(2), 131–159.
30.
LuH.MietheT. D. (2003). Confessions and criminal case disposition in China. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 549–578.
31.
LurigioA. J.SnowdenJ. (2009). Putting therapeutic jurisprudence into practice: The growth, operations, and effectiveness of mental health court. Justice System Journal, 30(2), 196–218.
32.
MartelJ. (2010). Remorse and the production of truth. Punishment & Society, 12(4), 414–437.
33.
MarunaS. (2012). Elements of successful desistance signaling. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(11), 73–86.
34.
McAlindenA. M. (2021). Apologies as “shame management”: The politics of remorse in the aftermath of historical institutional abuse. Legal Studies, 42(1), 137–158.
35.
McMichaelB. J. (2018). The failure of sorry: An empirical evaluation of apology laws, health care, and medical malpractice. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 22, 1199–1281.
36.
MooreD. (2007). Translating justice and therapy: The drug treatment court networks. British Journal of Criminology, 47(1), 42–60.
37.
MurphyJ. G. (2006). Remorse, apology, and mercy. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 4, 423–453.
38.
O’Hara O’ConnorE.YarnD. (2002). On apology and consilience. Washington Law Review, 77(4), 1121–1192.
39.
O’HearM. M. (1997). Remorse, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility: The structure, implementation, and reform of section 3e1. 1 of the federal sentencing guidelines. Northwestern University Law Review, 91(4), 14–24.
40.
PalinkasL. A.HorwitzS. M.GreenC. A.WisdomJ. P.DuanN.HoagwoodK. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.
41.
PattonM. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE.
42.
PetrucciC. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 337–362.
43.
PinardM. (2003). Broadening the holistic mindset: Incorporating collateral consequences and reentry into criminal defense lawyering. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 31, 1067–1095.
44.
PoulsonB. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 167–203.
45.
ReichS. E. (2017). An exception to the rule: Belief in redeemability, desistance signals, and the employer’s decision to hire a job applicant with a criminal record. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(2), 110–136.
46.
RushC.RobertsonJ. (1987). Presentence reports. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 147–155.
47.
ScheffT. J. (1998). Community conferences: Shame and anger in therapeutic jurisprudence. Revista Juridica de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 67, 97–119.
48.
ScheffT. J.RetzingerS. M. (2000). Shame as the master emotion of everyday life. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 1(3), 303–324.
49.
ShumanD. W. (2000). The role of apology in tort law. Judicature, 83(4), 180–189.
50.
SmithN. (2013a). Against court-ordered apologies. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(1), 1–49.
51.
SmithN. (2013b). Just apologies: An overview of the philosophical issues. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 13, 35–103.
52.
SpencerJ. W. (1984). Conducting presentencing investigations: From discourse to textual summaries. Urban Life, 13(2), 207–227.
53.
SteinbergR.FeigeD. (2004). Cultural revolution: Transforming the public defender’s office. NYU Review of Law & Social Change, 29, 123–133.
54.
TangneyJ. P. (1995). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(8), 1132–1145.
55.
Van StokkomB. (2002). Moral emotions in restorative justice conferences: Managing shame, designing empathy. Theoretical Criminology, 6(3), 339–360.
56.
WalshA. (1985). The role of the probation officer in the sentencing process: Independent professional or judicial hack?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3), 289–303.
57.
WeismanR. (2009). Being and doing: The judicial use of remorse to construct character and community. Social & Legal Studies, 18(1), 47–69.
58.
WeismanR. (2014). Showing remorse: Law and the social control of emotion. Ashgate Publishing Group.
59.
WexlerD. B. (2004). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the rehabilitative role of the criminal defense lawyer. St. Thomas Law Review, 17, 743–774.
60.
WexlerD. B. (2006). Therapeutic jurisprudence and readiness for rehabilitation. Florida Coastal Law Review, 8, 111–131.
61.
WienerR. L.WinickB. J.GeorgesL. S.CastroA. (2010). A testable theory of problem solving courts: Avoiding past empirical and legal failures. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5–6), 417–427.
62.
WinickB. J. (1999). Redefining the role of the criminal defense lawyer at plea bargaining and sentencing: A therapeutic jurisprudence/preventive law model. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(4), 1034–1083.
63.
WringeB. (2012). Collective agents and communicative theories of punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(4), 436–456.
64.
ZehrH. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. Simon and Schuster.
65.
ZhongR. (2015). Judging remorse. NYU Review of Law & Social Change, 39, 133–172.
66.
ZhongR.BaranoskiM.FeigensonN.DavidsonL.BuchananA.ZonanaH. (2014). So you’re sorry? The role of remorse in criminal law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 39–48.
