Trump got the king-making ruling from his Supreme Court and Jack Smith filed what hopefully will be a historic successful indictment trying to lay out alleged crimes that Trump committed which couldn't be considered part of presidential duties.
Most readers of this blog by and large probably want Trump to pay for what he did with the indignity of having to go to prison. The kind of heart may accept his having to serve a sentence walking around Mar-a-Lago with an ankle bracelet and no access to the internet and not being able to party with other felons.
The really, really kind of heart may want President Harris to pull a Gerald Ford and pardon him. This may actually be the politically savvy thing to do.
Not that it matters in the great scheme of things what my opinion is but I think that if Trump is convicted the consequences should depend on whether or not he expresses any remorse. This wouldn't be up to me and it wouldn't be up to the public. The sentence would be a decision made by the judge. Consider the journal article:
So You're Sorry? The Role of Remorse in Criminal Law
The role of remorse in judicial decisions in the criminal justice system has been addressed in scholarship and remains controversial. The purpose of this qualitative research was to examine the views of sitting criminal judges on remorse, its assessment, and its relevance in their decision-making. After approval of the study design by the institutional review board, 23 judges were interviewed in an open-ended format. Transcriptions of these audio-recorded sessions were analyzed phenomenologically by the research team, using the method of narrative summary. The results showed that the judges varied widely in their opinions on the way remorse should be assessed and its relevance in judicial decision-making. They agreed that the relevance of remorse varied by type of crime and the stage of the proceedings. The indicators of remorse for some judges were the same as those that indicated the lack of remorse for others. All the judges recognized that assessment of remorse, as well as judicial decision-making in general, must be altered for defendants with mental illness. The judges varied in their views of the relevance of psychiatric assessments in determining remorse, although most acknowledged a role for forensic psychiatrists.
Legal scholars and courts appreciate the significance of remorse in criminal law. Remorse is held to be an appropriate consideration, particularly durin the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.
However, it remains a poorly formulated concept, lacking clarity and uniformity in both its definition and the characteristics that signal its presence or absence. The problem of remorse is further complicated in individuals with psychiatric illness because their behaviors and cognitions may deviate from the expectations that judges have. The purpose of this article is to present the results of a qualitative study that explored how some criminal court judges view remorse, its assessment, and its relevance in their adjudication of cases involving persons with and without psychiatric disorders.
We concern ourselves initially with the topic of remorse in general and then with its presence in the setting of mental illness in particular. Psychiatric symptoms can influence both the experience and expression of remorse. Furthermore, knowledge that a defendant has mental illness may color observers' interpretations of that person's behavior.
Think of it. Trump would probably be ordered to have a psychiatric assessment. What would happen if the assessment said that due to his psychiatric disorder he was mentally incapable of acknowledging remorse?
Could Trump, who far far most therapists have concluded is a malignant narcissist, a sociopath, and/or delusional, be able lie to avoid going to prison and tell the judge and of course his supporters, that he was sorry?
Trump is an inveterate liar who makes up tales to his benefit, but could he lie when his future is at stake? Could he feign expressing the feeling of contrition?
What, then, would happen if the judge gave due consideration to an expression of remorse, false as it was, in lessening what otherwise would be a harsh sentence.
Just Trump saying the words "I did wrong and I am sorry" might be seen as partial punishment.
Does being crazy mean never having to say you're sorry... and meaning it? Maybe for Trump it will. Maybe for this rare psychological specimen it won't.
If Trump loses the election there's a good chance we will find out the answer.
Recent blogs: