This article reflects on the confession as a traditional focal point of criminal law and penal theories. Specifically, it questions the privileged status traditionally conferred to the confession within the hierarchy of legal proof and punishment as a remnant of Christian influence which should be made visible. This reflection draws on the case of Robert Latimer, one of the few judicial cases historically to have polarized Canadian public opinion. After serving seven years in a federal penitentiary for the ‘mercy killing’ of his 12-year-old severally handicapped daughter, Saskatchewan farmer, Robert Latimer, was denied day parole by the National Parole Board of Canada on 5 December 2007. Despite in-prison psychological and parole reports confirming Latimer’s low risk to reoffend, parole board members denied his request on the apparent sole basis that he had not developed sufficient remorse. This case highlights how remorse, as a particular discursive transaction, is an obligatory passage point or an oral corroboration indispensable to complete the written demonstration (i.e. psychological and parole reports) of an offender’s successful integration of the ‘truth’ about her and her crime. Hence, remorse may constitute the only valuable way for offenders to re-take their place within the ritual of ‘Truth’ production.
Acosta F.De l’événement à l’infraction: Le processus de mise en forme pénale. Déviance et Société1987; 11(1): 1-40.
2.
Bagaric M., Amarasekara K.Feeling sorry? - Tell someone who cares: The irrelevance of remorse in sentencing . Howard Journal of Criminal Justice2001; 40(4): 364-76.
3.
Berger BLA choice among values: Theoretical and historical perspectives on the defence of necessity. Alberta Law Review2002; 39(4): 848-63.
4.
Burchell G.Liberal government and techniques of the self. In: Barry A, Osborne T, Rose N (eds) Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996, pp.19-36.
5.
Burns R., Kinkade P., Leone MC, Phillips S.Perspectives on parole: The board members viewpoint. Federal Probation1999; 63(1): 16-21.
6.
Callon M.Elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed.) Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?London: Routledge, 1986, pp.196-233.
7.
Canada.Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) 5-year review: Statutory release and detention provisions. Ottawa: Ministry of Public Safety, 1998.
8.
Carroll JS, Wiener RL, Coates D., Galegher J., Alibrio JJEvaluation, diagnosis, and prediction in parole decision making. Law & Society Review1982; 17(1): 199-228.
9.
Costanzo M., Costanzo S.Jury decision making in the capital penalty phase: Legal assumptions, empirical findings, and a research agenda. Law and Human Behavior1992; 16(2): 185-201.
10.
Crozier M., Friedberg E.L’acteur et le système. Paris: Le Seuil, 1977.
11.
Davies G., Dedel K.Violence risk screening in community corrections. Criminology & Public Policy2006; 5(4): 743-69.
12.
Dressler J.Understanding criminal law, 4th ed. New York: Matthew Bender & Co, 1987/2006.
13.
Feder L.Psychiatric hospitalization history and parole decisions. Law and Human Behavior1994; 18(4): 395-410.
14.
Fielding N.The organisational and occupational troubles of community police. Policing and Society1994; 4(3): 305-22.
15.
Fitzmaurice C., Pease K.The psychology of judicial sentencing. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986.
16.
Foucault M.Histoire de la sexualité: Tome 1 La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1976.
17.
Gelsthorpe L., Loucks N.Magistrates’ explanations of sentencing decisions. In: Hedderman C, Gelsthorpe L (eds) Understanding the sentencing of women. Home Office Research Study 170. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 1997, pp.23-44.
18.
Gelsthorpe L., Padfield N.Introduction. In: Gelsthorpe L, Padfield N (eds) Exercising discretion. Decision-making in the criminal justice system and beyond. Devon, UK: Willan, 2003, pp.1-28.
19.
Gold METhe mask of objectivity: Politics and rhetoric in the Supreme Court of Canada . Supreme Court Law Review1985; 7: 455-510.
20.
Gordon C.Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
21.
Gros F (ed.) Foucault: Le courage de la vérité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, coll. ‘Débats philosophiques’, 2002.
22.
Guy P. R.v. Latimer and the defence of necessity: One step forward, two steps back . Saskatchewan Law Review2003; 66: 485-510.
23.
Hartman A.Confession as cultural form: The Plymouth inquiry. Victorian Studies2005; 47(4): 535-56.
24.
Heavin H.Human rights issues in R. v. Latimer and their significance for disabled Canadians . Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 613-29.
25.
Heinz AM, Heinz JP, Senderowitz SJ, Vance MASentencing by parole board: An evaluation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology1976; 67(1): 1-31.
26.
Holdaway S.Inside the British police. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.
27.
Holloway K., Grounds A.Discretion and the release of mentally disordered offenders. In: Gelsthorpe L, Padfield N (eds) Exercising discretion: Decision-making in the criminal justice system and beyond. Devon: Willan, 2003, pp.139-63.
28.
Hudson B., Bramhall G.Assessing the ‘other’: Constructions of Asianness in risk assessments by probation officers. British Journal of Criminology2005; 45(5): 721-40.
29.
Huebner BM, Bynum TSAn analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology2006; 44(4): 961-91.
30.
Jenkins M.Moral judgement and the case of Robert Latimer. Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 545-58.
31.
Kaiser HALatimer: Something ominous is happening in the world of disabled people.... Osgoode Hall Law Journal2001; 39(2-3): 555-88.
32.
Klinkhammer R., Taras D.Mercy of murder? Media coverage of the Robert Latimer Supreme Court decision . Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 573-90.
33.
Kruchak, Matthew ( 2007) ‘Juror wavers on Latimer verdict’, National Post, 4 December. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=194918 (accessed 28 February 2008).
34.
Lakatos I.Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp.91-195.
35.
Lepofsky MDThe Latimer case: Murder is still murder when the victim is a child with a disability. Queen’s Law Journal2001 ; 27(1): 319-60.
36.
Lu H., Miethe TDConfessions and criminal case disposition in China. Law & Society Review2003; 37(3): 549-78.
37.
Lynch M.Rehabilitation as rhetoric. Punishment and Society2000; 2(1): 40-65.
38.
McConville M., Sanders A., Leng R.The case for the prosecution: Police suspects and the construction of criminology . London: Routledge, 1991.
39.
Medwed D.The innocent prisoner’s dilemma: Consequences of failing to admit guilt at parole hearings. Iowa Law Review2008; 93: 491-557.
40.
Mitchell GG‘‘No joy in this for anyone’’: Reflections on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in R. v. Latimer. Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 492-510.
41.
Murphy JGWell excuse me! Remorse, apology, and criminal sentencing. Arizona State Law Journal2006; 38(2): 371-86.
42.
Murphy JGRemorse, apology, and mercy. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law2007; 4: 423-53.
43.
National Parole Board (NPB).Performance monitoring report, 2002/2003. Ottawa: NPB Performance Measurement Division, 2003.
44.
National Parole Board (NPB).Performance monitoring report, 2003/2004. NPB Performance Measurement Division : Ottawa, 2004.
45.
National Parole Board (NPB).Performance monitoring report, 2004/2005. Ottawa: NPB Performance Measurement Division, 2005.
46.
National Parole Board (NPB).Performance monitoring report, 2005/2006. Ottawa: NPB Performance Measurement Division, 2006.
47.
National Parole Board (NPB).Performance monitoring report, 2006/2007. Ottawa: NPB Performance Measurement Division, 2007a.
48.
National Parole Board (NPB) (2007b) Highlights: Profile of federal offenders 2006-07. http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pdf/pfo_2006-2007/profil-2006_2007-eng.htm (accessed 19 May 2008).
49.
National Parole Board (NPB).Performance monitoring report, 2007/2008. Ottawa: NPB Performance Measurement Division, 2008.
50.
National Parole Board (NPB)(no date a) Fact sheet: Parole statistics. http://www.npbcnlc.gc.ca/infocntr/factsh/parole_stats_e.htm (accessed 20 May 2008).
51.
National Parole Board (NPB)(no date b) From confinement to community: The National Parole Board and aboriginal offenders . http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/infocntr/fctc_e.htm (accessed 20 May 2008).
52.
Naughton M.Why the failure of the prison service and the parole board to acknowledge wrongful imprisonment is untenable. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice2005; 44(1): 1-11.
53.
Neugebauer R (ed.) Criminal injustice: Racism in the criminal justice system. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2000.
54.
Ohbuchi K-i, Kameda M., Agarie N.Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1989; 56(2): 219-27.
55.
Proeve MJ, Howells K.Effects of remorse and shame and criminal justice experience on judgments about a sex offender. Psychology, Crime, and Law2006; 12(2): 145-61.
56.
Proeve MJ, Smith D.I., Niblo D.M.Mitigation without definition: Remorse in the criminal justice system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology1999; 32(1): 16-26.
57.
Quinton P., Bland N., Miller J.Police stops, decision-making and practice. Police Research Series Paper130. London: Home Office, 2000.
58.
Roach K.Crime and punishment in the Latimer case. Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 469-90.
59.
Robbins BDResurrection from a death sentence: Why capital sentences should be commuted upon the occasion of an authentic ethical transformation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review2001; 149: 1115-80.
60.
Rock, Lindsay ( 2003) ‘Jury Nullification’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association , Atlanta, GA, 16 August. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p106917_index.html.
61.
Russell PHThe judiciary in Canada: The third branch of government. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1987 .
62.
Sanders A., Young R.From suspect to trial. In: Maguire M, Morgan R, Reiner R (eds) The Oxford handbook of criminology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.1034-75.
63.
Sarkar T.Do parents matter? A commentary on R. v. Latimer. Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 601-12.
64.
Silverstein M.What’s race got to do with justice? Responsibilization strategies at parole hearings. British Journal of Criminology2005; 45(3): 340-54.
65.
Sneiderman B.The case of Robert Latimer: A commentary on crime and punishment. Alberta Law Review1999; 37(4): 1017-44.
66.
Sneiderman, Barney ( 2001a) ‘The betrayal of the Latimer jury’, Ottawa Citizen, 16 January. http://www.robertlatimer.net/professors_and_professionals/barney_sneiderman/betrayal_of_latimer_jury.htm (retrieved 25 February 2008).
67.
Sneiderman B.Latimer in the Supreme Court: Necessity, compassionate homicide, and mandatory sentencing. Saskatchewan Law Review2001b; 64(2): 511-44.
68.
Steffensmeier D., Demuth S.Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?. American Sociological Review2000; 65(4): 705-29.
69.
Strange C.Mercy for murderers? A historical perspective on the royal prerogative of mercy. Saskatchewan Law Review2001; 64(2): 559-72.
70.
Sundby SEThe capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy, remorse, and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review1998; 83: 1557-98.
71.
Szmania SJ, Mangis DEFinding the right time and place: A case study comparison of the expression of offender remorse in traditional justice and restorative justice contexts . Marquette Law Review2005; 89(2): 336-58.
72.
Teubner G.How that law thinks: Toward a constructivist epistemology of law. Law & Society Review1989; 23(5): 727-57.
73.
Thomson A.Emotional origins of morality: A sketch. Journal of Moral Education1989; 18(3): 199-207.
74.
Turpin-Petrosino C.Are limiting enactments effective? An experimental test of decision-making in a presumptive parole state. Journal of Criminal Justice1999; 27(4): 321-32.
75.
Weisman R.Showing remorse: Reflections on the gap between expression and attribution in cases of wrongful conviction. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice2004; 46(2): 121-38.
76.
Weisman R.Why say sorry when I didn’t do it? The dilemma of the wrongfully convicted . In: Roberts J.V., Grossman M.G. (eds) Criminal justice in Canada: A reader . Toronto: Nelson, 2008, pp.235-45.
77.
Weisman R.Being and doing: The judicial use of remorse to construct character and community . Social and Legal Studies2009; 18(1): 47-69.
78.
Young VD, Adams-Fuller T.Women, race/ethnicity and criminal justice processing. In: Renzetti C.M., Goodstein L., Miller S.L. (eds) Rethinking gender, crime, and justice: Feminist readings. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, 2006, pp.185-99.
