Two newly published studies by Colleen M. Berryessa, associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, examine how expressions of remorse are interpreted in the legal system and how those interpretations can contribute to unequal outcomes.
In a recent article published in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Berryessa explores the concept of "remorse bias," showing how judges and other legal decision-makers may misread or misinterpret expressions of remorse due to implicit assumptions, social cognition, and broader societal stereotypes. The review highlights how factors such as criminal history, offense type, mental health, or substance use issues, and racial or cultural background can shape how remorse is perceived and evaluated.
"Assessing remorse is a deeply subjective process shaped by human cognition," Berryessa explains. "When remorse is misunderstood or discounted, it can produce serious inequities in legal outcomes."
A second article published in the Journal of Criminal Justice extends this work through an empirical study of judges' decision-making. Drawing on more than 60 in-depth interviews with state-level trial court judges, Berryessa and coauthor Emily Greberman, a doctoral student at the School of Criminal Justice, develop a model of how remorse bias can emerge during sentencing. Their findings suggest that these cognitive processes may disproportionately influence the sentencing of defendants who are already subject to criminal stereotyping, potentially compounding existing disparities.
Together, the studies underscore the need for greater awareness, education, and training within the legal system to better understand how remorse is assessed and how bias can shape decision-making with far-reaching consequences.
