Return-path: Received: from YQXPR0101MB1157.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:5b9f::22) by YTOPR0101MB1161.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM with HTTPS via YQXPR01CA0054.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:43:49 +0000 Received: from YQXPR01CA0023.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:5b9e::33) by YQXPR0101MB1157.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10b6:c00:1e::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.13.10; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:43:48 +0000 Received: from QB1CAN01FT008.eop-CAN01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e5c::209) by YQXPR01CA0023.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:5b9e::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.13.10 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:43:43 +0000 Received: from harmony.its.unb.ca (131.202.1.25) by QB1CAN01FT008.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.120.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.1385.11 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:43:42 +0000 Received: from pmx5.its.unb.ca (unknown [192.168.13.15]) by harmony.its.unb.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5A89FFD5 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:43:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from pmx5.its.unb.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DA63C320B00 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:43:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from llsk283-a04.servidoresdns.net (llsk283-a04.servidoresdns.net [82.223.190.41]) by pmx5.its.unb.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0CF320E61 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:43:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from www.iisj.net (malaga.smassa.eu [82.223.134.192]) by llsk283-a04.servidoresdns.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 979D420E71 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:43:38 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: iisj.es does not designate permitted sender hosts) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:43:32 +0100 From: "International Institute for the Sociology of Law" Subject: OSLS Vol 7, No 3 (2017): The Place of Apology in Law To: john.kleefeld@unb.ca MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: PHPMailer 5.1 (phpmailer.sourceforge.net) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="6qOU2RVigKkgN=_sdgOV12mkai181lo7YT" Precedence: bulk SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: SKN X-PMX-Version: 6.3.3.2656215, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.8.31.213616, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.40.0, AntiVirus-Data: 2017.8.29.5400002 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Network-Message-Id: 465ad141-d905-4526-a3bb-08d4f0b95951 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-EOPTenantAttributedMessage: 244e6ed2-339a-47f3-b95c-e45351c198b7:0 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-MessageDirectionality: Incoming X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.202.1.25;IPV:CAL;SCL:-1;CTRY:CA;EFV:NLI;SFV:SKN;SFS:;DIR:INB;SFP:;SCL:-1;SRVR:YQXPR0101MB1157;H:harmony.its.unb.ca;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;QB1CAN01FT008;1:jPbOJ4hSTSNQ7lMsBMYqYrUvUK/+9KUTEDe1jC+iQ5+CQcoyo1l5grnl/KjFGb2zxZ/xQhh56OQWIv+XwYQUiPklMijRQ9A8u2HfNNSZ96yKrFRciPNiA2evIj0KPosQ X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: QB1CAN01FT008.eop-CAN01.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 465ad141-d905-4526-a3bb-08d4f0b95951 X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(23075)(300000502095)(300135100095)(421252002)(300000503095)(300135400095)(71702078)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095);SRVR:YQXPR0101MB1157; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YQXPR0101MB1157;3:4y4q12vUdicR/QPz8poUn6WVagnPWmgLdAI7OK+jqQ5URxcFDfrW9jM/Fkt0fn80Gl8l/TDZYYiFvNVhn7hXLXVfbO3DIJMd/vuHa9IDHgEFhXtTANwrNpRZSZDp30FwwOY+x8QsEFryxRVSrMzrvMmr2o2ETmaHXpjJyYYEi6iuCDXLlzx+RvHjKyX6XYVhdlUgcmdn54ppZUavOpVP3GgHvKXMA8sK2UY9x5xA//yAUMvrSxUdtoNPozlSXPyYSAKKG0zQdLzmLQx4VFh0gAPVZ/noDbL6NKWuE8OhrSLCsgMG9sBL2mPfc8o3FlR3xWC5wggau6Q9f+QE6ekDl7F36jM1+3UPM7EFmhhAm9I=;25:SrjDHnU/4NQp5UUSbsrSPCPU+0k8bQMzOycEi9d0II9QdHt4BGGbfJfnl634RMN8ZGXOqXIPn56iMNELx3U1BTBmceN25T2397VP+ZRvg0y7UP3MmQvCic3QDxJLmKBLLJTt4cCcxgn/WD6iyzCbWJzbrJEZgxheKcDuK5E/nTXvqmo9WuvSJnCHRQHGga0b1AO/4khJ/pQrOHTR3aNHrKcgNkMoE8pgqc+mYG6H0j/BawB3KQMqTazIFYlUk2Qq9cKah2kC7w0pCT0goCjjBoALUdRbcUTARLnnhofFwyzbxlJxJRg/RK6mDcATglWhg2rQt7OUlwb9YcywJ+V8jA== X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: YQXPR0101MB1157: X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YQXPR0101MB1157;31:UI9d0iEuMQ2YX3H60ntYat/yPIYLs4NZRUQuEQYpS41iaOpoDN2ragu++uXjYlhoQnB7Y/H5JiCr4Txw5MzAOL14ZoMO/6C5AbvuIvCUA4JpLtuL/GX73SlLE0jWC74ZLosygsuv3qNS17qv/2IBf4Oq372mtT1qPLSSJixELHhI/JTvMt6m3UfAa6EqoztTsV9B+RHg3zdcW0583ggLSW39ep0bO5XYw4dc6mh1s+Y=;4:0qjaNimvOraTr5cIeCwi5MymaiIMG8Kd3d/KpWXaa0OSiGDCwn3bktA7zdMKZ8s8CVMw7vBw7zQyKM8C/qChEvRs0MqbdhHgZ9KYHKficwE4ox+cyOK22TfloBzjeUnBDZ2M8TTEvaA6POb0neTdyjn0NCqD2HC8LyhqiHG1X5UBVlMMuZXi1DTZM1jzOM1bpC8KhyePyzEqhGjAGKbs9FeE+H6DM3AiW5npzsFQ+oxfA0Sca32wuX5fN6nT4bCfzncx+Vlt/Nnf+oLIwdTzHJ+hR1RZEmVVB4QPrk4IMMCjaR3y1rTCn68SJ80TqXz3+arl206HBcG2DBgmMchIOQRk7hyX3G7a8DYQYNqnW4TZYcJHThRNSgd2/kuJkiZXZE7+IlkBhRXifw3xP0qetA==;23:v5VeRX+8pVMsYCiHzgy4KYACsEMgAMP+tRKmf1o2gj9C0qqEGTN4oOR/Sm653ADlHbb7gbLA3r5FTcAtAKohpnpGiSIr9TpV8oe+6RugHhpQkFyZ10jroDgXEpAfsmLYQCME9mRNVcXd+hRcBCckux7CQLllKm1pJaTc60/q5Bz50MLM18zJlVYIdsW+osR+ X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:(145185744447497)(242461067056835)(131327999870524)(176510541525296); X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(2401047)(8121501046)(13013025)(13021025)(9101536074)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(100000703101)(100105400095)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095);SRVR:YQXPR0101MB1157;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095);SRVR:YQXPR0101MB1157; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YQXPR0101MB1157;6:W28qe3Dt58J9utsFdrHeHS4grr7TLINLZ3wCqGRWwDmwMdjEQS7jULQiNUefGcYE8J01KyU0FJgMeCE3A/HpE3NEz9U/6wWCRYOJjVYd+WRveF7tecl6FlZXGv4hpOeZ77N8L2W24AeAkYA2XWkgblx49CRuab1liw8cL99dlTMDmqBbgczDBGv4K7R8vbWVD6E3r861RydzQzyZD1i36RniU6NExZvuPDz9Yc62Jt7p8AxsWKP8poremA9Fk2o5PrXtmgm3iAeRzmvSC610p4hy9/Kek+2ltPzBX2YJbLmPMM3tiONKztK8w1Smod2jW9a3jSrui4fefCWkT5lSSA==;5:EHx67vu/4mEzB/P7QUPpX66gWhfO4sscI6a9RuUdPjIzbK98NpRK1vMdU44a3O/xXxR3qYfnnODnf5Iz71Mzmn1Gvbq6ZrRLsP+rYNlnldUIrXCiXBjMjmSFCBNbrbmn4JHbWxB44aMYRkoRg9JAdA==;24:gROqI+9JMyJqt2iHInkHcxjwQNmDgKI01dw19EMHHGAtVTFcwtLy/3G34ruwkSXLsJBXI3352DsWW18VOkjNElWwx6gy2wnW+11DgdXfYbk=;7:6Ki6heQa57WVq0cuuaiL6JBlr8FrXsI63mrHo37jmiXkM/QKJaVN4Xjup+Wrgd0BPgb/eLrr6KaKGAcP4eJTwxaXp3mKBLQ4IXZ1iDb6xB0lUoz6AHe/Dh94ADFIR0bVddSYvK/eLVLeF7AZrQ12A3cgdkqLhCvOGK+1cU8m5xeGvc6oJXWYuh6Y2cPlrfGrtZ3Euzcgnl5bRQ9SOnGNwh2ZKu8xayvk4/mrd9xHdS4= X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2017 21:43:42.1252 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 244e6ed2-339a-47f3-b95c-e45351c198b7 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: YQXPR0101MB1157 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-EndToEndLatency: 00:00:07.0168348 X-MS-Exchange-Processed-By-BccFoldering: 15.20.0013.000 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YTOPR0101MB1161;9:deNHp1gX10wTS7vqqvhmWfU6oQ7tl8+NELVSqmhpBZMgSQkF1AJSuVRcmOjy9OMIt5G6kqPNds7HCOwYQhIK/2mIbELLZReN1X0Q+GM5dJY48gq0JiaUbjoOBhFkr3s+ X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YTOPR0101MB1161;27:C16ReDNGDn2yL+ybqUGpfgYxL+2fGSMP31zTtNssA3Oe7a+Kc+cQcaMz9w4nTZT0dAJbR/BHYAwpT24DJ4muMy2ct2ePN9Zvn/adrrtqPmAXem5Ak6+cKNOxvfF9hh6x Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 131.202.1.25) smtp.mailfrom=iisj.es; unbcloud.mail.onmicrosoft.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;unbcloud.mail.onmicrosoft.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=iisj.es; List-Unsubscribe: X-Perlmx-Spam: Gauge=XIII, Probability=13%, Report=' ADULT_MED_1 0.5, BASE64_ENC_TEXT 0.5, CS_MSGID_URIHASH_NOHASH 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_3000_MORE 0, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS 0, FROM_NAME_PHRASE 0, REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM 0, SPF_NONE 0, WEBMAIL_SOURCE 0, WEBMAIL_XMAILER 0, __ADULT_ANY 0, __ADULT_PHRASE_8_LO 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __FRAUD_BADTHINGS 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __HAS_X_PRIORITY 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __LEGIT_LIST_HEADER 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MAL_TELEKOM_URI 0, __MEDS_PLAIN_RX 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __MIME_TEXT_H 0, __MIME_TEXT_H1 0, __MIME_TEXT_H2 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_TEXT_P2 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MSGID_32HEX 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM_ACC 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM_ADDY 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM_DOMAIN 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NOT_IMG 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __URI_WITHOUT_PATH 0, __URI_WITH_PATH 0' This is a multi-part message in MIME format --6qOU2RVigKkgN=_sdgOV12mkai181lo7YT Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="7=_FYeDHjiYSdTFCiBFza2Sb8mOH9HktoF" --7=_FYeDHjiYSdTFCiBFza2Sb8mOH9HktoF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline OSLS Vol 7, No 3 (2017): The Place of Apology in Law =20 HOME ABOUT USER HOME SEARCH CURRENT = ARCHIVES ANNOUNCEMEN= TS EDITORIAL BOARD =20 Dear readers, The IISL-IISJ new course starts with a new issue of the O=C3=B1ati Soc= io-legal Series: The Place of Apology in Law, edited by Prue Vines (Un= iversity of New South Wales) and Robyn Carroll (University of Western = Australia). It includes eleven papers, plus an introduction, available= in open access through the Social Science Research Network. You will find below the table of contents [+], with the link to access= the articles in this issue. Please, do disseminate this information to anyone who might be interes= ted on it. This is a very special issue for me, since it will be the last one I p= ublish in O=C3=B1ati. From September on, I am moving to a new possitio= n, in a Museum's Library. Leire Kortabarria will be the person dealing= with publications at the Institute from tomorrow on, and I am sure sh= e will be doing a great job here. All her contact details are availabl= e at the Institute's website. I cannot say goodbye without thanking all of you for your constant sup= port during all these years. Without your help and kindness, all this = work would not have been possible. Cristina ________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Vol 7, No 3 (2017): The Place of Apology in Law =20 (July-September) Issue edited by Prue Vines (University of New South Wales) and Robyn C= arroll (University of Western Australia). ________________________________ Robyn Carroll, Prue Vines: Special issue on Apologies: Introduction [+= PDF ] What is the place of apology in law? What is the meaning of apology in= a complex landscape of meanings based on a socio-legal appreciation o= f legal concepts? This special issue explores the place of apology in = the legal system within three broad inter-related themes: the meaning = of apologies; the effectiveness of laws protecting apologies and the r= ole of apologies as remedy, redress and reparation. The articles focus= on apologies within the legal system and encompass what happens when = a person apologises and how the legal system responds to that apology,= the impact of an apology and its use in the criminal justice system a= nd on civil liability, how this differs across different legal systems= and societies, and what legal systems can learn from sociology, philo= sophy, psychology and economics in relation to apology. ________________________________ The meaning of apology Prue Vines: The Value of Apologising within a Moral Community: Making = Apologies Work [+PDF ] Apologising is part of civil society and vitally important for maintai= ning social fabric. Many jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, the USA a= nd UK have enacted apology-protecting legislation in the hope that the= process of apologising might reduce civil litigation, particularly li= tigation about medical negligence. The apology is also significant in = restorative justice and may operate in mediation or as a remedy. This = article focuses on how the social and psychological process of apologi= sing and being apologised to is affected by the moral communities with= in which the apology takes place. It argues that the failure to take t= his process seriously may impact adversely on the achievement of the a= ims of restorative justice and the apology protecting laws. Alfred Allan, James Strickland, Maria M. Allan: Interpersonal Apologie= s: A Psychological Perspective of Why They Might Work in Law [+PDF ] Apologies have become an accepted feature in many fields of law and th= ere is evidence that they make a constructive contribution to the reso= lution of disputes. The reason for this might be that they address the= intangible needs of parties after adverse events that law otherwise f= ind difficult to address. Legal reformers introduced apologies into la= w primarily on the basis of deductive reasoning without being able to = refer to a comprehensive psychological theory that explains the apolog= y process; in part because apology was only identified as a psychologi= cal construct worthy of empirical research during the last quarter of = the 20th century. Researchers=E2=80=99 contributions since the 1980s g= reatly improved the knowledge base about the apology process and we re= viewed the relevant literature to find a comprehensive integrated theo= ry of apology that legal reformers and practitioners can use to unders= tand and predict the apology process. We could not find such a theory,= but we try to integrate the empirical findings regarding interpersona= l apologies into a rudimentary explanation that we believe could assis= t them. We conclude that apologies will generally be a part of the neg= otiated corrective interaction between the parties and that legislatio= n should accommodate the process without being overly prescriptive and= that lawyers should therefore refrain from judging the apologies thei= r clients offer or accept. Mandeep K. Dhami: An Empirical Note on Perceptions of Partial Apologie= s [+PDF ] This study examined perceptions of partial apologies. Eighty young peo= ple rated the extent to which five components of apology (i.e., accept= ing responsibility, acknowledging harm, expressing remorse, offering r= eparation, and promising forbearance) implied each other. Statistical = analyses across different types of partial apologies showed no signifi= cant differences in the extent to which a particular uncommunicated co= mponent of apology was implied by one type of partial apology than ano= ther. Analyses within each type of partial apology revealed significan= t differences in the extent to a partial apology implied one type of u= ncommunicated component than another: Acknowledging harm or offering r= eparation implied promising forbearance to a lesser extent than accept= ing responsibility and expressing remorse. Expressing remorse or promi= sing forbearance implied accepting responsibility to a greater extent = than acknowledging harm and offering reparation. It is important to un= derstand perceptions of partial apologies because they are more preval= ent than full apologies, and may be considered less effective. James Strickland, Alfred Allan, Maria M. Allan; The Acceptance of Apol= ogies in the Corrective Process: Implications for Research and Practic= e [+PDF ] Apology scholars and researchers in psychology, law, and justice commo= nly conceptualise the corrective process that follows wrongful behavio= ur as an apology-followed-by-forgiveness sequence. In this paper, howe= ver, we suggest on the basis of our analysis of the research literatur= e that a more suitable conceptualisation of the corrective process is = one that includes the acceptance of an apology as an additional discre= te step that is distinct from forgiveness. We begin with a brief discu= ssion of the psychological view of apologies as a process of negotiati= on between offending and offended parties, and how psychologists conce= ive peoples=E2=80=99 responses to apologies. We also review the psycho= logical literature to determine how psychologists define the acceptanc= e of an apology and how they view it within the corrective process. We= then briefly examine how the outcome of forgiveness is commonly used = as a restorative ideal in the context of restorative justice conferenc= ing and suggest that assessing instead the acceptance of an apology ma= y be more appropriate in this setting. We conclude the paper with a br= ief agenda for further research. Carrie Petrucci: Apology in the Criminal Justice Setting: An Update [+= PDF ] Apology has many benefits to offenders and victims. The last 15 years = have produced worthwhile quantitative and qualitative studies that hav= e refined our understanding of apology, but have also identified the d= iversity in what can be said in apology and how it can be received. Th= e apology literature in the last 15 years in social psychology, crimin= ology, and criminal justice is examined, including two and three-way i= nteraction effects and qualitative results that focus on the effective= ness of apology at the contextual and individual levels, and the impor= tant role that emotion can play. It is recommended that apology be imp= lemented with a =E2=80=9Cless is more=E2=80=9D approach for apology to= be most effective for youth in juvenile justice; and that a venue is = provided for a spontaneous/voluntary apology to occur, or a minimally = prepared apology, using only broad prescriptions on how it ought to be= carried out. By utilizing appropriate research strategies, knowledge = about apology and its effectiveness in legal settings including juveni= le justice can continue to build to determine what type of apology wor= ks best for whom under what circumstances. ________________________________ The impact of apologies and the effect of apology laws John C Kleefeld: Promoting and Protecting Apologetic Discourse through= Law: A Global Survey and Critique of Apology Legislation and Case Law= [+PDF ] The year 2016 was a milestone for the law-and-apology field, marking t= he thirtieth anniversary of the first general law aimed at enabling ap= ologies for civil wrongs, introduced in Massachusetts in 1986, as well= as the tenth anniversary of the Apology Act, enacted in British Colum= bia in 2006. The Apology Act seeks to promote apologies and apologetic= discourse as an important form of out-of-court dispute resolution, ch= iefly by making apologetic statements inadmissible for proving liabili= ty in civil wrongs. It has served as a benchmark from which subsequent= law reform efforts in Canada and abroad have been measured. In 2017, = that benchmark was passed with the enactment in Hong Kong of the most = ambitious apology law yet, which privileges not only statements of rem= orse, but also statements of facts embedded in apologies. This article= summarises global apology legislation and court decisions to date. Pa= rt I considers each major jurisdiction, starting with the USA and conc= luding with Hong Kong. Part II draws some conclusions about where we h= ave been and where we are going in our efforts to promote or protect a= pologetic discourse, including recommendations on interpreting existin= g laws and on drafting or redrafting apology legislation. Andrea M. Zwart-Hink: The Doctor Has Apologised. Will I Now Get Compen= sation for my Injuries? Myth and Reality in Apologies and Liability [+= PDF ]=20 Although in the Netherlands, like in many other jurisdictions, healthc= are providers are expected to be open and honest to their patients and= to apologise for any medical mistakes, in practice they are still not= always completely open about mistakes that have been made. It is ofte= n assumed that healthcare providers=E2=80=99 liability insurers do not= allow them to apologise, and indeed that making certain statements, s= uch as offering apologies, can constitute an admission of liability. T= his assumption is one of the reasons why literature has suggested that= it is sensible, from a legal perspective, to exercise caution when of= fering apologies. This paper argues that this suggestion is both socia= lly undesirable and not substantiated in law. ________________________________ Apologies as redress, remedy and reparation Gema Varona: Apology and Spanish Criminal Law at the Post-Sentencing L= evel: the Gap Between Legal Provisions and Victims and Offenders=E2=80= =99 Experiences in Cases of Terrorism [+PDF ] This paper deals with the Spanish provisions in criminal law requestin= g apology by offenders in organized crime, including terrorism. In ord= er to grant parole, apology is required, among other possible means pr= ovided by law, to accredit the abandonment of the ends and means of th= e terrorist activity. Those legal provisions will be contrasted with t= he experience and narratives of victims and offenders in cases of terr= orism. Final conclusions will be derived in relation to the possibilit= y of restorative apologies in these contexts. Jeff Berryman: Mitigation, Apology and the Quantification of Non-Pecun= iary Damages [+PDF ]=20= The law has historically granted damages for some forms of non-pecunia= ry losses. In doing so, courts have freely admitted that there is impr= ecision in quantifying such losses and that there is no quantitative a= nd objective calculus on pain and suffering. Against this background, = new research on how hedonic losses are experienced by a victim provide= an opportunity to review how non-pecuniary losses should be compensat= ed. Some of this research suggests that experiences of anxiety, frustr= ation and suffering may not affect a victim=E2=80=99s happiness as gre= at as is presupposed in current models of compensation, and further, t= hat its impact may also be ameliorated by the offering of an apology. = In this essay, the author asks whether the law can incentivize tortfea= sors to offer an apology as an element in mitigating compensatory dama= ges for non-pecuniary loss. Colleen Murphy, Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Lesley Wexler: State Amends fo= r Lawful Harm Doing [+PDF ] This essay explores the justifications for offering amends to victims = of lawfully caused harm and the nature of amends in such contexts. In = particular, we examine instances in which a state actor commits a grav= e, but lawful, harm to another, exploring why and how the state ought = to respond to victims of lawful harm. This aspect of harm doing is oft= en overlooked, but directly addressing the lawful harm that states cau= se is a vital part of an appropriate state response to having caused g= rave, though lawful, harm. First, we explore some general reasons why = making amends is a morally appropriate response to lawful harm doing. = Second, having justified why states ought to respond to the lawful har= m they create, we move to outline a set of appropriate responses. Thes= e responses are grounded in the empirical literature on amends and apo= logy and satisfy a number of the moral reasons it may be appropriate f= or states to offer amends. We offer some specific suggestions for mana= ging amends in the military and police settings, though the basic elem= ents of our proposal might also help inform response to the wider spec= trum of lawful harms imposed by the state. Robyn Carroll, Alfred Allan, Margaret Halsmith: Apologies, Mediation a= nd the Law: Resolution of Civil Disputes [+PDF ] Mediation is a process that provides opportunities for parties to civi= l disputes to engage in dialogue that can satisfy their expectations a= nd needs for apologies. While the literature on law and apology identi= fies why and ways in which the process can be beneficial, there are co= ncerns associated with apologies offered in mediation. This article pr= ovides an overview of the apology and mediation literature in which th= ese benefits and concerns are explored and the psychological research = that reveals the complexity of apologies. We use case examples that il= lustrate this complexity and indicate ways that mediators working with= parties in mediation who have indicated that apologies are important = to them, might work with this. The article also reflects on the ways t= hat the law interacts with apologies in the mediation of private law d= isputes and concludes that the law plays a significant indirect role i= n supporting parties who seek an apology as an outcome of mediation. =20 O=C3=B1ati Socio-Legal Series | OSLS | ISSN: 2079-5971 http://opo.iisj= =2Enet/ =20 O=C3=B1ati International Institute for the Sociology of Law - Institut= o Internacional de Sociolog=C3=ADa Jur=C3=ADdica de O=C3=B1ati =20 Antigua Universidad s/n - Apdo. 28 - 20560 O=C3=B1ati - Gipuzkoa - Spa= in T: (+34) 943 783064 F:= (+34) 943 783147 E: o= po@iisj.es =20 ________________________________ =20 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerci= al-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License . To unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to cristina@iisj.es - Si quiere darse de baja de este = servicio, por favor, env=C3=ADe un correo a cristina@iisj.es =20 =20 Unsubscribe from this newsletter =20 --7=_FYeDHjiYSdTFCiBFza2Sb8mOH9HktoF Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

OSLS Vol 7, No 3 (2017): The Place of Apology in Law

3D"Oñati
HOME ABOUT USER HOME SEARCH CURRENT ARCHIVES ANNOUNCEMENTS EDITORIAL BOARD

Dear readers,

The IISL-IISJ new course starts with a new issue of the Oñati = Socio-legal Series: The Place of Apology in Law, edited by Prue V= ines (University of New South Wales) and Robyn Carroll (Un= iversity of Western Australia). It includes eleven papers, plus an int= roduction, available in open access through the Social Science Researc= h Network.

You will find below the table of contents [+]<= /a>, with the link to access the articles in this issue.

Please, do disseminate this information to anyone who might be inte= rested on it.

This is a very special issue for me, since it will be the last one = I publish in Oñati. From September on, I am moving to a new possi= tion, in a Museum's Library. Leire Kortabarria will be the person deal= ing with publications at the Institute from tomorrow on, and I am sure she will be doing a great job here. All her contact= details are available at the Institute's website.

I cannot say goodbye without thanking all of you for your constant = support during all these years. Without your help and kindness, all th= is work would not have been possible.

Cristina

TABLE OF CONTENTS<= /p>

Vol 7, No 3 (2017): The Place of Apology in Law

(July-September)

Issue edited by Prue Vines (University of New Sout= h Wales) and Robyn Carroll (University of Western Australia).

Robyn Carroll, Prue Vines: Special issue on Apologies: Intr= oduction [+PDF]
What is the place of apology in law? What is the meaning of apology in= a complex landscape of meanings based on a socio-legal appreciation o= f legal concepts? This special issue explores the place of apology in = the legal system within three broad inter-related themes: the meaning of apologies; the effectiveness of laws protectin= g apologies and the role of apologies as remedy, redress and reparatio= n. The articles focus on apologies within the legal system and encompa= ss what happens when a person apologises and how the legal system responds to that apology, the impact of an apology a= nd its use in the criminal justice system and on civil liability, how = this differs across different legal systems and societies, and what le= gal systems can learn from sociology, philosophy, psychology and economics in relation to apology.

The meaning of apology

Prue Vines: The Value of Apologising within a Moral Communi= ty: Making Apologies Work [+PDF]
Apologising is part of civil society and vitally important for maintai= ning social fabric. Many jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, the USA a= nd UK have enacted apology-protecting legislation in the hope that the= process of apologising might reduce civil litigation, particularly litigation about medical negligence. The apology is also= significant in restorative justice and may operate in mediation or as= a remedy. This article focuses on how the social and psychological pr= ocess of apologising and being apologised to is affected by the moral communities within which the apology takes plac= e. It argues that the failure to take this process seriously may impac= t adversely on the achievement of the aims of restorative justice and = the apology protecting laws.

Alfred Allan, James Strickland, Maria M. Allan: Interperson= al Apologies: A Psychological Perspective of Why They Might Work in La= w [+PDF]
Apologies have become an accepted feature in many fields of law and th= ere is evidence that they make a constructive contribution to the reso= lution of disputes. The reason for this might be that they address the= intangible needs of parties after adverse events that law oth= erwise find difficult to address. Legal reformers introduced apologies= into law primarily on the basis of deductive reasoning without being = able to refer to a comprehensive psychological theory that explains the apology process; in part because apology was= only identified as a psychological construct worthy of empirical rese= arch during the last quarter of the 20th century. Researchers’ c= ontributions since the 1980s greatly improved the knowledge base about the apology process and we reviewed the relevant literatur= e to find a comprehensive integrated theory of apology that legal refo= rmers and practitioners can use to understand and predict the apology = process. We could not find such a theory, but we try to integrate the empirical findings regarding interpersonal apolo= gies into a rudimentary explanation that we believe could assist them.= We conclude that apologies will generally be a part of the negotiated= corrective interaction between the parties and that legislation should accommodate the process without being overly = prescriptive and that lawyers should therefore refrain from judging th= e apologies their clients offer or accept.

Mandeep K. Dhami: An Empirical Note on Perceptions of Parti= al Apologies [+PDF]
This study examined perceptions of partial apologies. Eighty young peo= ple rated the extent to which five components of apology (i.e., accept= ing responsibility, acknowledging harm, expressing remorse, offering r= eparation, and promising forbearance) implied each other. Statistical analyses across different types of partial apologi= es showed no significant differences in the extent to which a particul= ar uncommunicated component of apology was implied by one type of part= ial apology than another. Analyses within each type of partial apology revealed significant differences in the exten= t to a partial apology implied one type of uncommunicated component th= an another: Acknowledging harm or offering reparation implied promisin= g forbearance to a lesser extent than accepting responsibility and expressing remorse. Expressing remorse or promisin= g forbearance implied accepting responsibility to a greater extent tha= n acknowledging harm and offering reparation. It is important to under= stand perceptions of partial apologies because they are more prevalent than full apologies, and may be considered le= ss effective.

James Strickland, Alfred Allan, Maria M. Allan; The Accepta= nce of Apologies in the Corrective Process: Implications for Research = and Practice [+PDF]
Apology scholars and researchers in psychology, law, and justice commo= nly conceptualise the corrective process that follows wrongful behavio= ur as an apology-followed-by-forgiveness sequence. In this paper, howe= ver, we suggest on the basis of our analysis of the research literature that a more suitable conceptualisation of the= corrective process is one that includes the acceptance of an apology as an additional discrete step that = is distinct from forgiveness. We begin with a brief discussion of the = psychological view of apologies as a process of negotiation between of= fending and offended parties, and how psychologists conceive peoples’ responses to apologies. We also review the ps= ychological literature to determine how psychologists define the accep= tance of an apology and how they view it within the corrective process= =2E We then briefly examine how the outcome of forgiveness is commonly used as a restorative ideal in the context of restorative= justice conferencing and suggest that assessing instead the acceptance of an apology may be more appropriate in this sett= ing. We conclude the paper with a brief agenda for further research.

Carrie Petrucci: Apology in the Criminal Justice Setting: A= n Update [+PDF]
Apology has many benefits to offenders and victims. The last 15 years = have produced worthwhile quantitative and qualitative studies that hav= e refined our understanding of apology, but have also identified the d= iversity in what can be said in apology and how it can be received. The apology literature in the last 15 years in so= cial psychology, criminology, and criminal justice is examined, includ= ing two and three-way interaction effects and qualitative results that= focus on the effectiveness of apology at the contextual and individual levels, and the important role that emotion can play. = It is recommended that apology be implemented with a “less is mo= re” approach for apology to be most effective for youth in juven= ile justice; and that a venue is provided for a spontaneous/voluntary apology to occur, or a minimally prepared apology, using only broad p= rescriptions on how it ought to be carried out. By utilizing appropria= te research strategies, knowledge about apology and its effectiveness = in legal settings including juvenile justice can continue to build to determine what type of apology works best for wh= om under what circumstances.

The impact of apologies and the effect of apology laws

John C Kleefeld: Promoting and Protecting Apologetic Discou= rse through Law: A Global Survey and Critique of Apology Legislation a= nd Case Law [+PDF]
The year 2016 was a milestone for the law-and-apology field, marking t= he thirtieth anniversary of the first general law aimed at enabling ap= ologies for civil wrongs, introduced in Massachusetts in 1986, as well= as the tenth anniversary of the Apology Act, enacted in British Columbia in 2006. The Apo= logy Act seeks to promote apologies and apologetic discourse as a= n important form of out-of-court dispute resolution, chiefly by making= apologetic statements inadmissible for proving liability in civil wrongs. It has served as a benchmark from which su= bsequent law reform efforts in Canada and abroad have been measured. I= n 2017, that benchmark was passed with the enactment in Hong Kong of t= he most ambitious apology law yet, which privileges not only statements of remorse, but also statements of facts embedded= in apologies. This article summarises global apology legislation and = court decisions to date. Part I considers each major jurisdiction, sta= rting with the USA and concluding with Hong Kong. Part II draws some conclusions about where we have been and where we = are going in our efforts to promote or protect apologetic discourse, i= ncluding recommendations on interpreting existing laws and on drafting= or redrafting apology legislation.

Andrea M. Zwart-Hink: The Doctor Has Apologised. Will I Now= Get Compensation for my Injuries? Myth and Reality in Apologies and L= iability [+PDF]
Although in the Netherlands, like in many other jurisdictions, healthc= are providers are expected to be open and honest to their patients and= to apologise for any medical mistakes, in practice they are still not= always completely open about mistakes that have been made. It is often assumed that healthcare providers’ liabi= lity insurers do not allow them to apologise, and indeed that making c= ertain statements, such as offering apologies, can constitute an admis= sion of liability. This assumption is one of the reasons why literature has suggested that it is sensible, from a legal perspe= ctive, to exercise caution when offering apologies. This paper argues = that this suggestion is both socially undesirable and not substantiate= d in law.

Apologies as redress, remedy and reparation

Gema Varona: Apology and Spanish Criminal Law at the Post-S= entencing Level: the Gap Between Legal Provisions and Victims and Offe= nders’ Experiences in Cases of Terrorism [+PDF]
This paper deals with the Spanish provisions in criminal law requestin= g apology by offenders in organized crime, including terrorism. In ord= er to grant parole, apology is required, among other possible means pr= ovided by law, to accredit the abandonment of the ends and means of the terrorist activity. Those legal provisions will= be contrasted with the experience and narratives of victims and offen= ders in cases of terrorism. Final conclusions will be derived in relat= ion to the possibility of restorative apologies in these contexts.

Jeff Berryman: Mitigation, Apology and the Quantification o= f Non-Pecuniary Damages [+PDF]
The law has historically granted damages for some forms of non-pecunia= ry losses. In doing so, courts have freely admitted that there is impr= ecision in quantifying such losses and that there is no quantitative a= nd objective calculus on pain and suffering. Against this background, new research on how hedonic losses are experienced b= y a victim provide an opportunity to review how non-pecuniary losses s= hould be compensated. Some of this research suggests that experiences = of anxiety, frustration and suffering may not affect a victim’s happiness as great as is presupposed in current mode= ls of compensation, and further, that its impact may also be ameliorat= ed by the offering of an apology. In this essay, the author asks wheth= er the law can incentivize tortfeasors to offer an apology as an element in mitigating compensatory damages for non-pecuniary lo= ss.

Colleen Murphy, Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Lesley Wexler: Stat= e Amends for Lawful Harm Doing [+PDF]<= /strong>
This essay explores the justifications for offering amends to victims = of lawfully caused harm and the nature of amends in such cont= exts. In particular, we examine instances in which a state actor commi= ts a grave, but lawful, harm to another, exploring why and how the state ought to respond to victims of lawful harm. Thi= s aspect of harm doing is often overlooked, but directly addressing th= e lawful harm that states cause is a vital part of an appropriate stat= e response to having caused grave, though lawful, harm. First, we explore some general reasons why making amends is a m= orally appropriate response to lawful harm doing. Second, having justi= fied why states ought to respond to the lawful harm they create, we mo= ve to outline a set of appropriate responses. These responses are grounded in the empirical literature on amends and apol= ogy and satisfy a number of the moral reasons it may be appropriate fo= r states to offer amends. We offer some specific suggestions for manag= ing amends in the military and police settings, though the basic elements of our proposal might also help inform resp= onse to the wider spectrum of lawful harms imposed by the state.

Robyn Carroll, Alfred Allan, Margaret Halsmith: Apologies, = Mediation and the Law: Resolution of Civil Disputes [= +PDF]
Mediation is a process that provides opportunities for parties to civi= l disputes to engage in dialogue that can satisfy their expectations a= nd needs for apologies. While the literature on law and apology identi= fies why and ways in which the process can be beneficial, there are concerns associated with apologies offered in mediation. Th= is article provides an overview of the apology and mediation literatur= e in which these benefits and concerns are explored and the psychologi= cal research that reveals the complexity of apologies. We use case examples that illustrate this complexity and indicate way= s that mediators working with parties in mediation who have indicated = that apologies are important to them, might work with this. The articl= e also reflects on the ways that the law interacts with apologies in the mediation of private law disputes and concludes= that the law plays a significant indirect role in supporting parties = who seek an apology as an outcome of mediation.
 

Oñati Socio-Legal Series | OSLS | ISSN: 2079-5971 http://opo.iisj.net/

Oñati International Institu= te for the Sociology of Law - Instituto Internacional de Sociologí= ;a Jurídica de Oñati

Antigua Universidad s/n - Apdo. 28 - 20560 Oñati - Gipuzkoa - = Spain

T: (+3= 4) 943 783064 F: (+34) 943= 783147 E: opo@iisj.es
To unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to cristina@iisj.es - Si quiere darse de baja de este servicio, por f= avor, envíe un correo a cristina@iisj.es

Unsubscribe from this newslet= ter

--7=_FYeDHjiYSdTFCiBFza2Sb8mOH9HktoF-- --6qOU2RVigKkgN=_sdgOV12mkai181lo7YT-- .