This book examines 52 apologetic allocutions produced during federal sentencing hearings, and analyses how words and phrases can influence judges and juries to be more lenient with sentencing. M. Catherine Gruber uses transcripts which include paralinguistic features such as hesitations and crying in order to analyse these interesting speech acts. Sarah Morley strongly recommends this fascinating book to readers in sociolinguistics and law

Morley, Sarah

LSE Research Online

2014-8-29Book Review: “I’m Sorry For What I Have Done”: TheLanguage of Courtroom Apologies by M. Catherine Gruberblogs.lse.ac.uk /lsereviewofbooks/2014/08/29/book-review-im-sorry-for-what-i-have-done-the-language-of-courtroom-apologies/This book examines 52 apologetic allocutions produced during federal sentencing hearings, and analyseshow words and phrases can influence judges and juries to be more lenient with sentencing. M.Catherine Gruber uses transcripts which include paralinguistic features such as hesitations andcrying in order to analyse these interesting speech acts. Sarah Morley strongly recommends thisfascinating book to readers in sociolinguistics and law.“I’m Sorry For What I Have Done”: The Language of Courtroom Apologies. M. CatherineGruber. Oxford University Press. 2014.Find this book: What words would you choose if you had to apologise in court for something youhad done wrong? What phrasing would both effectively communicate your regretand lessons learnt? At federal sentence hearings, defendants are given theopportunity to do just that. After reading M. Catherine Gruber’s book I’m SorryFor What I Have Done, readers will come to understandthat finding the rightwords is much more difficult than we might first think.Allocution –the formal statement made to the court by the defendant who hasbeen found guilty – presents an opportunity to counter a recommendation for asentence term made by the prosecution, by presenting oneself as remorsefuland deserving of a lower sentence. Gruber’s study demonstrates that somedefendants manage to do this more successfully than others. Gruber explains,for example, that although a ritualised apology formula such as “I’m sorry” wouldappear to be expected, its use carries implications that do not always serve thecommunicative goal of the defendant. Statements such as “I took money thatdidn’t belong to me, and I hurt people that trusted me and were my friends”seem to be a “relatively good fit for the context of allocution” (p. 6) compared to a statement like “I just wannaapologise to the court, my family, the victims and um for what I’ve done.” Defendants who made the first type ofstatement, Gruber explains, not only appeared sorry for their actions but also presented themselves as individualswho had a clear understanding of what they had done wrong and, as a result, were perhaps less likely to break thelaw in the future.The book presents a study of fifty-two allocutions made by both male and female defendants in three US districtcourtrooms from a range of ages, ethnicities, and educational backgrounds. The crimes were generally non-violentand vary from bank robbery to drug related offenses to fraud. The book is exceptionally detailed, and includes all ofthe allocution statements in full, with a brief description of the defendant and their crime, within the index. Gruberargues that her study is distinctive for the way it intricately studies linguistic and paralinguistic features of the speechof defendants. Where we might expect to see original court transcripts, Gruber has made her own transcripts whichinclude hesitations, false starts, and salient paralinguistic features such as audible inhalations and crying whilsttalking, which are left out of standardised official transcripts. This allows her to look carefully at the variegatedtextures of the language used by defendants.Apologetic allocutions constitute one of the very few opportunities for defendants to speak on their own behalf, and it1/3is therefore important that these minutiae are not missed, as they can affect how successful the defendant’s apologycan be. Linguists will recognise the influence of J.L. Austin and Erving Goffman in Gruber’s work, and interestedreaders might like to move to Austin’s How To Do Things With Words in particularafter finishing with Gruber, which isreferenced throughout and examines speech acts more generally.Judges listen to statements in the CA Supreme Court. Credit: Shawn CC BY-NC 2.0The main theme running throughout the book is that no allocutory statement is without risk. Gruber explains thatthere is vast potential for the defendant to minimise what they say they did. For example, in Chapter Five,“Defendants Talk about the Past, the Future, and the Present: Mitigation, Future Behaviour, and the Sentence”, it isexplained that the use of the word ‘mistake’ can be extremely problematic because it can suggest that the defendantdoes not understand the seriousness of his or her actions, particularly when there has been a violation of federallaw. Claims of having a difficult childhood offer a context in which the criminal action is more understandable;however, they differ in degree of causality. For example, they can be used as a way to communicate informationabout the defendant as a person rather than as a direct explanation for his or her offence. The judges within thestudy did respond to the information given in relation to the upbringing of the defendants, some even challenging theclaims. Gruber goes on to show that explanations for offences are risky because they could be viewed as attemptsto minimise the defendant’s responsibility for the offence.Explanations also open up the defendant to criticism that similar circumstances in the future will result in similarbehaviour. This is also true of any mitigating information presented, because it has the potential to subjectdefendants to “character-damaging implications” (p. 103). For example, one defendant stated that “[the crime was]just a matter of me. hookin up with the wrong guy at the wrong time and I didn’t – I wa-I wasn’t even with him verylong, I didn’t know. his criminal background.” However, the judge noted that the defendant had been embezzlingmoney over a “lengthy period of time”, in which the defendant was not in that relationship. Gruber explains thatwhilst in this particular case it was fair for the judge to point this out, a defendant’s offer of this kind of crime-relatedmitigating information often undermines the performance of a remorseful stance. It is therefore better for thedefendant’s attorneys to be left solely with the task of communicating that their client’s crime was a one off. Gruberthus argues throughout that the various constraints imposed by the context of sentencing limits what defendants cansay and how their speech is understood. It is therefore imperative to understand allocutions in order to bettercomprehend the criminal justice system.I’m Sorry For What I Have Done is accessible at all levels; those who may not be familiar with allocutions or thefederal legal system will be comfortable with the analysis (Chapters Two and Three are dedicated solely to these twotopics), whilst those who are already acquainted with the topics should be intrigued by Gruber’s points. The book isan exceedingly interesting read in terms of what defendants actually say when they apologise and in providingGruber’s own theories on the most effective allocutions and why the tradition of presenting allocutions may be2/3flawed. Chapters Four and Five are particularly strong in offering the reader paralinguistic analysis and an insightinto the different worlds of the people who have committed federal crimes.Allocutions offer an insight into the speech act of making an apology, and therefore provide a valuable resource forthose interested in apologies and expressive language more broadly, especially those using sociolinguistic andhistorical resources. Most importantly, however allocution at sentencing can have repercussions for the sentencethat is imposed and therefore may be of great interest to those studying the law.Sarah Morley graduated with a Master of Laws, with Distinction, from Durham University. She is currently a PhDStudent and part-time teacher at Durham University, and was awarded the Durham Law School Scholarship. Sarahhas a particular interest in Company Law and Corporate Governance. Her current research is an international studywhich explores the development of takeover practices and the factors that affect the takeover and corporategovernance environment, including the effects of litigation. Prior to joining Durham as a PhD Student in 2013, Sarahqualified as a Welfare Rights Advisor and subsequently specialised in Money and Debt Advice. Read more reviewsby Sarah.Copyright 2013 LSE Review of Books3/3

Book review: “I’m sorry for what I have done”: the language of courtroom apologies by M. Catherine Gruber

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online