WLOX…on Wednesday, Zach Scruggs will stand before the same federal judge who recently sentenced his father to five years in prison for his role in a judicial bribery conspiracy…Prosecutors have recommended probation for the 34-year-old Zach Scruggs…It’s not clear if U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. will accept the recommended sentence…The judge has expressed disappointment in what he considered Zach Scruggs’ lack of remorse. (emphasis added)
Perhaps, it’s time to update Emily Post’s Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home with a chapter on etiquette for the indicted – one that includes the full text of the title quote.
Classic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrongdoing. Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.
Judge Biggers is not just asking Zach to express remorse, he’s demanding it be expressed in a way that he has predetermined to be the only genuine measure worthy of consideration in his sentencing decision – and that shakes my already shaken faith in the integrity of our judicial system to the core.
Judge Biggers’ comments leave little doubt that what he’s really asking is for Zach to confess to a crime other than the one charged and pleaded. Otherwise, he would recognize what Zach has offered meets as much of the recognized criteria for a proper apology to the extent possible at this point in time –
a detailed account of the situation acknowledgment of the hurt or damage done taking responsibility for the situation recognition of your role in the event a statement of regret asking for forgiveness a promise it won’t happen again a form of restitution whenever possible
The ultimate test for remorse, however, is not what is said; it’s how you live thereafter – and that no one, including Judge Biggers, can measure tomorrow.