That was the choice a court in Ohio gave a man found in contempt due to a violation of a protective order against his ex-wife. The news reports are a little sketchy, but it appears that the basis for the contempt finding was a statement the defendant posted on his Facebook page. The defendant and his lawyer described it as simply “venting” his frustrations about the custody battle and the court system. The court disagreed and gave the defendant the option to either post the apology for 30 consecutive days on his Facebook page, or face 60 days in jail. The defendant picked the apology option and has started posting the apology on his Facebook page.
The statement and a link to the Facebook page apology are available here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320146
Apologies are routinely a part of the criminal justice system. One frequent example is when defendants apologize in sentencing hearings after a finding or plea of guilty. Restorative justice processes, such as victim-offender conferencing, also routinely include apologies. In these examples the defendant volunteers the apology, although cynics would point out that these apologies are often made in hopes of less jail/prison time or an overall better outcome. But, I can’t think of another example of a defendant being ordered to apologize or face jail time. Does this kind of order make the person who was wronged feel better? Is it sufficiently sincere? And, does it right the wrong (in this case, misstatements on the original Facebook postings)? And, should defendants be ordered to apologize or go to jail?
The defendant’s lawyer raised free speech concerns and said: “In a million years I didn’t think he’d be found in contempt. He did nothing but vent. She didn’t like what he had to say. That’s what this boils down to.”
Beyond the Constitutional issues, I question whether this kind of forced apology is something the criminal justice system should order, in part because I am concerned about ordering people to say things they may not agree with (maybe this defendant isn’t, in fact, sorry) or face jail time. But I also wonder about the value of such forced apologies, particularly to the victim. I’m curious if any of our readers, particularly those who follow the apology literature more closely, have any thoughts.
This is an interesting point of inquiry. While I find that ‘the apology’ is an important tool to not only be used in adjudicative processes, an “I’m sorry” can go a loooong way in alternative dispute resolutions processes as well. However, the big caveat, as Kendall points out, is that in my experience the apology is only an effective tool when offered under the defendant’s own free will. Re-posting an apology for 30 consecutive days under court order.. I don’t know.. seems a bit…forced? I won’t even delve into my personal beliefs on the first amendment free speech argument as I’m not a constitutional scholar. But my gut instinct is that this type of case will soon appear in front of the Supreme Court if this type of punishment is given out more and more often.
Very interesting topic, but if I were the defendant, I would feel pressured into the apologies or face jail time… easy choice.
That being said, as the plaintiff I would think “jail or apologize?” seems to me the choice is easy, regardless of whether or not it is sincere.
That’s interesting. “Community service” will never be the same. At some point there will have to be a whole new legislation regarding social media.
That case comes from my beloved state of Ohio. While I am a proponent of apologies, it is only in the context of one given voluntarily. To force an apology may make the victim feel better but does not mean it is sincere. In fact, I am familiar with one example where an offender was ordered to apologize in court and he simply read a statement that he was apologizing, but only because the court forced him too! This complied with the judge’s order but surely misses the boat on the importance of apologies. This being said, people need to learn to stop “venting” on social media. This case may or may not have constitution implications, but it sure makes for an interesting read!