Do apologies ordered by the court serve a purpose?

by: in Law
court

An employee seeks an apology from his employer for inadequately handling a complaint against him. A sexual abuse victim pursues an apology from the Catholic Church for the harm that was done by one of the priests. Can individuals claim an apology, and will a court order one?

The conventional wisdom is that apologies that are claimed or ordered do not serve a purpose because they lack sincerity and violate the right to freedom of expression. In a recent publication, I challenge conventional wisdom by demonstrating that apologies do not need to be sincere in order for them to serve a purpose.

If sincerity cannot be the decisive criterion for determining whether apologies should be ordered, what criterion should then be decisive? Based on available empirical research, case law and scholarly research on apologies, the article identifies the purposes of coerced apologies and uses these purposes to draft criteria for determining when ordered apologies are appropriate. It is concluded that an ordered apology is a fulfilment of a legal requirement rather than a statement of genuinely held feelings.

A proportionality test is developed in order to determine the permissibility of ordered apologies. The findings in the article refute the sincerity myth, offer suggestions as to how to overcome freedom of expression concerns and call for a more welcoming approach towards court-ordered apologies.

This blog is a summarised version of an article published on the Oxford Journal of Legal studies

This blog is published on Law Blogs Maastricht

  • G. van Dijck

    Gijs integrates legal, empirical, and computational analysis in order to improve the description, application, understanding, and evaluation of the law. He has taught courses on tort law, contract law, property law, empirical legal research, and computational legal research. Gijs has published in top journals including the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies and the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.

    More articles from G. van Dijck