In recent years wrongful convictions have received a considerable amount of research attention. This flourishing interest has resulted in a growing body of literature that aims to investigate this criminal justice phenomenon. Specifically, the current academic literature suggests that exonerees have reported feeling stigmatized; however, public perception research suggests that the public is actually supportive of exonerees. As very little research has been conducted on public perceptions of wrongful conviction—and on the views of community members, in particular—this thesis sought to further explore this topic using open-ended, structured interviews. In addition, the literature has been criticized for its lack of theory integration. Therefore, the results of this study have been interpreted in the context of Giddens‘ Structuration Theory. Indeed, public perception and support are important as they may influence policy changes and encourage the government to be more forthcoming when it comes to preventing wrongful convictions and helping exonerees post-conviction. Overall, results indicated that community members defined wrongful conviction as cases of factual innocence. They also had limited knowledge of wrongful conviction, leading some participants to believe that wrongful convictions were infrequent. Community members were also able to identify several factors that lead to wrongful convictions (e.g., mistaken eyewitnesses), felt that the criminal justice system did a fair job in light of wrongful convictions, and generally held positive views toward exonerees (e.g., believing that they should receive supportive services, such as financial compensation, job training, and apologies). Furthermore, results highlight that while community members acknowledge that exonerees likely experience stigmatization, the majority of participants did not personally express stigmatizing views. / UOIT

This thesis examines legislation that creates a “safe habour” for apologies by making them inadmissible as evidence of liability in a civil action. In recent years, jurisdictions across North America and Australia have enacted such “apology legislation” in an effort to encourage apologies. This is allegedly done to assist victims, who often benefit from full and sincere apologies. Legislators are also motivated, however, by the perception that apologies can induce victims to settle or forgo legal action, thereby reducing litigation rates. Whether such a correlation exists, particularly for apologies given under apology legislation, has not been firmly established, and attempting to use apologies in this manner may prove harmful to victims and the state. Apologies are powerful, and if legislators are not careful, they may enact legislation that alters apologies so that they become a source of harm to victims, the legal system, and even society as a whole.

This thesis examines legislation that creates a “safe habour” for apologies by making them inadmissible as evidence of liability in a civil action. In recent years, jurisdictions across North America and Australia have enacted such “apology legislation” in an effort to encourage apologies. This is allegedly done to assist victims, who often benefit from full and sincere apologies. Legislators are also motivated, however, by the perception that apologies can induce victims to settle or forgo legal action, thereby reducing litigation rates. Whether such a correlation exists, particularly for apologies given under apology legislation, has not been firmly established, and attempting to use apologies in this manner may prove harmful to victims and the state. Apologies are powerful, and if legislators are not careful, they may enact legislation that alters apologies so that they become a source of harm to victims, the legal system, and even society as a whole.

Scholars speculate that government apologies and compensation for historical injustices promote forgiveness and reconciliation, as well as psychologically benefit members of the victimized group. However, they have not offered theory or compelling evidence in support of these assumptions, nor do they discuss how redress affects the majority group. Across four studies, I examined how Chinese and non-Chinese Canadians psychologically responded to offers of apologies and compensation for the Chinese Head Tax. Overall, it was better to give than receive the redress. When participants thought redress had not been offered, non-Chinese Canadians evaluated it less favorably than Chinese Canadians. But, when participants thought redress had been offered, non-Chinese Canadians evaluated it more favorably than Chinese Canadians did, confirming the predictions of balance and system justification theory. An offer of apology and compensation for the Chinese Head Tax did not influence Chinese Canadian participants’ forgiveness or reconciliation feelings. The redress offer also did not lead Chinese Canadians to feel more identified with Canadians or Chinese Canadians, nor did it lead Chinese Canadians to evaluate Chinese Canadians more positively. On the other hand, the majority group, non-Chinese Canadians, evaluated their group more positively and considered the system of government less responsible for the harm when both an apology and compensation were offered, as justice motivation and social identity theories predict. The current results inform interdisciplinary discussions of the potential effects of apologies and compensation by suggesting additional psychological effects of redress. They also demonstrate that, despite concerns that the majority will backlash against their government giving apologies and compensation, majority group members increased their favor of redress measures once they were offered.

Scholars speculate that government apologies and compensation for historical injustices promote forgiveness and reconciliation, as well as psychologically benefit members of the victimized group. However, they have not offered theory or compelling evidence in support of these assumptions, nor do they discuss how redress affects the majority group. Across four studies, I examined how Chinese and non-Chinese Canadians psychologically responded to offers of apologies and compensation for the Chinese Head Tax. Overall, it was better to give than receive the redress. When participants thought redress had not been offered, non-Chinese Canadians evaluated it less favorably than Chinese Canadians. But, when participants thought redress had been offered, non-Chinese Canadians evaluated it more favorably than Chinese Canadians did, confirming the predictions of balance and system justification theory. An offer of apology and compensation for the Chinese Head Tax did not influence Chinese Canadian participants’ forgiveness or reconciliation feelings. The redress offer also did not lead Chinese Canadians to feel more identified with Canadians or Chinese Canadians, nor did it lead Chinese Canadians to evaluate Chinese Canadians more positively. On the other hand, the majority group, non-Chinese Canadians, evaluated their group more positively and considered the system of government less responsible for the harm when both an apology and compensation were offered, as justice motivation and social identity theories predict. The current results inform interdisciplinary discussions of the potential effects of apologies and compensation by suggesting additional psychological effects of redress. They also demonstrate that, despite concerns that the majority will backlash against their government giving apologies and compensation, majority group members increased their favor of redress measures once they were offered.

This study proposes and tests a comprehensive theory detailing the motivations behind political apologies. A brief survey of the literature shows a field rich in case studies but lacking in rigorous scientific analysis. The theory presented proposes a three-level examination of political apology at the state, dyadic, and system levels and incorporates the effects of culture, conflict, and the nature of the international system into analysis. This study makes use of a new dataset recording the occurrence of political apologies for interstate conflict atrocities from 1900 to 2006. The results suggest that the existing literature, while rich, does not account for all the motivating factors behind apology. The results also confirm that political apology is a creation of the modern era and a result of the liberalization of the international system. In conclusion, paths for future research are suggested and the advent of a global "age of apology" is confirmed.

This thesis is about the process of reconciliation between the Church of Sweden and Sápmi. By giving a historical retrospective, the process ends up in a context that can show why a reconciliation is desirable.  The reconciliation process began already in the 1990s, but a major change was taken in 2006 when an inquiry on the Sámi issues within the Church of Sweden was made.  This thesis examines the current reconciliation process from three perspectives.  The first perspective is to examine to whom the reconciliation process is directed. The second perspective is about the conflicts in the land and water issue, which the Sámi consider to be an important issue, but the issue is not included in the reconciliation process. The third perspective is to investigate what the Church of Sweden means by an increased Sámi presence in the church life. The historical relationships that stretch back many hundreds of years through research and storytelling. The documentation shows how the Church's approach and actions have negatively affected the Sámi population.  For this, the Church of Sweden has now apologised and is developing a ten-year action plan to strengthen the Sámi presence in the church life.

No description available.

Following a transgression, interpersonal forgiveness is one strategy used to restore harmony between the victim and offender. Research also suggests that forgiveness can promote psychological and physical health. Research has shown that an apology from the offender may facilitate the forgiveness process. The majority of studies suggest that when a victim receives an apology, they experience higher levels of forgiveness toward their offender. The purpose of this thesis was to explore the association between apology and forgiveness in a sample of adults and undergraduate students (N = 803). The results are organized in three sections. First, I found a positive relationship between apology and forgiveness, replicating prior research. Second, I created a new measure of transgression severity, and provided evidence of internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion-related validity for this measure. Third, I tested two variables hypothesized to moderate the association between apology and forgiveness. First, there was some evidence that perceived offender humility moderated the association between simple apology and forgiveness. Offenders who were perceived as being more humble when providing a simple apology were granted more forgiveness than their less humble counterparts. Second, there was some evidence that transgression severity moderated the association between a complete apology and forgiveness, but the effect was in the opposite direction as hypothesized. For individuals who reported a transgression of high severity, there was a stronger association between the completeness of an apology and forgiveness than for individuals who reported a transgression of low severity. I conclude by discussing limitations, areas for future research, and implications for counseling.

The article analyses the psychosocial impact of the apologies about the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil war along two studies. The relational study showed that Blazquez’s apology was perceived with limited impact, being more important at a societal level than at a micro-social level, both, on direct or indirect victims. The experimental study showed that self-criticism reinforced guilt as well as the need for reparation, whereas glorification diminished them. / Se analiza el impacto de las disculpas sobre el rol de la Iglesia Católica en la guerra civil española. Un estudio correlacional mostró que el impacto de las disculpas del obispo Blázquez fue limitado y los encuestados percibieron un impacto mayor sobre la sociedad en general que sobre las víctimas o sus descendientes. Un estudio experimental comparó las opiniones de una condición control donde los participantes leían sobre el rol de la Iglesia en la guerra civil española, con una donde los participantes además leían la autocrítica y con otra donde además leían sobre una beatificación de mártires de la Iglesia durante la guerra civil. La autocrítica reforzaba la culpa y la necesidad de reparación, mientras que la beatificación las disminuía.