Defendants’ excuses for aggressive acts: Observations from Copenhagen City Court

This article is based on observations of 50 city court cases for threats, offensive speech and/or minor violence. The attention is on how the defendants excused these aggressive acts, but primarily on the excuses that were unlikely to be considered juridically relevant. Six different storylines were identified in these excuses: regrets, blaming of the alleged victims, claim of concern for the victim, referral to sense of justice, claim that it was an accident or a misunderstanding, and finally a dissociation of the event from the defendant’s personality. The meaning of providing these excuses will be discussed in light of concepts such as neutralisation techniques and accounts. It is argued, however, that a proper understanding needs to also include both interactional dynamics and the powerful framing that the court situation provides: The defendants strive to appear normal in a situation of attack against their self-images.