Honesty as a “communicative tool” in sentencing: A study of judges in the U.S. and Australia

This study, drawing from interviews with trial court judges in the U.S. and Australia ( N = 47), builds a theoretical qualitative model that illustrates the conceptualization, significance, and influence of a defendant's honesty as a “communicative tool” in punishment and sentencing practices for judges in these jurisdictions. A constant comparative analysis shows that judges from both jurisdictions generally believe that a defendant's honesty acts as a communicative tool during sentencing, and this can lead them to reconfigure their sentencing practices–which they view as representing the interests of victims and the community–to prioritize mercy as well as rehabilitative and reparative ideals. Further, judges look for defendants to communicate honesty in ways that enable them to develop a complete understanding of its weight during sentencing, with U.S. judges particularly focusing on body language and nonverbal indicators. Overall, this study not only represents the first known empirical examination of a defendant's honesty within the communicative theory of punishment framework but also assesses if and how it translates across national cultures and criminal-legal systems, as well as how judges believe guidelines and legislation limit sentencing decisions involving honesty in Australia and the U.S. Implications of this work for sentencing practices are discussed. • A defendant's honesty acts as a “communicative tool” for judges during sentencing. • Honesty can lead judges to prioritize mercy and rehabilitation in sentencing. • The weight judges put on honesty translates across national cultures/legal systems.