T HE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 2019| 13

Suppose that a public figure has said

or done something that many people

consider offensive, outrageous or

despicable — for example, lied about

his military service or insulted peo-

ple’s religious convictions. Should he

apologize?

Let’s assume that his goal is not to

be a good person, but only to improve

his standing — to increase the chance

that he will be elected, get confirmed

by the Senate or keep his job.

Recent evidence converges on a

simple answer: An apology is a risky

strategy.

A case in point, now receiving recon-

sideration as a result of recent report-

ing in The New Yorker about the alle-

gations against Al Franken. In re-

sponse to claims of inappropriate

physical contact with several women,

Mr. Franken, then a member of the

Senate, publicly apologized. But the

apology did not appear to do him much

good, and it might have fanned some

flames. Soon after apologizing, he was

forced to resign.

Mr. Franken’s

post-apology experi-

ence may not be so

exceptional. Accord-

ing to recent surveys

that I have con-

ducted, apologies do

not increase support

for people who have

said or done offen-

sive things.

Using Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk, a

service that allows

for rapid surveys, I recently presented

four distinct scenarios to four different

groups, each demographically diverse

and having about 300 people. Here

they are:

■ Suppose a nominee for attorney

general said a few years ago: “Gays

and lesbians are violating God’s will.

Marriage should be between Adam

and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

■ Suppose a presidential candidate

said a few years ago, “People who

want to ban abortion just don’t care

about women.”

■ Suppose a nominee for secretary

of state said a few years ago, “I think

the United States should apologize for

the many terrible things that it has

done in the world.”

■ Suppose a presidential candidate

has been accused by a number of

women of inappropriate touching — of

getting too close to them, of hugging

them too much, of hugging them too

long. Some of the women said they felt

violated.

In all four cases, participants were

asked to suppose that the public figure

apologized for the statement or behav-

ior in question, and were asked

whether the apology would make them

more likely to support him or her, less

likely to do so, or neither less nor more

inclined to support the public figure.

In each and every scenario, the

percentage of people who became less

inclined to support the offender was

larger than the percentage who be-

came more inclined to do so. Stun-

ningly, the patterns were broadly

similar in all four cases — even though

different groups of people responded

to each of them and the statements or

actions would offend people of differ-

ent convictions.

In the case of the hypothetical nomi-

nee who disparaged same-sex mar-

riage, 37 percent said that they would

be less inclined to support the apolo-

gizing nominee; 22 percent said that

they would be more inclined; 41 per-

cent said neither.

In the abortion case, 36.5 percent

said that they would be less inclined to

support the apologizing candidate; 20

percent said that they would be more

inclined; 43.5 percent said neither.

In the case of the would-be secretary

of state, 41.5 percent said that they

would be less inclined to support the

apologizing nominee; 23 percent said

that they would be more inclined; 35.

percent said neither. In the case of

inappropriate touching, 29 percent

said that they would be less inclined to

support the apologizing candidate; 25

percent said that they would be more

inclined; 46 percent said neither.

In a diverse set of contexts, then, an

apology tended to decrease rather

than to increase overall support for

those who said or did things that many

people consider offensive. These find-

ings are in line with earlier work by

Richard Hanania, a research fellow at

Columbia University, who found that

apologies by public figures do not help

and can even backfire.

Why is that? It’s hard to say for

sure, but one reason may be that an

apology is like a confession. It makes

wrongdoing more salient. It can lead

people to think: “We thought he was a

jerk; now we know he is. He admits

it!”

That’s why an apology can increase

the antipathy of those who are inclined

to dislike a public figure. And for those

who are inclined to like him or her, an

admission of wrongdoing is not likely

to be a big plus, either. It may even

look like a sign of weakness. President

Trump, for one, is loath to apologize —

for anything — and his supporters

seem to love him for it.

To be sure, this research should be

taken as preliminary. The surveys I

have described are relatively small,

and despite the demographic diversity

of the various groups, they are not

nationally representative.

They also leave open questions.

Perhaps the real impact of apologies

occurs over weeks or months. The

content and context of the apology

surely matter. In some cases, a heart-

felt statement of contrition can be

essential if the goal is to make storm

clouds pass.

Whatever their effects, apologies

might be morally mandatory. As in

ordinary life, so in politics: They might

be a way of showing respect to those

who have been offended or hurt, and of

recognizing their fundamental dignity.

But the basic point remains. As a

matter of simple strategy, apologies

may not be a great idea. It is some-

times smarter for public figures to

remain silent — or to change the sub-

ject.

JAVIER JAÉN

Saying sorry

might be the

right thing to

do morally.

Politically?

Not so much.

Cass R. Sunstein

CASS R. SUNSTEINis a professor at Har-

vard Law School and the author, most

recently, of “Impeachment: A Citizen’s

Guide.”

In politics, apologies are for losers

An apology

can lead

people to

think: “We

thought he

was a jerk;

now we know

he is. He

admits it!”

Every 16 hours, a woman in the United

States is fatally shot by a current or

former partner. Intimate partner homi-

cide is one of the leading causes of

death for women in the country, with

nearly half of all murdered women

killed by a partner.

But there are steps that can be taken

to prevent more murders. Repeat

offenders are less likely to kill if they

are regularly monitored by law en-

forcement. In order to closely monitor

offenders, all states should create

comprehensive batterer databases to

track domestic abusers who repeat-

edly violate restraining orders. Cur-

rently, states vary significantly in how

they handle repeat violations. The

failure of law enforcement and district

attorney offices to communicate has

cost victims their lives.

High-risk, repeat offenders should

also be required to wear a GPS track-

ing device — in the form of an ankle

bracelet — when released on bail. With

this type of GPS tracker the police can

speak directly to the offender through

a built-in speakerphone. If an abuser

goes outside the permitted boundaries

or attempts to travel to the victim’s

home or job, the device sets off an

alarm. Both the police and the victim

are alerted.

Twenty-three states use such de-

vices, and have seen violence de-

crease. In Connecticut, there have

been virtually no domestic violence-

related homicides in the counties that

use these GPS devices since 2004,

when the state started to use GPS

trackers.

In a 2012 study, researchers from the

University of Illinois at Chicago and

Florida State University found that

batterers who were required to wear a

GPS device were less likely to violate a

restraining order or try to harm the

victim. The American Probation and

Parole Association has also reported

that better monitoring of offenders is

effective in reducing violence.

Victims of domestic abuse are fre-

quently blamed for not leaving their

abuser, a response that profoundly

ignores the fatal danger victims — and

their families — face when they leave

or attempt to leave. Currently, victims

have few ways to protect themselves.

Researchers at the University of Penn-

sylvania and the University of Califor-

nia, Los Angeles, School of Public

Health found that one-third of victims

were murdered within a month of

obtaining a restraining order. Abusers

often become more violent after a

victim leaves, when a restraining order

is issued or when they are released on

bail.

Domestic abuse frequently follows a

specific pattern of escalating violence,

often the precursor to a victim’s mur-

der, but batterers who repeatedly

violate restraining orders usually face

little to no punishment. Up to two-

thirds of restraining orders are vio-

lated in domestic violence cases.

Firearms play a significant role in

intimate partner homicide. But many

states don’t effectively monitor

whether a court order to surrender

firearms was followed. In order to

standardize the process, offenders who

are ordered to hand in their firearms

should be tracked and those who are

noncompliant should be reported to

the presiding judge.

Electronic monitoring raises some

questions about an individual’s right to

privacy. But the Supreme Court has

ruled that electronic tracking is within

the scope of the Fourth Amendment —

and many state courts have declared

that protecting domestic violence

victims’ lives requires the use of elec-

tronic surveillance.

Critics have voiced concerns about

the cost of GPS devices and their

technical glitches, which can make an

offender wrongly appear to be in vio-

lation of the terms of their release. But

the benefits of tracking repeat domes-

tic batterers, given the staggering

rates of intimate partner homicide, far

outweigh the limitations.

“Domestic violence homicides are

among the most predictable, and

therefore the most preventable, of all

homicides because there are patterns

that can be identified,” said Toni Troop,

the director of communications and

development for Jane Doe Inc.

Laura Aceves’s life could have been

saved if her batterer had been tracked.

Ms. Aceves was shot in the head, in

front of her 4-month-old baby, by her

ex-boyfriend, Victor Acuna-Sanchez, in

Arkansas. Mr. Acuna-Sanchez was out

on bail for multiple domestic assault

charges.

Long before Ms. Aceves was mur-

dered, Mr. Acuna-Sanchez terrorized

her and repeatedly broke the conditions

of his pretrial release. Three weeks

before he killed her, he was arrested for

violating a no-contact order. He was

released the following day. Mr. Acuna-

Sanchez was ordered to check in regu-

larly with his probation officer, but

never did. Arkansas law enforcement

never bothered to follow up.

To help determine potential lethality

of domestic abuse, Jacquelyn Camp-

bell, a domestic violence expert and a

professor at Johns Hopkins University,

created a 20-question risk-assessment

tool, but it hasn’t been put into practice

nationwide. The tool should be used in

each state to improve judges’ ability to

assess when electronic tracking is

needed.

Unchecked repeat offenders do not

relent. They won’t stop until they kill

their target. Heavier surveillance is

necessary to halt them.

Greater

surveillance

of domestic

abusers

protects their

victims from

escalating

violence.

When a restraining order fails, a GPS tracker can save lives

ILLUSTRATION NICHOLAS KONRAD; PHOTOGRAPH BY GETTY IMAGES

MISHA VALENCIAis a writer and clinician

who specializes in treating trauma.

Misha Valencia

Opinion

РЕ

ЛИ

З

ПО

Д

ГО

ТО

ВИ

ЛА

ГР

УП

ПААrelated homicides in the counties thatrelated homicides in the counties that

"What's

News"

VK.COM/WSNWS