Over at The Epoch Times, the judicious doctor calls into question the recent admonition of one of the policemen involved in the Floyd case by a Minnesota judge for not showing the necessary level of remorse.
As revenge is a dish best eaten cold, so remorse is an emotion that should bring no tangible reward—such as a reduced prison sentence. Indeed, in conditions in which expressions of remorse are rewarded, not to express remorse could be taken as a sign of truthfulness and probity.
This article comes as close as humanly possible to the truth, before veering off on a tangent and completely missing the point of remorse in this particular case, and this kind of case.
If an inebriated driver commits vehicular homicide, it is natural to expect expressions of remorse. He certainly didn’t mean to do it. If he expressed no remorse, he would rightly be considered a monster, and it would in fact make sense to then levy a harsher sentence.
In this case, as Dalrymple correctly notes, if the perp honestly believes he did no wrong, then expressing remorse is lying. But what Dalrymple missed is that the purpose of this trial was to elicit the public expression of remorse, because this was a show trial. The point of a show trial is propaganda: to convince the public of the rectitude of the all-powerful state.
Mr. Thao didn’t follow the script and for that they threw the book at him.
Mr. Thao is a true hero for not bending his knee to the woke state.