A recent case in Brazil drew national attention after a woman survived an attempted rape by fighting back for approximately 13 minutes inside her own apartment until neighbors intervened. The accused, who reportedly had a previous rape conviction and was on conditional release, cried in court and pleaded not to be jailed, citing his family and claiming intoxication. Public discussion quickly shifted from the crime itself to whether his emotional reaction represented genuine remorse or simply fear of punishment.

This raises important questions about how we understand the human mind.

Fear of punishment is not the same as remorse

From a neuroscience perspective, when people are suddenly confronted with serious consequences, such as arrest, imprisonment, or public exposure, the brain’s threat and survival systems become highly active.

This can trigger crying, panic, pleading, rationalizing, or desperately searching for ways to reduce the threat.

Remorse, however, is something different.

True remorse involves recognizing the harm done to another person, accepting responsibility, and showing a willingness to change one’s behavior, not simply feeling distressed about one’s own situation.

That said, observing someone crying or the lack of thereof, does not allow us to know which emotional state is actually occurring.

Why we should be careful with statements involving “repentance” and “strategy” based on emotions seen

Some commentators have argued that “real repentance happens during the act” and that any remorse shown afterward is merely a strategy.

While emotionally understandable, psychology and neuroscience do not support such absolute conclusions.

Stopping harmful behavior while it is occurring is certainly meaningful because it prevents further harm. But science does not define repentance by the exact moment it begins.

People can recognize the seriousness of what they have done immediately afterward, months later, or even years later.

Likewise, saying with certainty that someone’s tears, references to family, or other explanations involving wellbeing are “just manipulation” goes beyond what the evidence allows.

They may be attempts to manipulate.

They may reflect fear of punishment.

They may express shame, regret, self-pity, or genuine remorse.

Often, several of these emotions can exist simultaneously.

Without careful evaluation, no one can honestly determine another person’s internal motivations simply by observing courtroom behavior.

The same applies to statements like:

• “He wasn’t thinking about his family during the attack.”
• “He’s only playing the victim.”

These may seem plausible, but they remain interpretations, not established facts. Unless there is evidence documenting a person’s thoughts or intentions, we should distinguish probability from certainty.

Being scientifically accurate does not excuse criminal behavior. It simply protects us from making judgments based on assumptions rather than evidence. Many cases can go waste if not factually based. 

Crying is information, not proof

Crying is one of the brain’s many responses to emotional distress.

People cry from grief, fear, shame, relief, frustration, empathy, humiliation, hopelessness, and many other emotional states.

Some individuals also learn, consciously or unconsciously, that displaying distress influences how others respond. In those situations, crying can become part of manipulative behavior.

Both possibilities are real.

This is why tears alone should never be treated as proof of innocence, guilt, remorse, or deception.

Likewise, compassion should never be measured by how emotionally expressive someone appears.

Some deeply compassionate people rarely cry.

Some individuals who cry intensely may still remain primarily focused on themselves.

Healthy judgment requires looking at the broader pattern of behavior over time, not isolated emotional displays.

The neuroscience of perpetrators and victims

Human brains respond very differently depending on whether they are experiencing threat, inflicting harm, or trying to survive.

The victim’s brain

When someone faces a life-threatening assault, the brain rapidly activates survival systems.

Adrenaline increases.

Attention narrows.

Pain may temporarily decrease.

The body prepares to fight, flee, freeze, or sometimes cycle between these responses.

None of these reactions are conscious choices, they are automatic survival mechanisms.

Contrary to common myths, freezing is just as biologically normal as fighting or running.

No victim should ever be judged for how they responded during trauma.

After the event, many survivors experience intrusive memories, nightmares, hypervigilance, anxiety, emotional numbness, difficulty trusting others, or avoidance of reminders of the assault.

These reactions are common after traumatic experiences.

For some people they gradually improve.

For others they develop into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which reflects a brain that continues responding as though danger is still present.

The perpetrator’s brain

A perpetrator’s brain is not simply “wired differently,” nor can we diagnose someone from a news story.

However, neuroscience tells us that violent behavior often involves failures of impulse control, poor empathy, distorted thinking, impaired moral judgment, emotional dysregulation, or long-standing personality traits interacting with environmental and social factors.

Once arrest occurs, the brain’s focus often shifts dramatically.

Instead of pursuing the offense, attention turns toward avoiding punishment.

This change can produce fear, panic, crying, pleading, bargaining, or attempts to explain one’s behavior.

These reactions tell us that the individual now perceives themselves to be under threat.

They do not, by themselves, tell us whether genuine remorse is present.

Could science help us judge more fairly?

We can strongly condemn violence while remaining careful about claims that go beyond the available evidence.

Scientific thinking reminds us to separate:

• observed behavior from inferred motives;
• evidence from speculation;
• accountability from assumptions about someone’s internal emotional state.

Doing so protects victims, supports justice, and helps ensure that our understanding of human behavior is guided by evidence rather than intuition alone.

Justice requires accountability.

Science requires humility.

Both are essential.