apology/retraction distinguish

Retraction is a concept that mostly involves straightening out of facts. For example, if I made up a fact, to retract, I have to say in the newspaper that this is a false fact. Apology involves an admittance of wrongfulness. To apologize, one basically has to say "I was wrong or I've sinned."

I think for most retraction statutes, it allows defendants to pay fewer damages if they retract BEFORE the trial. In other words, it is mostly an ex-ante measure. It is quite another issue to force the defendant to make a retraction as part of the judgment. I am not saying this is not possible, but even if it happens, it is not very typical. And even if it does, it may require only a retraction, not an apology. Retraction doesn't instigate constitutional problems because it is a good way to correct misleading speech. But apologies are not like that.

In the case of battery, like that person mentioned, I don't think an apology will be forced upon the defendant. Retraction (or apology, if you wish to call it that way) is only appropriate in defamation cases, due to its speech-oriented conflict. But I can't imagine a court would force a defendant to apologize in a battery case.