I. REZNICHENKO
I. Reznichenko, lawyer, doctor legal sciences, professor (Vladivostok).
If a lawyer does not support the position of a client who does not admit his guilt, the main argument of the defense lawyer in this situation becomes his reference to internal conviction. In some colleges this is regarded as a gross violation of lawyer's ethics, and the lawyer is punished in such cases; in others, such a conflict is considered normal, since the lawyer is free to choose his position. Meanwhile, this issue is of fundamental importance: it is related to the position of the lawyer in criminal proceedings, the nature of his relationship with the client, priorities in the implementation of the defense, etc.
There is no direct answer to this question in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. But based on a systematic analysis of its norms, the answer can be found. The law (Article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) did not include a lawyer in the circle of subjects of internal conviction. This, of course, is no coincidence: after all, he does not make powerful decisions. Obviously, the law also takes into account the fact that the lawyer identifies himself not only with the client, whom he strives to help in every possible way, but also with the court: in order to achieve success, the lawyer, when preparing a speech, must put himself in the place of the court and evaluate the evidence and circumstances of the case from his position . Without requiring a lawyer to defend himself out of inner conviction, the law proceeds from the fact that the very nature of his activity prompts him to do so.
But the main problem is different. If the law obliged a lawyer to be guided by his inner conviction, it would narrow the possibilities of defense: in the event of a conflict with a client, the lawyer would be forced to act in accordance with his inner conviction, and not with his interests.
Inner conviction is, according to Art. 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the psychological basis of the activities of the prosecutor and the court, a guarantee against accusatory bias when considering a case, while the lawyer is not “threatened” by accusatory bias due to his protective function in the process. The law's requirement for internal conviction for a lawyer would be an obstacle, a brake on a full-fledged defense. The defensive attitude would be neutralized by an internal conviction that contradicts the task of maximally helping the client. Moreover, if the lawyer were included in the circle of subjects of internal conviction, this circumstance would give him a legal basis to refuse to support the client’s position of non-admission of guilt. The lawyer may or may not have inner conviction; it creates psychological comfort if the lawyer takes a position in accordance with it; discomfort, if in spite of it. The main thing that follows from Art. 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, - a lawyer may not follow his inner conviction when choosing a position.
The criterion when choosing a lawyer's position is the protection of the client's legitimate interests. Therefore, the lawyer’s choice of a specific position is made depending on the client’s position: mitigation of punishment, reclassification of the crime, acquittal. In the very general view this provision is formulated as follows: the lawyer and the client take the same position, or the lawyer takes a more radical position than the client. That is, if the latter pleads guilty, any of the lawyer’s positions will be a manifestation of the defense: the lawyer’s interest in acquittal receives priority over the others, and the interest in reclassifying the crime over the interest in mitigating the punishment.
If the client does not plead guilty, his interest in an acquittal is certainly legitimate: the law does not oblige the defendant to admit his guilt, regardless of whether he committed or did not commit the crime charged to him. The client has the right to count on the full assistance of a lawyer, regardless of whether the lawyer considers his position to be justified or unfounded. In such a situation, the lawyer’s reference to mitigating circumstances and even a request for re-qualification take on not a defensive, but an accusatory character: the client denies his guilt, but the defense lawyer does not dispute it, but, on the contrary, admits it; the client asks for an acquittal, and the lawyer asks for a guilty verdict.
A conflict arises between the positions of the client and his lawyer. Such a defense is a transition to the side of the prosecution, no matter what reservations it may be accompanied by. There are also situations when the client is not aware of his procedural interest. He may admit his guilt, although in his actions, from the point of view of a lawyer, there is no corpus delicti or there is not sufficient evidence of his guilt (for example, the application of Part 2 of Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The lawyer takes an exculpatory position in both cases. But there are also differences.
In the first case, non-admission of guilt has a signaling character for the lawyer: only an acquittal. In the second case (admission of guilt), the choice of position becomes problematic depending on whether the lawyer considers or does not consider it possible to issue an acquittal. That is, in the first case, he has no choice: if the client does not admit guilt, the lawyer must take the same position. In the second, due to the non-obviousness of the prospects for acquittal, the lawyer must act as experience tells him. That is, the client’s non-admission of guilt is mandatory for the lawyer, but confession is optional. In the latter case, the lawyer comes into conflict with the client in his own interests.
And now let’s consider, taking into account the above, the prohibition on a lawyer to refuse to undertake the defense (Part 6 of Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It is aimed at preventing conflicts between a lawyer and a client caused by the fact that the client does not plead guilty, and the lawyer believes that there are no sufficient grounds to raise the issue of acquittal.
Sometimes in such a situation, lawyers solicit from the client a statement about the refusal of a lawyer; the refusal of the lawyer takes on an involuntary nature and turns out to be nothing more than a disguised refusal of the lawyer to defend himself, i.e. violation of Part 6 of Art. 51 Code of Criminal Procedure. This conflict takes place in an out-of-court setting and ends either with the lawyer convincing the client to take into account the realities of the case and abandon the hopeless position, or with the lawyer agreeing with the client’s position. But what to do if the conflict escalates, when the client does not want to change his position and refuse the lawyer, and the lawyer does not want to change his inner conviction? If the client does not want to change his position, then the lawyer must change it: he has no alternative.
Thus, Art. 71 and part 6 of Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contain an important provision: the inadmissibility of a conflict between a lawyer and a client if the defendant does not admit guilt; resolution of this conflict, if it arises, in favor of the client who does not admit his guilt; therefore, the lawyer’s duty is to continue the defense to the end from the position of non-admission of the client’s guilt, whatever the lawyer’s inner conviction. The futility of the position, from the point of view of the lawyer, only means the need to search for new ways of defense.
The institution of attorney-client privilege also plays an important role in a lawyer’s choice of position in a case (Part 7, Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). There can be no barriers between the client and the lawyer that prevent the lawyer from fulfilling the defense mission. No less a barrier than internal conviction could be the client’s distrust of the lawyer. The client, as a rule, is the carrier of important information. The lawyer must use it in accordance with Art. 51 Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. solely in the interests of the client: at best - for his protection, at worst - to be ignored and consigned to oblivion.
Strictly speaking, the client's trust in the lawyer is determined by the very nature of their relationship. But only with the establishment of attorney-client privilege in law did the client’s trust receive legal protection.
Contents of Part 7 of Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wider and deeper than its literal meaning. Although the article does not say anything about the client, this rule primarily protects his interests. The client can provide the lawyer with any information and be sure that it will not be disclosed to anyone in any form, in whole or in part.
The highest level of trust a client has in a lawyer is when he admits to having committed the crime of which he is accused (and sometimes of committing other crimes). Why is he doing this? The answer is simple: because he does not want to be convicted of this crime in court. The more dangerous information the client communicates to the lawyer, the more help he expects from him. The position of a client who does not admit his guilt in court, but confesses to the lawyer, cannot under any circumstances be rejected by the lawyer. This confidential information is excluded from the factors influencing the lawyer's position in court.
Violation of the client's trust can be committed by a lawyer in two forms: by disclosing the information received and by using it against the client. If a lawyer, contrary to the client, takes an accusatory position, the client has the right to believe that the lawyer used the information he received to his detriment, i.e. violated attorney-client privilege.
Analysis of Art. 71 and part 6, 7 art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the legislator has created the necessary conditions for the lawyer to protect the interests of the client without conflict. But is it possible to establish a violation of procedural law by a lawyer if he defends a position that does not coincide with the position of a client who does not admit his guilt?
The duty of a lawyer is stated very implicitly in the law; it is revealed only as a result of careful and, perhaps, non-disputable analysis. The legislator rather removes all obstacles for the lawyer so that he can take the same position as his client, rather than categorically obliging him to do so.
Obviously, the law proceeds from the fact that defense is a rather subtle and delicate matter. Indeed, sometimes the client and the lawyer distribute their positions in such a way that the first does not plead guilty, and the latter, with his consent, limits himself to citing mitigating circumstances or asking for reclassification. And the conflict between them does not arise either before or after the process: the client will be satisfied with the imposition of a light punishment. Therefore, in the near future, the resolution of these issues will remain a monopoly of lawyer associations.
LINKS TO LEGAL ACTS

"CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RSFSR"
(approved by the Supreme Court of the RSFSR on October 27, 1960)
Russian justice, N 9, 2001

The inability to admit guilt is another consequence of female egocentrism. A woman feels herself at the center of the universe, a being of the highest value. Therefore, infallible.
Although all people, to one degree or another, are not ready, are not inclined, do not want to admit their own guilt, they strive to shift it onto the shoulders of another person, but it is women who are characterized by this blind and impenetrable inner confidence in their own innocence, impenetrable by any logical arguments.

A man on the ABF forum shares his findings:

“It is very difficult for a woman to look at herself and her behavior from the outside. She is sure that she is an ideal. If there is something that makes her see herself from an unsightly side, then the madam will throw a tantrum and then come up with an excuse.

As an example of reverse behavior: A man is able to change his view of things. He is able to give a sober account of his behavior if he has a developed mind and logically correct information. Men come to this resource [ABF], get information, and, under the weight of facts, gradually change their point of view. Many people are very, very uncomfortable with the information they receive from ABF, but they continue to write and read, and follow the recommendations. With a creaking and groaning, the man will change his understanding of the world, and then his behavior.

A man’s mind is responsible for determining: right/wrong, good/bad. This is the biggest and most important difference between a man and just a male primate. A man knows how to distinguish between good and evil.

A woman does not have a mind, but only a mind that operates in the categories pleasant/unpleasant. Oh good/bad, the mind does not know. She doesn't understand what is good and what is evil. From the point of view of the OZHP, what brings it dividends is good. How she achieved these dividends is not important. I didn't get caught - and that's great. And men’s topics appear about how their madams threw them out because their husband became unpleasant, and their lover was quite the opposite. The majority of OJPs do not criticize their behavior or statements. And it is very, very difficult to prove to the OZHP the opposite of what she thinks about herself. This is violence against the mind of the Ozhp. The mind forces the brain to run away from uncomfortable information. Hysterics, illnesses, sick fantasies - all this is a way for the female mind to escape reality.

It is the greatest stupidity to believe any OzhP. And it doesn’t matter at all what social and family contacts you have with her. Most LBP will demonstrate to others a modified version of their behavior, their thoughts, their appearance."

A man who understands his guilt may not admit it openly - there is self-defense, cunning, and selfishness. He can get out, point at others, whitewash himself, but he knows everything about himself.

With a woman, most often the situation is different: she cannot understand and accept her guilt within herself. Egocentrism simply blocks the ability to critically evaluate one's own actions. The state of guilt is especially uncomfortable for the female personality type.

“How is it that it’s my fault?!” It is very common for a woman to place the blame on someone else. Even under the pressure of irrefutable facts, a woman is unlikely to sincerely realize her guilt, although it happens that in order to achieve her goal she admits it verbally. Don't believe it, this is not repentance, not sincere regret and not firm decision don't do this again. Most likely, they are simply telling you (“so be it”) what you want to hear.

"OZhP may well plead guilty. Outwardly. And only if it is in this moment it benefits her. That is, if benefit and personal interest outweigh. But inside she will still justify herself and has already justified herself a long time ago and has found a lot of excuses that it is not her who is like that, but 1...2...3... and so on. Therefore, I repeat - NEVER trust any OZHP! She will even deceive herself, including you, without even realizing it. But that's the best case scenario. And often he will deliberately lie and still justify himself."

In addition to ordinary life experience, women's forums can provide rich material for studying this inability to discern one's guilt.

The most striking illustration of this phenomenon is the behavior of a cheating and exposed wife. A classic of the genre has long been a woman’s response to accusing her husband of “lack of attention and care” and complaining about the desire to “feel like a woman.” Those. the husband is “himself to blame” for his wife’s infidelity; the absurdity and illogicality of such excuses does not confuse the woman at all. She is “not guilty”, period.

She can admit it verbally if you push her to the wall. But never alone with yourself.

A word to women:

“The question is whether she can admit it in words, or whether she can admit it to herself. IMHO, in words, when you push with reinforced concrete arguments, she can say that she may have been wrong, for herself she will find 1,000,000 excuses, even the most ridiculous ones, but she doesn’t need logical ones, any of them is enough for her, as long as they are beneficial for her.”

“They can, but not all and not always.

“As for “not everyone”: Let’s say a woman is ambitious, proud, with high self-esteem... even if she’s pushed to the wall and fed facts about her being wrong, she still won’t admit her mistake or guilt. It’s one thing if she at least she will realize that she is guilty, but because of her injured pride she will fidget and fuss, and so on, when she sincerely continues to consider herself innocent (this is already natural stupidity).

As for “not always”: There are situations when the blame lies not with one person, but with two. And if one of the culprits is a woman (stubborn and proud), then she is unlikely to recognize her and will brush her in the direction of the other."

I would like to dwell on two more aspects of female “innocence”.

Aspect one. Even if for some time someone managed to convince a woman that she was to blame - frankly, this is an extremely rare case - then over time the female personality will “come to her senses” and still reject the guilt, whitewashing herself in any way. And the further away from the event and unseemly act, the more obvious her own innocence will become to herself, the more the woman will be convinced that the guilt lies outside of her.

Opinion from the men's forum:

“Of course, it happens [that she admits she’s guilty]. And often, especially when you push a woman to the wall. Only one thing is she will quickly find an excuse for herself. That’s how the lifesaving organs work. If it’s on the fingers, then it will turn out something like the lifesaving organs have been pinned and inside her something like a lightning-fast dialogue - yes, I messed up, yes I’m 100% wrong here, but this is because the moon entered Aquarius incorrectly, because the wind was blowing in the wrong direction, because the horoscope in the magazine was unfavorable, and in general because it You yourself, asshole, forced me, such a good person, to do a bad thing, it is you, asshole, who is to blame for not having foreseen this situation in advance and not stopping me in time before I had time to do something nasty."

Aspect two. I would call it the "doctrine of corporate female innocence." Have you noticed that when discussing with another woman the unseemly act of another woman, albeit unfamiliar to her, one way or another you can clearly hear justificatory notes from the first?

The woman subconsciously takes the position of another accused woman and tries to justify her, albeit not as zealously as she would do it for herself if she found herself in similar circumstances. Of course, this female solidarity manifests itself only when there is no competition or hostility between women, say, because of a man.

If you pay attention to the society in which we live, the position that the media tacitly accepts, you will clearly see the dominance of the doctrine of the a priori guilt of men in literally everything and the inverse innocence of women.

Over the last decades of weakening of the maternal instinct, murderous mothers have enjoyed increasing leniency from judges, most of whom, mind you, are women.

I’m not talking about the numerous concessions that still exist in the Criminal Code that are discriminatory towards men; I’m talking about a social atmosphere that affirms the innocence of women, striving with all its might to find for women circumstances that justify them, partially or completely absolving them of guilt. The doctrine of corporate female innocence, the roots of which lie in the personal egocentrism of almost every woman, plays an important role in creating this social atmosphere.

“A woman fundamentally does not know how to truly feel sinful, that is, ultimately, bad. By the way, almost all researchers write about this. For my part, I will add that the tears that they (women, not researchers) shed in church during confession are not a manifestation of genuine repentance, as some priests imagine. The woman is just touched, and even feels sorry for herself. Like, how did she suddenly turn out to be bad? But her confessor is so good, and now everything will be fine for her, that is, she is also kind of good. . In addition, every woman is a born actress, and always has a great sense of what kind of face is expected of her in order to please (in this case, the confessor). And she perfectly knows how to make this face with complete sincerity. And even deeply believe that this face is sincere. And even laugh at those who do not have such a face. “...All this is organically necessary for her in order to constantly feel good, and this feature, in turn, is necessary psychophysically in order to effectively raise children. Being a female and feeling good all the time are essentially synonymous. Only men can afford the risk of self-repentance and genuine self-analysis in general. Because self-knowledge in general is a risk.”

(Excerpt from the book: Behemoth the Cat. “Christianity and World Womanism.”)

Shifting the blame

However, let's return to the relationship between a man and a woman. Since a woman denies her own guilt, then she needs another “guilty person,” who must bear the entire burden of responsibility: someone must be guilty, right? A woman very often realizes her inability to accept and admit her own guilt by “turning the tables,” that is, shifting the blame onto a man.

“My wife and I lived quite calmly. Of course, they occasionally fought because she annoyed me or because I irritated her in some way. I always put up with her. Regardless of who was actually to blame. Because it turned out that if she was to blame, then during the showdown I would lose my temper, say nasty things to her, and then she blamed me for this. And her fault seems to have nothing to do with it.”

A simple principle: “The best defense is an offensive.” A classic of this “genre” is the phrase “you didn’t (don’t pay) attention to me.” According to the woman, this phrase justifies any abomination and meanness towards a man. This is the most common response from a woman caught in infidelity or betrayal.

Why did you change? -You didn't pay attention to me! Why do you flirt with men? - And you’re not paying attention! Why did you create a scandal? - Because you brought me completely out: you don’t care about me and don’t pay attention!

So, the organic inability to admit guilt is one of the direct consequences of female egocentrism.

If you know you are at fault for a problem, the mature and responsible thing to do is to stand up and admit the mistake, as well as accept the consequences and contribute to the solution. Determine where you were wrong and prepare to take full responsibility for your actions. Talk to the person, tell them you were wrong and ask for forgiveness. And then move on, knowing that you will do better next time.

Steps

Realize your mistake

1. Admit you were wrong. To admit guilt, you must recognize your wrong behavior. Analyze your words or actions and understand what you did bad or wrong. Bring clarity to what happened and identify the reason why you acted the way you did.

   • Admitting that you are wrong does not mean that you are a weak or mediocre person. In fact, the ability to admit mistakes requires a lot of courage and self-awareness. This is a sign of maturity.
   • For example, if you said you would pick up the dry cleaning but didn't, don't make excuses. Just admit that you didn't keep your promise.

2. Don't try to shift the blame to others. Focus on yourself. The blame may be shared, and the other person may have also said or done the wrong thing, but focus only on what was done on your part. Just because you admit your guilt does not mean you are free to blame other people for complicity.

   • If you admit your part of the guilt, it is not a fact that the other person will do the same. Even if he doesn't, know that you are doing the right thing by accepting responsibility for your mistakes. Remember that you can only control your own actions, not anyone else's.
   • For example, if a project wasn't completed and it was partly your fault, admit blame for your part of the work. Don't start blaming other people, even if they are also partly to blame.

3. It's better to say sooner than later. Waiting for things to calm down is a bad idea. As soon as the situation starts to deteriorate, admit your responsibility for it. The sooner the problem is identified, the faster it can be solved, and therefore the consequences can be minimized.

   • For example, if you have let someone down, talk to that person as soon as you can and share your feelings. Say, “I was going to come to your event, but I couldn’t, and it’s my fault.”

   Talk to the man

   1. Admit you were wrong. This will demonstrate your willingness to accept the fact that you are imperfect and make mistakes. Sometimes it is difficult to admit that you are wrong, but this way you will show others that you are ready to take responsibility for your actions.

      • For example, say, “I was wrong to yell at you yesterday. Even if I'm upset, I shouldn't shout."

   2. Ask for forgiveness . If the situation warrants it, offer a sincere apology. Admit your mistake and make it clear that you are sorry for any pain or problem it caused. When apologizing, be gracious and willing to admit your fault.

      • For example, say, “I'm sorry I ruined the project. It’s my fault and I’m responsible for the fact that everything didn’t work out the way it should.”

   3. Understand the person's feelings. If the person is upset, be understanding. Acknowledge the significance of his feelings and experiences. Start by taking his words or emotions into account to demonstrate your understanding and also let him know that you are aware of his condition.

      • For example, say, “I understand that you are disappointed. If I were you, I would feel the same way."

   Move on

   1. Suggest a solution. Part of accepting guilt and responsibility may include correcting your mistake. Think through several options on how to fix everything. Take extra work or promise to try harder next time. Whatever it is, show your desire to change the situation for the better. By correcting the situation and thereby making amends, you will be able to restore justice and improve relationships with people.

      • For example, if you made a mistake at work, offer to stay late and correct your mistake.
      • If you have caused trouble for your family or friends, tell them that next time things will be different and keep your promise.

   2. Accept the consequences. Accepting responsibility can be difficult, especially when you know there will be consequences. Accept them as courageously as possible - everything will pass, and this too will pass. You will learn your lesson and maintain high moral standards in the process. Try to gain experience and not repeat mistakes.

      • For example, coming out may lead to consequences at work or school. Or perhaps you have to confess something to your family or partner that you know will upset them. Even if you are sure you will get a negative reaction in return, do the right thing.

   3. Analyze your behavior. Admit your mistake and think about what could have contributed to its occurrence. Perhaps you had a stressful day and you snapped at someone. It's easy to take your anger out on people who actually have nothing to do with your bad mood. You may have jumped to conclusions and made a mistake. Whatever it is, think about it and try to eventually make the necessary changes.

      • For example, if you forgot something because you were in a hurry, try slowing down or spending more time on what you're doing.

   4. Be responsible. Find someone who will help you be accountable for your words and actions. For example, you might have a friend who will mentor you, or you might meet with someone to discuss your responsibility. If you have someone to talk to about taking responsibility, it will be easier and faster to deal with.

      • For example, meet with someone every week and discuss what you're good at and what you're struggling with. Let each other know when the other needs to take responsibility for mistakes.

   5. Move on. Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Don't dwell on the mistake or keep trying to make amends with the person you hurt. Once you admit your guilt and make amends, do your best to forget about the situation. Even if you made a big mistake, don't beat yourself up forever. Accept what happened, learn from it, and then move on.

      • Once you've taken all the steps to correct the situation, don't live with guilt or shame. Let go of what happened.
      • If guilt is causing you a lot of distress, or you just can't move on, consider seeing a therapist to help you cope.

Some people do it easily and from the heart, but for others, asking for forgiveness is a real test! And if you don’t realize your guilt, is it worth apologizing so that the situation stops being tense? What do psychologists think about this?

Even if you unwittingly offended a person, hurt him, you feel guilty. It is not always realized, but sometimes it becomes an insurmountable obstacle that prevents you from asking for forgiveness. But no one likes to feel guilty!

That is why, deep down in our souls, we are afraid that our apologies may be rejected, that in response we will hear reproaches and it will turn out that the apologies were in vain. However, you cannot predict the course of events. Therefore, there is only one thing left: to act to get rid of all illusory fears. Remember: overcoming your fear is a small victory over yourself, and receiving forgiveness is a doubly victory.

Ask for forgiveness sincerely, from the heart. Without expecting that such a step will add “points” to you, and unprecedented benefits will shower on you. Don't play and be honest with yourself, otherwise you will be the loser.

Don't try to make amends with grand gestures and gifts. They are good when your soul is joyful and calm. “Buying” forgiveness in this way is not a good idea.

When you apologize, don't try to explain where you are at fault. Perhaps your interlocutor assessed the situation in his own way and sees your guilt in a completely different way. And then you will find yourself in an awkward situation. Better describe your feelings, tell me how significant the relationship with him is for you.

Even when we understand that we have been unfair and need to ask for forgiveness, it is very difficult to look a person in the eyes. And that’s when letters come to the rescue: while you’re writing, you’ll be able to find the right words and look at what happened from the other side. But the distance will not disappear, so a virtual apology is only the first step towards reconciliation. In addition, a letter or SMS does not convey all emotions, and a person may not understand you correctly. Therefore, you need to find the strength and courage to discuss everything in person in order to avoid any misunderstandings in the future.

It is a mistake to think that asking for forgiveness means humiliating yourself, and receiving forgiveness is alms. Your apology only says one thing: this person is important to you. When you apologize, remember why you are doing it.

“It’s not my fault.”

Often we think that we didn’t say anything offensive and acted as we saw fit. This means we don’t feel any guilt about ourselves. But here’s the problem: the other person (our interlocutor, loved one or close friend) is seriously offended. What to do in such a situation? If we are talking about deep relationships, it is worth thinking about how you could offend the person you care about. Try talking to him, find out what you said or did wrong. Perhaps he has the wrong idea about your intentions and thoughts. Only a confidential and honest conversation can correct the situation. Your sincere explanations that you didn’t mean anything bad will act as a balm for the soul of the “offended.”

Well, if you are tormented by doubts about whether to ask for forgiveness or not, think about the fact that the phrase “Sorry!”, and even said with a smile, can defuse almost any conflict situation. Do you agree? Then learn to be flexible, sincere and honest - first of all with yourself. In addition, the ability to admit one’s mistakes and failures speaks of a person’s maturity and wisdom.