How do defendants representing themselves do mitigation?

[Somewhatfoolish]

Perhaps the answer to this is as simple as "only morons represent themselves due to this sort of thing" but how can defendants representing themselves do the "remorse"/"apology" bit of mitigation convincingly? It seems almost impossible to me to claim simultaneously that you're really sorry about xyz, but also that your doing xyz was not that big a deal because of abc...

[Somewhatfoolish]

MickyveloceClassic said:

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client, said Abraham Lincoln.

On the various occasions when a defendant has elected to self-represent in the cases I was involved with over the past 30 years, two things have always happened.

1. They have always (on account of their experience of the cut and thrust of the courtroom discourse coming from television) said “ I put it to you, Officer”.

2. They have always lost their case.

I did just get a parking ticket overturned with Newcastle council (basically their signage was inadequate and I could prove this; indeed I had thought I was parking legally so there's a reason for those standards... although I accept thinking I could park right outside Grainger Market for free was probably a bit dubious, but I wasn't thinking).

But I agree. I was kinda musing on how it would be if parking tickets all went to court when the question in the OP entered my head...