Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Authorities in Relation to Degree of Value Discrepancy with Public Citizens

In this study of perceived legitimacy, Australian citizens from a randomly selected national sample first responded to information about how judicial authorities responded to two crimes (green protest, date rape) in terms of seriousness and recommended punishment. They also provided ratings of the importance of a set of values for judicial authorities compared with self, and measures of global value discrepancy, procedural fairness, expertise, and legitimacy. Results showed that perceived legitimacy was negatively related to global value discrepancy and that the information provided to participants about judge’s position primed differences in value discrepancy only for the date rape crime. Other findings also implied that the nature of the offense moderated legitimacy/value discrepancy relations. Perceived legitimacy was also positively related to procedural fairness and the expertise of the authority, and higher when the judicial authority was perceived to assign specific values as even more important than participants did themselves.     

Reactions to Mandatory Sentences in Relation to the Ethnic Identity and Criminal History of the Offender

This study investigated the responses of 181 participants (87 men, 94 women), from Adelaide, South Australia, to scenarios describing mandatory sentences for perpetrators of a property offense committed in the Northern Territory, Australia. Four scenarios that were randomly distributed varied ethnic identity (White Australian, Aboriginal Australian) and criminal history (first-time offender, third-time offender). Participants completed attitude measures for both mandatory sentencing and capital punishment, a right-wing authoritarianism scale, and a scale concerned with sentencing goals (retribution, deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation). Results showed strong effects of attitude toward mandatory sentencing on scenario responses for variables such as perceived responsibility, deservingness, leniency, seriousness, anger and pleasure, and weaker effects of ethnic identity and criminal history. Participants were generally more sympathetic when the offender was an Aboriginal Australian. Results of a multiple regression analysis showed that attitude toward mandatory sentence was predicted by right-wing authoritarianism and by sentencing goals relating to deterrence and the protection of society.     

Retributive and Restorative Justice

The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties’ construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.     

Beyond Retribution: Conceptualizing Restorative Justice and Exploring its Determinants

Previous research considering reactions to injustice has focused predominantly on retributive (i.e., punitive) responses. Restorative justice, a relatively understudied concept, suggests an alternative justice response which emphasizes bilateral discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus about the meaning of the offense and how to address the transgression. The current research explores the additional contribution of restorative justice processes, examining the extent to which bilateral consensus is viewed as a fairer response to transgressions than unilateral decisions. Results show that, independent of the punishment, restorative responses are generally regarded as fairer than nonrestorative responses. And compared to punishment, which tends to be moderated by offender intent and seriousness of the harm, restorative responses are regarded as particularly fair when the involved parties share an identity. Findings suggest the importance of distinguishing retributive justice from a “restorative notion of justice”—a notion that focuses on addressing concerns over the maintenance of existing social relationships and identity-defining values.

Revenge,Retribution, and Values: Social Attitudes and Punitive Sentencing

This study examined the pattern of relations between vengeance attitudes, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and social dominance orientation (SDO) using the structure of value types proposed by Schwartz (Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65, 1992). Relations between these variables and support for a variety of sentencing options, including capital punishment, were then investigated. One hundred and forty-eight students in Adelaide, South Australia, completed a Vengeance Scale (Stuckless and Goranson, J Soc Behav Pers 7:25–42, 1992), measures of RWA and SDO, the Schwartz Value Survey (1992), and a Sentencing Goals Scale. As predicted, vengeance attitudes and SDO were found to be positively related to the importance of power values and negatively related to the importance of universalism and benevolence values. Vengeance attitudes were negatively related to rehabilitation and positively related to support for retribution and incapacitation sentencing goals, while RWA was positively related to the endorsement of deterrence and incapacitation as sentencing goals. Regression analyses indicated that only RWA and vengeance attitudes were unique predictors of death penalty support. Results provide support for the suggestion that vengeance is closely associated with our notion of retributive justice.     

Retributive and Inclusive Justice Goals and Forgiveness: The Influence of Motivational Values

Who is more likely to forgive, given that justice is important and motivating for people? In this article, we argue that the relation between justice and forgiveness depends on the type of justice involved; specifically, the goals of justice, i.e. retributive versus inclusive. We also explored the influence of motivational values on justice goals and forgiveness. Using data from 178 undergraduate psychology students who responded to measures of retributive and inclusive justice attitudes, forgiveness attitudes and dispositions, and values, we found support for our hypotheses that retributive justice goals are negatively related to forgiving attitudes and dispositions; inclusive justice goals are positively related to forgiveness; and benevolence and power values play the dominant role in predicting forgiveness. The results have implications for how the relation between justice and forgiveness is conceptualised and applied.     

Retribution or restoration? Anglo–Australian's views towards domestic violence involving Muslim and Anglo–Australian victims and offenders

Abstract

The current study explored how gender, group membership and different emotional reactions to the crime of domestic violence predict attitudes and endorsement of restorative or retributive justice practices. The experiment consisted of a 2 (victim group membership: Muslim- or Anglo–Australian)×2 (offender group membership: Muslim- or Anglo–Australian)×2 (Sex of participant) between-participants factorial design. Anglo–Australian participants (43 men; 50 women) were randomly assigned to one of the four manipulated conditions, and completed an online questionnaire that involved viewing a short video clip of a woman describing her experience as a domestic violence victim. Results revealed strong preferences for restorative justice in dealing with domestic violence, with women supporting this practice more than men. The crime was perceived as most severe and retribution was endorsed most strongly when the victim was Anglo–Australian (i.e. an in-group member). Intra-group violence was also perceived to be a greater breach of shared Australian values than inter-group (i.e. cross-cultural) domestic violence. Emotional reactions further predicted participants' responses, with hatred predicting stronger support of retributive ideals and sympathy for the victim predicting greater endorsement of restoration.