Introduction to “Environmental Justice”

Justice issues have been prominent in the environmental debate since its beginning in the second half of the twentieth century. This is not surprising, because environmental crises highlight our conceptions of justice, challenging us to consider their adequacy as well as their implications. Does current justice theory accurately describe the issues raised by environmental threats, especially about the justice for future generations? What are the implications of perceptions of justice or injustice for responses to environmental problems, up to and including social protest? For the most part, environmental social sciences have not been at the forefront of these debates, despite some very important contributions. The goal of the present issue is, therefore, to bring together researchers in the field of environmental psychology and justice research and to provide a forum for current research in the field of environmental justice. This introduction gives a short overview of past, present, and emerging findings and questions.     

Justice for All? Factors Affecting Perceptions of Environmental and Ecological Injustice

Moving beyond the typical focus on individual injustices, we examine individual-level and contextual factors affecting perceptions of justice with regard to the environment. Specifically, we examine decision-making procedures pertaining to environmental resource use and harms across groups of people; the distribution of environmental harms; and the direct treatment of the natural environment (i.e., procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice, respectively). To test our hypotheses, we use data from a survey administered to a cohort of first-year college students at a southeastern university. Results demonstrate that environmental identity and perceptions of the extent to which the university context encourages sustainability consistently enhance perceptions of all three types of justice. Other factors differentially affect each type of justice. We discuss the importance of the patterns that emerge for environmental and sustainability education and speculate on the implications of moving from thinking about (in)justice related to the environment as an individual issue to one of the collectivity.     

Why are Forest Owners Satisfied with Forest Policy Decisions? Legitimacy,Procedural Justice,and Perceived Uncertainty

The perceptions of 460 Finnish forest owners regarding national forest policy were examined with a questionnaire measuring institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and satisfaction with decisions. Research hypotheses, which were derived from the group-value theory and the system justification theory, were tested. The results showed that high institutional legitimacy reduced the effect of procedural justice on the satisfaction with political decisions. Procedural justice predicted the acceptance of decisions only when institutional legitimacy was low. Moreover, perceived uncertainty increased the perception of legitimacy. The implications of these findings for a social psychological theory of legitimacy and policymaking are briefly discussed.     

Is There a Difference? Exploring Male and Female Correctional Officers' Definition of and Response to Conflict Situations

Abstract

Although the use of force in corrections is a topic of interest, little is known about the factors that influence correctional officers' decisions. In particular, very little is known about similarities and differences between male and female correctional officers in their definitions of and responses to conflict situations. Interviews were conducted with 192 officers at a large southwestern jail. Using a realistic vignette of an inmate disobeying a direct order, 96 female and 96 male officers were asked about their perceptions in defining and responding to conflict. Results indicate that male and female officers react to conflict situations in a similar manner, although it appears that the inmate's sex is a salient factor in the officers' decision on how to resolve conflict.     

“Fair and Balanced?” Justice Issues on Political Talk Shows

Like their news program predecessors, many political talk shows focus a considerable amount of their coverage on justice issues. Although numerous past studies have examined justice issue presentation in news programs, infotainment, and crime drama, to date only one forthcoming study has examined crime and justice coverage on political talk shows. Political talk shows often present issues in a debate format, as well as emphasize the balanced nature of the content in advertising, with one program even using the slogan “fair and balanced.” Building upon the format of previous media studies, we analyzed a composite month of videotaped footage of three popular political talk shows appearing on cable networks: CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Mathews, and The O’Reilly Factor from the Fox News Channel. Using content analysis techniques, this study examines balance in the form and content of these programs in terms of presentation of justice issues, political party identification of hosts and guests and realistic presentations of race and gender in the context of crime and justice. Results indicate that these programs tend to adopt an advocacy tone rather than an objectivist one. Furthermore, we demonstrate that racial and gender portrayals of crime and justice on these shows are significantly distorted from reality, with a priority afforded to white female victims of violent crime and minority male offenders.     

Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment?

Objectives

This study examines sentencing patterns for environmental crimes and tests the assumption that “green” offenders receive more lenient treatment from criminal courts than non-environmental offenders.

Methods

We present two sets of analyses. First, we present an empirical portrait of environmental felony offenses convicted in a single state (Florida) over a fifteen-year period and the resulting criminal sanctions. Second, we use a precision matching analysis to assess whether environmental offenders receive more lenient treatment when compared to non-environmental offenders with the same characteristics and offense severity scores.

Results

Findings indicate that an overall small percentage of felony convictions in state courts stem from environmental crimes. We also find that punishments for environmental crimes are more lenient than sanctions assigned to comparable non-environmental offenses when the environmental crime is ecological, but that punishments are sometimes harsher when the environmental crime involves animals.

Conclusions

The findings provide general support for the argument that courts and other formal institutions of social control treat environmental crimes more leniently than non-environmental crimes. This paper also raises important questions about citizen and state actors’ perceptions of crimes against the environment and, more generally, about the ways in which theories of court sentencing behaviors apply to environmental crime sanctioning decisions.

     

Morbidity and Mortality Risk Among the “Forgotten Few”: Why Are Girls in the Justice System in Such Poor Health?

The present study assessed the physical health of a population of girls sentenced to custody in a large US State via medical examinations and clinical assessments in adolescence and young adulthood. Findings indicated that injuries, obesity, and sexually transmitted diseases were the norm, with over 50% of the population meeting criteria for each of these health problems. A dose–response relationship was documented between childhood victimization and injuries and injury risk in adolescence and self-harm, HIV risk, physical health symptoms, and hospitalizations in young adulthood. The relationship between childhood victimization and poor adult physical health was fully mediated by health-risk behaviors in adolescence. Clinical and policy implications of the high mortality and morbidity risk among female juvenile offenders are discussed.     

Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research

Scientific interest in the nature of how people think about justice and fairness began approximately 70 years ago with Stouffer’s classic study on the American soldier. Since then there have been numerous theoretical frameworks and thousands of research studies conducted on what people perceive as fair and the consequences of making a fairness judgment. The goal of this article is to dig through the “lost and found” box of justice research in an attempt to re-examine where we have been, issues and ideas we may have forgotten, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future. The key rediscovery of this review is that perspective matters. Specifically, how people interpret fairness depends critically on whether they are viewing a situation in terms of their material, social, or moral needs and goals. The implications of adopting a contingent theory of how people reason about fairness are discussed.

Conflict or compatibility? The trade,conservation and animal welfare dimensions of cites

Abstract

While analysis of the effectiveness of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) often focuses on its ability to ensure sustainable trade in the species it regulates, the treaty also contains many provisions intended to ensure the welfare of species introduced into international trade. While such provisions serve salutary objectives, they are often complied with only in the breach. Efforts should be made by the Parties to CITES to ensure implementation of the animal welfare provisions of CITES through stricter enforcement measures, enactment of national legislation and an interpretation of treaty provisions that furthers the underlying welfare objectives of the Convention.     

Blinking Subjects; Blinking Justice? – Law,Medicine and the PVS Patient

This paper argues that in medical discourse, there is insufficient unanimity of opinion with regards to the time at which an accurate diagnosis of PVS can be made and that clearly, there is an incomplete medical knowledge of the PVS condition. The judiciary chooses neither to question medical opinion that patients can be considered to be in PVS despite a failure to satisfy the diagnostic criteria, nor medical opinion that patients in `near PVS' will never recover. It is apparent from an examination of the judgements given in PVS cases that the law does not ascribe such individuals with full human status. Such a legal position is particularly problematic in ethical terms when applied in cases involving patients who are in a `near PVS' position, and in the light of evidence that some PVS diagnoses are inaccurate. The application of the best interests test in PVS cases results in the adoption of a paternalistic, objective approach that fails to respect the former competent individuals whom PVS patients once were. If, alternatively, the substituted judgement test were to be adopted, the principle of individual autonomy would become central to the question of whether PVS patients' treatment should be withdrawn. Furthermore, the application of this test would also ensure that PVS patients continue to be viewed as `persons'.     

Restorative Justice and “Empowerment”: Producing and Governing Active Subjects through “Empowering” Practices

During the last quarter-century, restorative justice has emerged as a widely-utilised response to crime in Western nations. This article, which stems from a Foucauldian genealogy of restorative justice, argues that its embeddedness within the discourse of “empowerment” renders restorative justice a politically acceptable response to crime. “Empowerment”, it is argued, is one of many conditions of emergence of restorative justice. The discourse of “empowerment” underpins restorative justice in tangible ways, and has informed legislation and policy in Western jurisdictions. This article seeks to problematise the taken-for-granted nature of this discourse. It argues that the discourse of “empowerment” produces restorative justice subjects who are increasingly governed and governable. As “empowering” restorative practices are targeted towards “disempowered” individuals and communities, concerns are raised about the potential of restorative justice to disproportionately impact upon socially marginalised populations and to increase social exclusion.     

To Our Benefit or at Your Expense? Justice Considerations in Intergroup Allocations of Positive and Negative Resources

Several studies consistently demonstrated a positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In line with classical minimal group experiments, laboratory groups favored their in-group when allocating positive resources or evaluating positive dimensions. However, they refrained from discriminating behavior as soon as negative resources had to be distributed between groups. We propose that this is due to valence-specific differences in the consideration and perception of social justice. Several studies tested whether social norms inhibiting in-group favoritism and out-group derogation are differently interpreted or weighed due to the valence of resources. Consequently, a survey of these studies is given and their implications for classical theories on intergroup behavior and future research on social discrimination are discussed.     

Girls,Why Do You Want to Become Police Officers? Career Goals/Choices Among Criminal Justice Undergraduates

Three main research questions were examined in the present study. First, are there differences between male and female criminal justice undergraduates when it comes to selecting their future careers? Second, are male criminal justice students more likely than their female counterparts to pursue careers in law enforcement? Third, are men more likely than women to hold unfavorable attitudes toward women criminal justice practitioners? Data were collected from 256 undergraduates majoring in criminal justice at an urban university located in a metropolitan area in the midwestern United States during the early spring of 2006. Significant gender differences were found among the respondents in terms of their career goals/choices and motivations.     

Digging for Gold or Justice? Misrecognition and Marginalization of “Illegal” Small-Scale Miners in Ghana

Artisanal small-scale mining remains a concern to many mineral-rich countries in the developing world. In Ghana, a significant number of those engaged in the sector are operating illegally. The ubiquity of the illegal mining sector has posed a policy challenge to the government, and high-handed measures to curb the problem have failed. This study contributes to our understanding of the problem by providing a more nuanced alternative perspective to the illegality discourse that has informed discussions and policy till now. Based on qualitative primary data collected from Noyem, a mining community in Ghana, the study shows that the so-called illegal small-scale mining is an outcome of existing social injustices suffered by the miners. It further reveals that those engaged in the sector are not homogenous but differentiated by class and motive. The study recommends among others that government addresses the identified social injustices rather than simply focusing on law enforcement to address the problem.     

A Different Reason for “De-Coasing” Environmental Law and Economics

The so-called Coase Theorem is one of the cornerstones of the Law and Economics approach. This paper investigates whether it is appropriate to apply the Coasean framework in the context of Environmental Law and Economics. Even when transaction costs are zero, it is argued that in the specific case of environmental policy the initial assignment of rights will seriously affect the final allocation of resources. To support this thesis empirical evidence backed up by theoretical explanations are presented. The methodological distinction between negligible, domain and heuristic assumptions and the elaboration of a ‘logical time’ of the Coase Theorem are crucial to understand why eventually the Coase Theorem should not be applied to the realm of environmental law and policy.JEL Classification: D23, K0, K32, Q2