Victims justice preferences in a collectivist,informal setting: The case of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal

An abundance of research has emerged in the last 30 years focusing on justice preferences for victims of crime. In general, findings indicate that victims are interested in aspects of procedural justice, interactional justice, restorative justice, retributive justice and behavior control. Under certain conditions, however, these preferences may vary. One dimension that may lead to individuals diverging in their justice preferences is that of culture. The large majority of victimological research on victim legal preferences has been conducted in western jurisdictions. The current research adds to that body of knowledge by examining a different group: Bhutanese refugees residing in refugee camps in Nepal. This examination focuses on their collectivist status and how such cultural differences lead to different styles and characteristics of conflict resolution. It is hypothesized that victims in a collectivist society will primarily be interested in restoration, while voice to the decision maker, voice to the other party and retribution will not be important in predicting overall satisfaction. A multiple regression analysis confirms the hypotheses regarding voice toward the offender, restoration and retribution. Possible reasons for the remaining findings are discussed.     

Just as you like it: How allocators decide in cases of conflict between own and recipients' views of justice

The present study examined how people, who are instructed to make just allocations, decide in situations of conflict when their personal views of what constitutes the appropriate justice standard are partly at variance with the opinions and preferences of the recipients of the allocations. We expected, in line with recent theories, which stress that justice behavior is at least partly motivated by the desire to get one's actions accepted and approved, the allocation decisions to be influenced not only by the allocators' own ideas of what constitutes a just solution but also by the preferences they perceive to exist for the recipients. It was predicted that the likelihood that allocators will abandon their personally preferred justice standards and allocate in accordance to recipients' preferences will increase with increasing numbers of cues suggesting an alternative allocation. Subjects having a strong personal preference for the equality over the equity standard of justice were asked to make just allocations of payments among two workers. Availability vs. lack of explicit information about the recipients' allocation preferences and expectation of future interaction with one of the recipients were used to operationalize differing amounts of pressure exerted on the allocators' decisions. Results showed a considerable readiness on the part of the allocators to abandon their own views of justice, the amount of readiness varying with the amount of pressure that was weighing upon them.     

Justice,Context, and Violence: Law Enforcement Officers on Why They Torture

How do police explain their support for torture? Findings from 12 months of fieldwork with police in India complicate previous researchers’ claims that violence workers tend to morally disengage and blame circumstances for their actions. The officers in this study engage in moral reflection on torture, drawing on their beliefs about human nature and justice to explain their support for it. They admit that they use torture more widely than their own conceptions of justice allow, but see this as an imperfect implementation of their principles rather than as a violation of them. Previous research on the spread of human rights norms has focused on how these norms can be adapted to the local beliefs that support them, rather than on understanding the beliefs that conflict with human rights. I argue that illuminating the self‐understanding of state actors who support or engage in torture is crucial to building theory on why such violence occurs, as well as to designing interventions to prevent it.     

Ideological stratification: American beliefs about economic justice

By integrating systematically the common themes in the stratification and justice literatures, researchers have sought to advance our understanding of the role of ideologies in legitimating inequality. This paper examines how beliefs about meritocracy and opportunity in American society relate to the way people think about reducing income differences between the rich and the poor. Using a national sample of U.S. adults (N=1473), we find that the majority of the respondents believe that America has an open system where achievement is tied to individual abilities and educational opportunities. On the other hand the respondents are split in their views on meritocracy, with 50% believing that an individual's high socioeconomic position is reflective of special abilities. The role of ideologies in influencing beliefs about economic justice is direct in that persons who believe in the tenets of equal opportunity and meritocracy are not in favor of reducing income differences between the rich and the poor. Additionally, stratal differences in beliefs about economic justice are seen, with disadvantaged individuals more likely to question the legitimacy of inequality.     

Fabrications of justice

This paper focuses on false beliefs that create or maintain injustice, particularly those false beliefs held by the unjustly disadvantaged. Those who benefit from injustice may intentionally lead those disadvantaged by unjust distributions, procedures, or interpersonal treatment to believe that no injustice exists, that the injustice is minimal, or that the injustice that exists cannot be reduced. Research on procedural and interactional justice suggests that perceived injustice is reduced where those affected by a decision have an opportunity to offer an opinion (voice) prior to the decision, and where the decision maker offers a justifying account for the decision. False beliefs in control and dignity may be intentionally created by decision makers to perpetuate their unjust advantage. Suggestions are offered to identify the processes through which fabrications of justice have their effects and the situations in which they are most likely to occur.Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Secaucus, New Jersey, July 1–5, 1988 and at the International Conference on Social Justice and Societal Problems, Leiden, The Netherlands, August 1–3, 1988. Thanks for their coments on earlier drafts to participants at both events, and to three anonymous reviewers forSocial Justice Research.     

Post-appeal avenues to rectify miscarriages of justice in the Malaysian criminal justice process: reform options and the use of DNA evidence

Many jurisdictions have reformed their criminal justice process as a result of reported cases where convicted individuals who have exhausted their legal rights of appeal were exonerated using DNA evidence. Based on that backgrounds, this article critically examines the existing post-appeal avenues in Malaysia and highlights that they are ineffective to deal with claims of miscarriages justice. This article argues proper legal mechanisms need to be established to deal with this issue which can also allow convicted persons to request for DNA testing where relevant to prove their innocence.     

Frenemies: restorative justice and customary mechanisms of justice

More often than not, restorative justice is said to take roots in Indigenous practices. In fact, Indigenous and other traditional mechanisms of justice are often described as examples of restorative justice practices. In New Zealand, the government equates the Mãori approach to doing justice with family group conferences (FGC); a restorative justice mechanism which it claims embodies Mãori values and preferences. This article contends, however, that the type of ‘justice’ embodied in customary mechanisms, has often been taken out of context, and rendered universal and ahistorical through its representation as restorative justice mechanisms. Using fieldwork evidence, an analytical comparison between principles of restorative practices, New Zealand’s FGCs and the Mãori approach to justice was conducted. It concludes that this tendency to equate restorative justice with Indigenous approaches to law and justice is harmful and dangerous for it risks rendering the scholarship homogenizing and universalizing restorative justice, to the detriment of local preferences and practices.     

Restorative justice: the indigenous justice system

Dramatically different beliefs about justice will produce dramatically different methods for achieving justice. The beliefs underlying the traditional Indigenous restorative justice systems, systems that dramatically differ from the European-based system practiced in the USA are presented. The discussion highlights the legacy of colonialism for tribal communities and the resilience and creative resistance that have continued to characterize the spirit and ingenuity of Indigenous peoples.     

“What Rights?” The Construction of Political Claims to American Health Care Entitlements

Despite a growing health care crisis, Americans remain reluctant to treat “health security” as a right or entitlement of citizenship. This article examines the effects of unmet health care needs on the beliefs that individuals hold about family, market, and state responsibility for health security. Drawing on a study of individuals caring for family members with chronic diseases, I find that when imagining solutions to unmet long‐term care needs, individuals evaluate a range of alternative social arrangements, but they select the model that is most consistent with previously existing beliefs about family, market, and state responsibility for care provision. This process of discursive assimilation, of integrating new needs for public provision with more familiar ways of thinking about social welfare, produces claims for entitlements that challenge existing social arrangements but do so within a welfare state framework that conceives of only a minimal role for the state in safeguarding social welfare.     

Culture,values, and beliefs about economic justice

We examine the relationship between values and beliefs about economic justice by conducting a cross-cultural analysis. Social values of Americans and West Germans are compared and the relationships between values and beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are examined. Data are from the 1984 General Social Survey and its West German counterpart, the 1984 ALLBUS; both surveys contain identical value and economic justice items. We find that among citizens in both countries beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are related to values even when income and education are held constant, but the relationship is stronger in West Germany. For Americans, beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are related primarily to conservative values (beliefs that greater efforts lead to greater rewards). In addition, the positive influence of conservative values and of income level on fairness judgments is greater for Americans with higher levels of education. For West Germans, beliefs about the fairness of business profits are related both to conservative and to liberal values (beliefs that class divisions persist). In general, economic fairness judgments of West Germans have a strong ideological basis, but polarization associated with differing ideologies is found. Economic fairness judgments of Americans showed both a simpler ideological basis and some relationship to self-interest. The influence of both factors on Americans' fairness judgments seemed to be affected by socialization due to education. Results are discussed in terms of the prevailing economic ideologies in both countries.     

Economic justice,political behavior,and American political values

Although theories of political economy state that citizens' concerns about economic outcomes are important determinants of their political responses, an alternative perspective states that concerns about economic justice influence political responses. Survey data were examined to determine the relative influence of each of these factors on political evaluations and behaviors. Concerns about the justice of the procedures used by the government to make decisions about the distribution of benefits and services strongly predicted evaluations of President Reagan and participation in policy-related political behavior, and were weakly related to general political activism. Concerns about the justice of the distributions of economic benefits were related to evaluations of President Reagan but not to political activism. Judgments about personal economic gain or loss relative to the past predicted evaluations of President Reagan while global subjective judgments of present economic outcomes weakly predicted policy-related political activism. The effect of justice is explained by considering the relationship between citizens' concerns about economic justice and values associated with the American political culture.     

Individual and collective justice and injustice: Implications for intergroup conflict

This paper focuses on the combined impact of individual and collective justice and injustice on intergroup conflict. The basic premise is that an adequate understanding of the course of intergroup relations requires knowledge not only about relevant conditions on the intergroup level, but also about the intragroup conditions that might predispose each group to assume a particular type of social orientation. It is assumed that an individual is more dissatisfied when both s/he and her/his group are unjustly treated than when only either one is. The consequences of different combinations of justice and injustice for the individual and his/her group are specified for the intensity of conflict between two groups. Sixteen intergroup scenarios are first derived and rank-ordered, via three assumptions, in terms of how aversive they are likely to be from the perspective of one of two interacting groups. The viewpoints of both groups are then taken into account in an attempt to make predictions about the potential for and intensity of intergroup conflict.     

Citizenship and social justice

Discussions on the problems of the welfare state are increasingly framed in terms of citizenship rather than social justice. The popularity of the concept of citizenship raises the question of its implications for social justice theory and research. In this article it is argued that whereas the dominant approach in social justice is essentially individualistic, the concept of citizenship focuses rather on individuals as members of a societal community, from which both rights and obligations are derived. This focus on communal membership suggests three important topics for social justice theory and research: (i) the need to distinguish between a civic and a justice motive for human behavior, (ii) the need to specify the frame of reference respondents should use when they make their justice judgments, and (iii) the need to recognize the fact that justice judgments may result from both adhering to criteria of justice and considering the consequences of their application.     

Social Justice Beliefs Regarding Old-Age Provisions in Germany: A Latent Profile Analysis

Examining personal beliefs about social justice in the way a society provides financial security in old age may reveal potential conflicts about the distribution of wealth. Individuals differ with regard to how they believe old-age provisions should be distributed (e.g., based on principles of merit or self-reliance), and individuals often endorse more than one belief at the same time. Using latent profile analysis and data from the 2014 German Ageing Survey we identify five separate profiles of social justice beliefs among older adults (40–85 years) in Germany. Belief profiles were based on the extent to which people simultaneously endorse and/or reject meritocratic, redistributive, self-reliant, and fatalistic ideas regarding old-age provisions. Almost 20% of the sample demonstrated a belief system in line with the German meritocratic system. Roughly three-fifth did not show strong preferences for a specific social justice principle. However, we identified two belief profiles representing 22.4% of the sample which may reflect dissent from the current system. Sociodemographic characteristics, political identification, and indicators of social disadvantage (e.g., lower income, fears of decline in social status, and feelings of social exclusion) were differentially associated with the five belief profiles. Overall, the results showed that in particular people of lower socioeconomic status were critical with respect to the principles of the German pension system raising questions regarding the demand of political interventions.     

Tort tales and total justice: Exploring attitudes toward everyday tort claims for workplace injuries

Despite some retrenchment, the litigation state remains alive and well. All this litigation has engendered intense debates over whether increased lawsuits represent a rising tide of justice or a flood of frivolous claims. Tort law has been at the center of these debates for decades, standing at the fault line between “tort tale,” “total justice,” and “mixed” narratives about the perils and benefits of litigation. In this article, we use a survey experiment to probe attitudes toward claims for workplace injuries in light of these narratives. We find that our participants held multifaceted views. On one hand, they favored making claims over doing nothing or asking family members for help and saw lawsuits as equally appropriate as filing a government claim or hiring a lawyer to send a demand letter. On the other hand, tort tale themes cast a subtle shadow over our participants' views. When told claimants did not rush to the courts in defiance of tort tale expectations, our participants saw the lawsuit as more justified. Indeed, the more remedies exhausted prior to litigation, the more justifiable the lawsuit seemed, even though repeated denials of claims might undermine faith in their merits. The bottom line, we contend, is that attitudes toward litigation reflect not only the choice of remedy but also how remedies are used, even when the underlying claim is meritorious—a point that could be useful to practitioners and advocates as they weigh claiming options as well as litigation and public communication strategies.     

Attitudes toward hiring applicants with mental illness and criminal justice involvement: The impact of education and experience

Individuals with mental health diagnoses, as well as those involved in the criminal justice system, experience a number of barriers in the recovery and reintegration progress, including access to stable, prosocial employment opportunities. Employment for these populations is important for establishing financial security, reducing unstructured leisure time, increasing self-worth, and improving interpersonal skills. However, research has demonstrated that individuals with psychiatric and/or criminal backgrounds may experience stigmatizing attitudes from employers that impede their ability to find adequate work. This study aimed to evaluate stigmatizing beliefs toward hypothetical applicants who indicated a mental health history, a criminal history, or both, as well as the effectiveness of psychoeducation in reducing stigma. Participants consisted of 465 individuals recruited from a large university who completed a series of online questions about a given applicant. Results of this study varied somewhat across measures of employability, but were largely consistent with extant research suggesting that mental illness and criminal justice involvement serve as deterrents when making hiring decisions. Overall, psychoeducation appeared to reduce stigma for hiring decisions when the applicant presented with a criminal history. Unfortunately, similar findings were not revealed when applicants presented with a psychiatric or a psychiatric and criminal history. Implications and limitations of these findings are presented, along with suggestions for future research.     

Engaging students on the topic of restorative justice and serious offenses

Within contemporary society, there is a prevailing sentiment that our criminal justice system leaves much to be desired in its responses to the offender, the victim, and the community. As a potential answer to these conceded shortcomings, restorative justice has earned significant recognition and consideration. While restorative justice principles and programs have received increasing support, for many individuals this is limited to cases involving relatively ‘minor,’ first time, and/or juvenile offenses. When it comes to situations with more ‘serious’ and violent offenses, acceptance of restorative responses dissipates. Gaining broader acceptance can be particularly challenging with current college students. With many students raised in the ‘get tough on crime’ era, embracing this alternative approach to serious crimes can be a difficult paradigm shift. This article will provide a framework for approaching the feasibility of applying restorative justice with serious offenses in the college course. In addition, suggestions for readings, projects, and assignments that will further assist in effectively engaging students with these issues will be provided.     

Social position,ideology, and distributive justice

This paper addresses two important questions regarding distributive justice. First we ask whether people use standards or principles of distributive justice regarding the allocation of income. The study confirms our expectation that there are at least two principles, viz., the merit and the need principle. Our data show that there is no generally held consensus about the applicability of these two principles. Second, we looked for explanations to explain variations in adherence to these principles. The literature suggests five different theses: 1. self-interest; 2. ideology; 3. enlightenment; 4. historical shift; and 5. gender. Results provide qualified support for the Theses 1, 2 and 4. Class, ideology, and age affect the preferences for the principles of justice. Further elaboration suggests the data point to a specific version of the self-interest thesis, viz., the underdog thesis. Theses 3 and 5 are not confirmed. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Social justice in the large and small

Social justice is an issue at both the large or even whole-society level and the very small group or dyadic level. If it is an issue in distribution of resources or welfare, rather than an issue of procedure, it requires very strong interpersonally comparable value judgments. This generally distinguishes it from other small and large group moral and political problems, which can often be resolved satisfactorily without such a strong value theory, in particular without interpersonal comparisons of welfare, because their resolution can yield mutual advantage to all concerned. At the dyadic and small-group level social justice is the philosopher's problem of beneficence; at the large level it is the problem of distributive justice. Much of the social-psychological literature on social justice deals with the small-scale problem; political theory is generally concerned with the large-scale problem. Yet, strategically and in their value theory requirements, the two problems are in many ways analogous. In both variants of social justice the core problem is a pure conflict interaction in which one party or group must bear a cost in order that another party or group may benefit.