Procedural justice at German courts as seen by defendants and juvenile prisoners

The article summarizes German research on procedural and distributive justice at criminal courts. The first German field studies addressing these topics are presented. Procedural justice characteristics like neutrality, courtesy, equal consideration of evidence, voice, and fairness of procedural rules are relevant for Germans. A study on juvenile prisoners shows no support for equity theory and some for the Group Value model. Lay assessors receive positive evaluations by juvenile prisoners.     

程序正义之维度——基于中国刑事司法语境的分析

一个国家的发展阶段决定了该国的“也许正在发生的问题”。我国正处在社会转型期,面临着现代化进程中传统社会控制模式的失效、犯罪率高和社会公众安全感下降的严峻现实。在我国刑事司法语境下,程序正义的维度包括以下几个方面：程序的内在价值是程序正义的应然维度;秩序的安定性是程序正义的现实维度;尊重人的尊严是程序正义的实质维度;诉讼效率是程序正义的效益维度。     

论程序正义视域下的中国刑辩律师困境

律师职业自产生之初就与正当程序有着紧密联系,正是程序正义赋予了律师职业以内在的价值追求.但现今的中国刑事辩护律师却处境尴尬：他们参与刑事辩护率低迷;在刑事诉讼中的各项权利难以保障;有时深受社会公众与媒体舆论的怀疑、攻讦,甚至有可能面临牢狱之灾.一系列问题表明,刑事辩护作为司法程序中的重要环节,正日益失去其维护司法公正的的意义和作用.因此,要突破律师现今面临的种种困境,必须在现念上和制度上进一步落实程序正义.     

Fairnes issues and job satisfaction among korean employees: The significance of status value and procedural justice in work orientation

This study investigates how justice or fairness issues such as procedural justice, distributive justice, and status equity affect job satisfaction among Korean employees. Incorporating cultural values and social norms salient in Korea, the study hypothesizes that perceptions of procedural justice enhance more job satisfaction than perceptions of distributive justice among Korean employees. Another hypothesis, based on Korean employees' aspiration for higher occupational status, predicts that perceptions of status equity, i.e., occupational prestige of their current jobs relative to their human capital, also increase job satisfaction more than perceptions of distributive justice. These two hypotheses were tested with a sample of 501 full-time employees in Korea. Supporting the hypotheses, the results indicated that (i) perceptions of procedural justice produce more job satisfaction than do perceptions of distributive justice; and (ii) perceptions of status equity are the most important factor predicting job satisfaction among the three fairness issues. Cross-cultural implications of these findings are discussed in more detail.The author thanks Professor Hyunho Seok and the Korean Social Science Council (KSSC) for their 1990 national survey data sets.     

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models

Using nationally representative data, we test three theories about distributive and procedural justice and their relation to job satisfaction. Our results support the group-value model more than the personal outcomes model by showing that procedural justice is a more important predictor of job satisfaction than is distributive justice. Furthermore, although other research has supported the psychological contract model by showing that experiences with downsizing alter how procedural justice and distributive justice are related to organizational commitment, we find that downsizing does not alter their relationship with job satisfaction.     

论犯罪控制视野中的刑事诉讼监督

犯罪控制并非程序正义的对立面,其目的之一即是对公民人权的保障。但是,犯罪控制的＂度＂把握不好就会有害于程序正义的实现。因此,有必要对犯罪控制进行＂度＂的控制,刑事诉讼监督即为方式之一,其关注点是人权与正义。新时期实施刑事诉讼监督,应坚持宽严相济刑事政策,吸取情境预防的经验,理顺法律监督内外部关系。     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

Justice in Health Care Decision-Making: Patients’ Appraisals of Health Care Providers and Health Plan Representatives

This study describes the development of two versions of a Health Care Justice Inventory (HCJI). One version focuses on patients interactions with their providers (HCJI-P) and the other focuses on patients interactions with the representatives of their health plans (HCJI-HP). Each version of the HCJI assesses patients appraisals of their interactions (with either their Provider or representatives of their Health Plan) along three common dimensions of procedural justice: Trust, Impartiality, and Participation. Both the Provider and Health Plan scales assess indices that are relatively independent of patients demographic characteristics. In addition, patients appraisals of their interactions with their provider were only moderately related to their appraisals of their interactions with representatives of their health plan, indicating that the Provider and Health Plan scales tap distinct aspects of patients overall experience with the health care system. Overall, procedural justice dimensions were significantly related to patient satisfaction in both the Provider and the Health Plan contexts. As predicted, procedural justice factors were more strongly tied to patient satisfaction in the Provider than in the Health Plan context, and health care decisions based on distributive justice principles of Need (rather than Equity or Equality) were most closely tied to patient satisfaction in both contexts.     

Perfect justice procedures

Perfect justice procedures are such that rule out envy. At the core of such procedures lies the divide-and-choose procedure (one divides, the other chooses), which guarantees that individuals be satisfied with outcomes. The divide-and-choose principle is extended here ton individuals, to the sharing of nondividable goods, to job allocation, and to social satisfaction. The introduction of this principle into social psychology and sociology is proposed, and a comparison between equity and satisfaction is outlined.     

The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

绩效考核指标对刑事程序法治的冲击与反制

绩效考核指标是刑事案件管理与诉讼体制运行的重要引擎,如何实现“指标最优”是当下刑事司法绩效考核最为紧迫与现实的命题。一些不科学、不合理、不必要考核指标始终“禁而不止”“取而不消”。一些常见的考核指标对刑事程序法治造成了较为突出的冲击与反制作用。一些数率指标的层压容易造成公安机关之执法行为冒进与异化。一些指标偏重追究犯罪的职能,使得检察机关在刑事诉讼中难以履行客观义务,容易违反无罪推定原则。质效控制方面的指标配给不足,且一些指标有形式化的倾向,常造成法院对审判规律的偏离。本文就公检法三机关在绩效指标考核中暴露出的突出问题,提出有针对性的改革建议。     

试论非法证据排除的程序规制——关于完善庭审阶段非法证据排除的裁判程序的思考

防止冤假错案,维护程序公正,实现惩罚犯罪与保障人权的统一,非法证据排除规则的制定,可谓任重道远。无疑,法律的颁布不等于实施。除了刑事法官的价值观念、法律思维、职业习惯的主观因素影响及刑事司法实践的客观因素作用,作为价值性冲突规范,非法证据排除规则的理解、适用仍有其难处。本文以庭审阶段非法证据排除的程序规制为切入点,拟从法解释学的角度,结合本土刑事司法实践特征,以求进一步明晰非法证据排除规则的运用,从而更为有效地实施排除规则。     

The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?

Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can clearly separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. Two experiments are reported which address that question. In both studies respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure (behind the veil), while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation (in front of the veil). Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes themeaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes theweight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure.     

Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible?

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.