Procedural Justice and Dutch Victim Policy

This paper opens with a brief discussion of the traditional role of the victim in the criminal justice system and the changes which have been made in the Netherlands in order to improve the position of victims of crime. In addition, the author discusses the arguments put forward by policymakers and examines the implementation of victim policy. Next, procedural justice is introduced as a theory from which one could consider the possible impact of victims' experiences in the criminal justice system on their relationship with the justice system. The author goes on to present research which examines the impact of procedural justice on victims' attitudes towards legal authorities. The paper closes with a discussion of the importance of procedural justice issues for criminal justice policymakers and legal practitioners.     

Self-Help, Policing, and Procedural Justice: Ghanaian Vigilantism and the Rule of Law

Public recourse to vigilante self-help has often been attributed to a lack of effective state intervention; less attention has been given to the character of this intervention. Using the Tylerian procedural justice perspective, I argue in this article that perceived procedural injustice contributes to increased public support for violent self-help mechanisms such as vigilante violence. The current study tests this theoretical argument using survey data of 374 residents of Accra, Ghana. The results show that age, education, and police trustworthiness were the most significant predictors of support for vigilante self-help. The impacts of procedural fairness were found to be embraced within police trustworthiness, but perceptions of police effectiveness and experience of police corruption were not statistically significant predictors of vigilante support.     

程序正义论——一种法社会学的反思

本文旨在从社会学的视角分析论证程序正义在我国的可适用性问题。通过分析程序正义在我国的价值,及对社会现状的剖析,揭示程序正义的形成障碍,进而对存在的问题探索较为稳妥的解决,建构了程序正义从观念到制度的立体体系。     

程序公正简论

程序公正并不仅仅是追求实体公正的工具和手段 ,它和实体公正都是司法活动所追求的目标 ,并且现代法治社会应以程序公正为本。程序公正的理念渊源于西方自然正义论 ,被认为具有独立和优先于实体公正的法律价值 ,它与我国法文化传统和现实存在着差异和冲突。     

Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and Integrative Potential

Two correlational studies test the hypothesis that procedural justice, or fairness of process, plays a role in acceptance of agreements reached through bilateral negotiation. Both studies test the relationship between the fairness of the process used to resolve a dispute, objective monetary outcomes, subjective assessments of outcome favorability, and subjective assessments of outcome fairness. Additionally, the second study tests the hypothesis that negotiations characterized by greater procedural justice result in more potential for integrative bargaining. The results suggest that procedural justice encourages the acceptance of negotiated agreements, as well as leading to the opportunity for increased integrative bargaining.     

论程序法治与税收正义

一、税收正义与税收程序:概念诠释 正义是政治文明与法律制度的最高理想和共遵价值理念,是判断一种法律制度是否具有正当根据的价值标准,"正义的许多原则--各得其所,黄金规则,绝对命令,公平原则,宽容要求,以及其他等等,被认为超越了一切历史经验".①作为以税收负担分配为规制对象的税法必须遵从正义理念而为正义之法.在现代法治国家,税收仅当符合宪法价值秩序下的正义要求时,才具有正当化基础.因此,税收正义是宪法层面的基本原则,为税法的核心价值和最高精神,税收文明应奉正义为圭臬.     

Procedural Justice,Outcome Favorability and Emotion

This study investigated the effects of procedural justice on discrete emotional responses. Based upon the cognitive appraisal model of emotion, it was argued that the experience of procedural justice (or injustice) allows individuals to derive meaning from favorable and unfavorable allocation decisions. Thus, procedural justice works with outcome favorability to produce a variety of emotional states. These ideas were tested in a laboratory experiment. As predicted, two happiness-related emotions (happiness and joy) and a sadness-related emotion (disappointment) showed only a main effect for outcome favorability. Two anger-related emotions (anger and frustration) were highest when an unfavorable outcome occurred because of an unfair procedure. Higher levels of guilt and anxiety were reported when an unfair procedure resulted in a favorable outcome. Contrary to predictions, a third happiness-related emotion (pride) showed only a main effect for outcome favorability.     

论程序公正

公正与法律的关系是法哲学上一个永恒的论题 ,一般公正只是通过程序公正才能最终实现。程序公正的必备要素含程序主体地位的确立与强化、确信真实的定案依据和审判者中立。     

程序公正的价值——兼议实体公正与程序公正冲突的解决

实现公正是法哲学的核心问题。在我国推进法治建设的今天,尤其是目前正处在转型时期,各种利益纠缠在一起,在这样一个价值观剧烈冲突、客观标准剧烈变动,对于实体是否公正不好判断的情况下,程序上的公正就尤为重要了。实体公正与程序公正发生冲突时,应有正确的价值选择以期实现司法公正,实现我国社会主义法治。     

Compliance with the Law in Slovenia: The Role of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy

The empirical status of Tom Tyler’s (1990) process-based model of regulation is frustrated by the fact that most studies are conducted in the US, leaving open the question of whether similar effects can be observed in countries with different historical and political contexts. The current study tests two process-based model hypotheses using cross-sectional survey data from 683 young adults in Slovenia. The results reveal: (1) procedural justice judgments significantly shape individual perceptions of police legitimacy, and (2) perceived police legitimacy explains self-reported compliance with the law. Though slightly diminished in magnitude, the legitimacy effect persists when using an instrumental variable to address possible endogeneity bias and after statistically controlling for known correlates of law violating behavior (i.e., personal morality and low self-control). The findings also show that the legitimacy effect on compliance with different laws (e.g., littering and buying stolen property) varies depending on the operationalization of legitimacy (i.e., additive scale versus instrumental variable). While the findings indicate that the process-based model of regulation is germane to post-socialist countries such as Slovenia, more research focusing on the explanatory breadth of the model is necessary.     

程序正义及其局限性

程序正义是现代法的程序结构派生出的一种伦理形态 ,其本质为程序之中的伦理、非人格化的伦理、相对化和形式化的伦理、程序化的制度伦理。现实当中的程序正义是选举、司法以及立法、行政管理正当化的观念基础 ,宪政民主体制的伦理内涵。然而 ,程序正义之不幸在于其代表的乃是强者的正义 ,因而对弱者的权利保障是宪政民主体制不可缺少的组成部分。     

陪审制度与程序正义

从程序正义的角度讲,陪审制度是在追求公正陪审团,而不是民主的陪审团,因为民主与正义是两个不同的概念,有不同的价值追求,民主追求的人民当家作主,而司法追求的是公正。陪审团在遴选阶段中,预先审核、无理由剔除、有理由剔除等制度性规定,就违背了民主的平等性要求,是按照程序正义的要求来设计的,目的是追求公正的陪审团。在坚持民主的前提下,努力使陪审团成为协商民主的制度角色,最大限度地追求司法公正,是陪审团制度自我完善和改进的方向。     

论协商性的程序正义

传统的程序正义理论适用于对抗性司法程序,对于新出现的协商性司法程序不具有完整的解释力.根据认罪认罚程序和刑事和解程序的实施经验,我们可以提出一种协商性的程序正义理论.所谓协商性的程序正义,属于一种基于结果控制而实现的诉讼价值,被裁判者自愿放弃了无罪辩护权,也放弃了部分诉讼参与机会,却有可能通过协商、对话和达成妥协,对诉讼结局发挥影响、塑造和控制的作用,从而获得最大程度的实体收益.协商性的程序正义建立在诉讼主体理论、理性选择理论和功利主义哲学的基础上,可以被延伸适用于更多的非对抗性司法程序之中.从实质上看,协商性的程序正义理论并不是对传统程序正义理论的否定或取代,而属于一种必要的理论发展.     

Luhmann: Law,Justice, and Time

Time is central to Luhmann’s writings on social systems. Social systems, as systems of meaning, operate within three dimensions: factual, social and temporal. Each of these dimensions entails selections of actualities from potentialities (or contingencies) within horizons. Whilst the factual dimension involves selections based on distinguishing ‘this’ from ‘something else’, and the social distinguishes between alter and ego (asking with respect to any meaning whether another experiences it as I do), the temporal dimension operates with the primary distinction of before and after. In the temporal dimension, everything is ‘ordered only according to the when and not to the who/what/where/how of experience and action’ (Luhmann in Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1995, p. 78). In this paper, we explore the connection between the temporal dimension of meaning within the legal system and its connection to justice. We begin by setting out succinctly the role played by justice within the legal system, as presented by Luhmann, particularly in his book Law as a social system (2004). From this beginning, we move on to consider the relationship between law, justice and time, taking two examples. The first is the temporality of judicial decisions. The second concerns the relationship between the temporal meaning of law’s own operations, and the presumption of innocence.     

Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice,Procedural Justice,and Social Resource Theories

The aim of this paper is to formulate new and more precise predictions regarding behavioral reactions to distributive and procedural injustice via insights from resource theory. The three theories share focus on discrepancies between actual and ideal states of existence as well as on psychological and behavioral reactions to discrepancy. But they also differ from each other in their conceptualizations and theorizing about these matters. Equity theory conceptualizes discrepancy as a perceived mismatch between inputs and outcomes; multiprinciple distributive justice and procedural justice theories view discrepancy as a mismatch between expected and applied distribution and procedural rules, respectively. Resulting feelings of inequity/injustice may trigger attempts to restore justice. Within the framework of resource theory, discrepancy concerns an inappropriate match between the nature of the provided and received resources. This leads to frustration which, in turn, may trigger attempts at retaliation. Limitations of the theories are discussed, with particular focus on their inability to match specific discrepancies with appropriate behavioral reactions. Behavioral predictions are based upon established congruence between behavioral reactions and violated procedural rules as well as type of inequity, as determined via their respective resource isomorphism. Limitations of the present integration attempt are discussed.     

证据法、诉讼法和实体法的关系？

我昨天给大家概述了证据法的许多基础性问题,这些问题是构建一部理性证据法所需考虑和安置的问题。今天,我将通过对证据法、诉讼法与实体法之间关系的考察,对昨天简要触及的一些问题做深入讲解。     

证据法、诉讼法和实体法的关系?

我昨天给大家概述了证据法的许多基础性问题,这些问题是构建一部理性证据法所需考虑和安置的问题。今天,我将通过对证据法、诉讼法与实体法之间关系的考察,对昨天简要触及的一些问题做深入讲解。     

程序正义的中国语境

程序正义在中国的语境中已被曲解,这种曲解不仅与我国传统的法律文化中程序工具主义、纠问式诉讼模式、法治基础薄弱有很大关系,与现实的程序价值理念及立法与司法的严重脱节密切相连。中国语境下的“程序正义”既是我国在迈向法治社会进程中传统文化与制度的缺陷的现实表现,又是我国法治现代化的一种必然产物。中国要走向程序法治,不仅需要相应的人文环境和相关的法律制度作为支撑,还需要在程序法治的实践中不断地加以检验并修正自己。     

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants' views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic‐level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their often‐erroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants' perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.