Restorative Justice,Consistency and Proportionality: Examining the Trade-off

Abstract

Restorative justice conferences that operate as sentencing mechanisms involve the making of a trade-off between empowering lay participants to make their own decisions, and the requirements of consistency and proportionality, which are established principles of sentencing. In current restorative justice practice, this trade-off tends to be made more in favour of consistency and proportionality, at the expense of the empowerment of lay participants.

Empowerment is central to key benefits of restorative justice, such as reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction. However, its importance to the effectiveness of restorative justice is not always properly acknowledged. In addition to this lack of acknowledgment, there are both conceptual and practical problems with the principles of consistency and proportionality (particularly in the way that they are presented when considered in relation to restorative justice) that are often overlooked. As a result, the tendency is for assumptions to be made about the necessary supremacy of these principles over empowerment. This paper urges more acknowledgement of the importance of empowerment in restorative justice, together with a greater appreciation of the problems with consistency and proportionality, with a view to challenging assumptions about the way that the trade-off must be made.     

Who is Diverted? Case Selection for Court‐Monitored Mental Health Treatment

Specialized courts raise questions about the decisions that bring some defendants into such courts and keep others out. Because of risks perceived in diverting mentally ill defendants, decisions to select defendants for mental health courts are especially interesting. I estimate a model of the decision to divert defendants into court‐monitored mental health treatment. I find that gender and age combine to disadvantage young male defendants and older female defendants. The findings point to the importance of structuring selection processes in the design of specialized courts. They shed light on the consequences of including treatment personnel in justice system decisions.     

Is the Environment Getting Its Fair Share? An Analysis of the Australian Water Reform Process Using a Social Justice Framework

Australia is currently undergoing fundamental and far-reaching reforms in water management that have been prompted by wide-spread environmental degradation caused by past water management practices. This paper is an extract of a wider study that explores how governments incorporate social justice into water reform policies and how that effort is perceived by non-government stakeholders. Using a comprehensive Social Justice Framework, we used a mixed methods approach that combines a quantitative content analysis of key water reform documents with a qualitative semistructured interview process to identify and analyse three principles of social justice that apply to the environment as a water stakeholder: need as a distributive justice principle, representativeness and accuracy as procedural justice principles. We found that the environment is identified as a legitimate water stakeholder whose needs are meant to be assured through the water reform process. However, the environment suffers from a crisis of identity. Other water stakeholders claim to speak for the environment but say different things. Thus, due to a diversity of voices, strong government intention to satisfy environmental needs is diluted in practice. Furthermore, the prerogative to define and measure environmental needs through science, while deemed to be fair and objective, leads to unintended consequences that complicate management and disenfranchise less scientifically capable stakeholders. Overall, we believe that the formal recognition of the environment as a stakeholder in water reform is a significant forward step but its crisis of identity must be resolved before the environment can fully utilise its new role as a stakeholder.     

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.     

When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable?

This study examines the relative importance of six policy outcomes related to different fairness principles for the perceived fairness and acceptability of pricing policies aimed at changing transport behaviour. The fairness and acceptability of six different types of transport pricing policies were systematically higher if policy outcomes were related to environmental justice and equality. The policy measures were evaluated as more acceptable and fair when respondents believed that future generations, nature and the environment were protected (reflecting environmental justice), and to a lesser extent, when everybody was equally affected by the policy outcomes (reflecting equality), irrespective of absolute differences in fairness and acceptability of the policies. Policy outcomes reflecting egoistic concerns (e.g. being financially worse off and being worse off than others) and equity (e.g. proportional to people’s income and contribution to problems) were related to the fairness and acceptability of some policy measures, but no systematic pattern was found across six policy measures. This suggests that policy outcomes related to distributions that focus on collective considerations appear to be more important for the fairness and acceptability of transport pricing policies than those focusing on individual interests. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.     

Speed of Decision-Making as a Procedural Justice Principle

The uncertainty management theory (Lind and Van den Bos, Research in organizational behavior 24, 181–223, 2002; Van den Bos and Lind, Advances in experimental social psychology, pp. 1–60, 2002) proposes that perceived fairness decreases experienced uncertainty, and, thus, the importance of fairness is enhanced under higher uncertainty. For example, the six procedural justice principles (Leventhal, Social exchange: advances in theory and research pp. 27–55, 1980) can be seen to reduce uncertainty in the long run by producing higher quality decisions. However, the decision-making process itself also may cause uncertainty, especially when the process is prolonged. Thus, we bring the speed of the decision-making process into discussion as one justice principle. We suggest that people use speed-related information as heuristic information and substitute lacking procedures-related information by drawing inferences from the speed of the decision-making. We propose that the speed of decision-making has a twofold effect on perception of procedural fairness: very fast and very slow decision-making processes are perceived to produce more uncertainty than moderate time processes, and consequently, a moderate process is expected to be related with more positive fairness perceptions than very slow or very fast processes. The statement was further tested by examining the mediating role of procedural fairness perceptions in the relationship between speed and its one consequence, perceived legitimacy, with a survey sample (N = 846) in the context of Finnish forest policy. The analysis confirmed the hypotheses. The role of speed as a justice rule and its contribution to the uncertainty management theory is discussed.     

Justice Judgments of Physical Abuse and Theft: The Importance of Outcome and Procedure

The perceived justice of a situation is frequently a function of both outcome and procedure, but the importance of each may vary when making justice judgments. This study investigated the impact of type and severity of offence, social relationship and status on the perceived importance of the outcome and procedure for justice judgments. The outcome was considered more important than the procedure for judgments of both theft and physical abuse, regardless of offence severity, status of the offender and the victim–perpetrator social relationship. Both outcome and procedure were viewed as more important for judgments of physical abuse than theft. Data obtained for exploratory purposes yielded no correlation between ratings of justice and importance, indicating that the two are not aspects of the same construct. Integrations with work within criminology are discussed.     

Environmental Justice as Scalar Parity: Lessons From Nuclear Waste Management

The development of major infrastructure projects, such as power stations, waste facilities or transport networks, commonly raises concerns of how to ensure environmental justice within policy and planning. Environmental justice has been divergently theorised, though procedural/participative, distributive and recognition-related elements are commonly cited. With growing inter-disciplinarity between normative ethics and the geographic social sciences, there is a renewed interest in the scalar aspects of environmental justice (particularly in relation to infrastructure projects)—how the framing of environmental decisions at multiple and conflicting scales results in disparities between locally affected communities, and regional and national decision-making authorities. In analysing this problem, the paper has three principal aims. The first is to outline the problem of scalar environmental justice. The second is to explore a practical case of scalar environmental justice, by examining the decision-making processes surrounding radioactive waste management in the UK. The third is to outline a new concept of “scalar parity” derived from the radioactive waste policy process, whereby local communities and regional and national political stakeholders are charged with balancing their competing interests through the “fulcrum” of a partnership organisation, to fairly resolve environmental justice disputes. This scalar parity model is used as an exemplar of good practice in environmental justice resolution that could be applied to other major infrastructure projects.     

Predictors of Texas Police Chiefs’ Satisfaction with Police–Prosecutor Relationships

Although strain in police–prosecutor relationships may be built into the criminal justice system’s checks and balances, the administration of criminal justice can benefit from the adoption of practices which improve these working relationships. A first step towards the adoption of such practices can be taken by first adding to the knowledge base regarding this understudied topic. Using a survey of a state-wide sample of Texas police chiefs, this exploratory study identifies which aspects of police–prosecutor interaction styles are predictors of police chiefs’ satisfaction with police–prosecutor relationships. Results indicate that perceived level of police input in prosecutors’ plea bargain and charging decisions, perceived directness of felony trial preparation communication method, and perceived frequency of decision-maker interactions predict police chiefs’ satisfaction with police–prosecutor relationships. Policy implications are discussed.     

The Role of Perceived Justice,Political Ideology,and Individual or Collective Framing in Support for Environmental Policies

Effectively addressing environmental challenges such as climate change will require adopting policy measures that have some impact on collective human behavior. The present research examined attitudes toward different environmental policies, specifically focusing on the role of perceived justice. Justice was measured in two ways: as an assessment of the fairness of a particular policy and as a general tendency to endorse statements related to environmental justice. Because justice judgments can be context specific, policies were presented in four conditions, in a 2 × 2 design manipulating the type of impact described, ecological or societal, and the level of focus, individual or collective. The roles of political ideology and environmentalism were also investigated. Results from an online sample of 162 US residents showed that non-coercive policies, overall, were rated as more acceptable. Environmental justice statements were strongly endorsed, and justice in both its specific and general forms was a determinant of policy acceptance. In particular, ratings of the fairness of specific policies were a stronger determinant of acceptability than perceived effectiveness of the policy. Type of impact had little effect, but policies tended to be rated as more acceptable when they were framed in terms of the collective rather than the individual. Although a liberal ideology was associated with acceptance of environmental policies in general and with endorsement of environmental justice, controlling for endorsement of environmental justice eliminated the effect of political ideology in most, but not all, cases. Implications for policy support are discussed.     

Political Ideology,Perceived Threat,and Justice Towards Immigrants

In multiethnic societies, issues of justice and fairness have become the focus of intense public debate. Although current psychological theories of distributive and procedural justice concentrate on multiple normative rules that guide allocation decisions, there is little research that focuses on the particular relationship between immigrants as recipients and members of the host society as allocators. In the present study Germans were asked about their opinions as to what Turkish immigrants in Germany deserve or are entitled to and to which degree they pose a threat to German culture. Political orientation of the allocator turns out to be an important predictor of how distributive and procedural justice concerns are evaluated. Both conservatives and liberals exhibit a different conception of what counts as distributive justice. With regard to procedural justice, however, liberals and conservatives did not differ much. Moreover, perceived threat to German culture is significantly related to distributive justice but not to procedural justice.     

Justice in Medicare: recent changes to the public health care system

This article sets out and examines a number of changes proposed by the Commonwealth Government to the Australian Medicare system as part of the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 federal budgets, and the 2004 federal election campaign. In assessing the suitability of these reforms, the idea of justice is discussed. Health, as a basic good, is argued to be a matter of distributional and rectificatory justice. A number of popular material principles of justice are also examined and shown to be unsuited as sole determinants of health care resource allocation decisions. In light of this, various problems with the reforms are identified and improvements suggested.     

Cross-Cultural Preferences for Distributive Justice Principles: Resource Type and Uncertainty Management

Drawing on social resource theory, we investigated the evaluation of distributive justice principles in relation to material benefits (monetary rewards in working life) and symbolic benefits (praise at university) in a cross-cultural study. We predicted that the equity principle would be perceived as more just for distributing culturally valued resources, whereas the equality principle would be perceived as more just for resources that are less valued within culture. Moreover, applying uncertainty management theory, we predicted that cross-cultural fairness evaluations would be more pronounced for individuals with higher (vs. lower) uncertainty avoidance or lower (vs. higher) uncertainty tolerance. Data of 608 Canadian and German students were collected in a two-wave survey. As expected, when allocating material benefits Canadians found the equity principle to be more just than did Germans, whereas Germans perceived the equality principle as more just than did Canadians. When allocating symbolic benefits, by contrast, Canadians perceived equality as more just than did Germans, though unexpectedly culture did not influence evaluations of the equity principle. Finally, consistent with uncertainty management theory, some of the cultural differences in the evaluation of distributive principles were more pronounced among people with higher uncertainty avoidance and lower uncertainty tolerance. Implications for cross-cultural research on distributive justice are discussed.     

Outsourcing,Discretion, and Administrative Justice: Exploring the Acceptability of Privatized Decision Making

This study explores what happens to administrative justice and to the acceptability of frontline decisions in privatized and marketized models of service. Through the case study of privatized welfare‐to‐work in Israel, it shows the fundamental tension between outsourced discretion and traditional conceptions of administrative justice in which the trustworthiness of decisions relies on the idea that decision makers have no personal interest in the outcome of their decisions. It finds that in the Israeli case, contractors' financial interests were widely perceived as putting their professionals into a conflict of interest, thereby undermining trust in their decisions. At the same time, the study finds the program's managerial performance mechanisms did not provide an alternative legitimacy argument for the acceptability of decisions. The study also analyzes the ways policy makers reconstructed the decision‐making systems to regain public acceptance of frontline decisions, while discussing both the potential and the limits of legitimizing outsourced discretion in such complex public services.     

Procedural Justice in Resolving Family Conflict: Implications for Youth Violence Prevention

The fairness of our legal system is often judged by individuals and the public at large along dimensions of procedural and distributive justice. People seem to care about how legal decisions are made as well as about the specific outcomes reached by juries and judges. In fact, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice or injustice may influence public perceptions and confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. This paper focuses mainly on procedural justice. Using an ecological framework, we tested the hypothesis that older adolescents use the same or similar criteria for evaluating fairness in the context of family decision making that people in general use to evaluate the fairness of legal processes and decisions. We also tested the hypothesis that family decision-making procedures that are perceived to be unfair contribute to increased risk for acting out and deviant behavior among older adolescents. Principal components analysis confirmed that older adolescents use several distinct criteria for evaluating procedural fairness in the family context and that these criteria are comparable to those that people use to evaluate the fairness of legal procedures (rational and objective treatment conveying personal respect, consistent and non-discriminatory treatment reflecting social status or standing, and instrumental participation or having "an opportunity to be heard"). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis confirmed that procedural justice factors are associated with adolescent deviant behavior. We discuss implications for adolescent deviance and youth violence prevention.     

A Hierarchical Analysis of Correctional Officers’ Procedural Justice Judgments of Correctional Institutions: Examining the Influence of Transformational Leadership

A substantial body of prior research has demonstrated the significant positive effect of organizational procedural justice on institutional policy compliance. However, research examining the antecedents of organizational procedural justice is only just beginning to emerge in the criminal justice literature. Due to the potential for institutional deviance and the importance of rule adherence among individuals in positions of authority, we believe it is important to investigate correctional officers’ procedural justice perceptions. As such, this study examines 929 correctional officers over 40 institutions to identify if criteria for fairness, leadership style, and officer and institutional characteristics influence officers’ perceptions of procedural justice. Results from hierarchical linear regression indicate that the ability to have a say in decisions, a sense that institutional rules are impartial, and perceptions that management leads through motivation and encouragement significantly increases correctional officers’ perceptions of procedural justice. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Flexibility and Authority: Resolving Labor Disputes in A County Government in Western China

Existing literature regards flexibility and authority as key characteristics of informal justice. We further contend that the combination of the two is crucial for informal justice to be effective. We investigate the process of dispute resolution by a Chinese labor agency. Following the life cycles of a sample of 810 labor disputes, we find that this informal justice forum was efficient and effective, made possible by the combination of flexibility and authority. Flexibility means that the agency attracts certain types of cases that are usually screened out of the formal legal system and that agency officials use “informal,” hence flexible, techniques. Authority means that the administrative agency possesses additional powers over the disputants; hence, the disputants are under pressure to follow its suggestions and decisions. A comparative analysis of various cases of informal justice reinforces the importance of combining flexibility and authority. We further demonstrate that flexibility without authority is insufficient and that some informal justice forums are effective because they enjoy both.     

Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments

A model was outlined (i) to explain readiness to proenvironmental commitments and decisions in everyday life by six categories of predictor variables, including justice appraisals of pollution control, basic rights, appraisals of pollution, of pollution causation, of the efficacy of pollution control measures, and of ecological responsibility, and (ii) to generate hypotheses on the relationships between the predictor variables. Model variables were assessed by a questionnaire study (N=518) referring to the problem of air pollution. Proenvironmental commitments and decisions could be well predicted by morally relevant appraisals, especially by justice appraisals (e.g., approving proenvirommental laws, taxes, and subsidies, rejecting the justice of the current environmental policy and of mere appeals), whereas predictors representing self-protective motivations remained insignificant. Justice appraisals are in line with the “causation principle of justice”: Those who caused the pollution are made responsible for its reduction and should pay the costs for the pollution control. Results demonstrate that justice appraisals are essential determinants of people's ecologically relevant emotions, cognitions, and engagements. Moreover, they reveal that the responsibility for pollution control is not left with state and economy but is also regarded as a matter that concerns the citizens.     

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: Procedural Justice and Decision Acceptance Among Users of Ombuds Services in the UK

Attitudes toward legal authorities based on theories of procedural justice have been explored extensively in the criminal and civil justice systems. This has provided considerable empirical evidence concerning the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating cooperation, compliance, and decision acceptance. However, not enough attention has been paid to attitudes towards institutions of informal dispute resolution. This paper asks whether the theory of procedural justice applies to the alternative dispute resolution context, focusing on ombuds services. What are the predictors of perceptions of procedural justice during the process of dealing with an ombuds, and what factors shape outcome acceptance? These questions are analyzed using a sample of recent ombuds users. The results indicate that outcome favorability is highly correlated with perceived procedural justice, and both predict decision acceptance.