重构秩序：《理想国》的政治正义问题研究

《理想国》的正义论是一种分配正义原则,它依据公民的德性获得程度给予其对于正义的知道限度。不同等级的公民依据其德性行使其所应担当的社会责任,即为正义。这种正义论强调正义本身的身份角色,带有一种回归古希腊英雄社会的色彩,即德性是维持一个充当某种角色人的公民品质,并表现在角色所要求的行为之中。《理想国》正义论的贡献在于终结自然正义建构社会正义,至此正义原则成为城邦统治秩序的象征。秩序的原则就是正义的原则,这是《理想国》奠定的人文主义基石。     

Ethics,Justice, and Suffering in the Thought of Levinas: The Problem of the Passage

Emmanuel Levinas is the philosopherof suffering as such: a suffering withoutregard for its causes and justifications thatis manifested to the I in its encounter,``beyond being', with the face of the Other. ``Ethics as first philosophy', however,subsequently passes over to justice in Levinas'thought, and this means that it passes througha violence that is very much in being. The movement from ethics to justice revealswhat this essay calls ``the problem of thepassage'. Using the thought of Levinas as itspoint of departure, the essay attempts touncover this problem in all of its profundity. A characteristic of all thinking in the Westernphilosophical tradition, the passage fromA to B is best understood as a mode ofthinking that clings to the passage assuch – in the form of ``A B' – as itsown special way of persisting in being. At thesame time, however, this means that ethicscannot support or comfort justice withoutdevouring itself, which is to say the self that both ethics and justice seem torequire.     

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.     

Making space for restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curricula and courses

Restorative justice, rooted in the practices of indigenous people across the globe, has grown exponentially in both theory and practice since its beginnings in Canada in the 1970s. Restorative justice has influenced the interactions between offenders and victims, helped community members address crime and develop self-efficacy, and changed the way some countries rebuild after a history of oppression. Despite these restorative justice influenced changes, many criminology and criminal justice programs pay scant attention to restorative justice in curricula. This paper will examine ways to include restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curriculum and the challenges involved in the process. The paper will then examine how the Law and Justice Department at Central Washington University has incrementally added restorative justice components to its curriculum, culminating most recently with the addition of a Community and Social Justice course. The paper will conclude with several examples of classroom activities and assignments that have helped connect students with the theory and practice of restorative justice.     

Critical justice consciousness: Social injustice and the criminal justice system

In this essay I examine the importance of social justice to my identity and the changing interpretation of my “justice consciousness” resulting from changes in my work life. Drawing on my academic experience as well as my experience as an attorney, I describe the meaning that social justice has for me. I also examine the connections that I see between social injustice and the operation of the critical justice system.     

Sentiments of justice

In empirical research on social inequality one question remains largely open: Why are certain types of social inequalities legitimate or not? Three theoretical approaches to this question are discussed: the universalist, the cultural, and the interactionist approach. The interactionist approach is defended: Sentiments of justice can be predicted or deduced from the system in which the actors are located. It is important to know whether actors have reasons to be interested in the system of interaction in question, including reasons for approving the rules and the mode of its functioning. At the same time, the existence of an unrestricted residue must also be recognized: With good reasons one group of individuals can find that a certain state of affairs is just, another group that it is unjust. Because divergences of opinion are inescapable, certain questions pertaining to the issue of social justice can only be resolved by the method of regulated political debate. Questions of social justice can in no way be resolved a priori.     

被害人权利保护与恢复性司法

以恢复性司法为制度进路,追求刑事被害人权利保护这一事关实质正义实现的法治目标。对犯罪人的制裁更多地涉及法律的一般性与普遍性,因此偏重于追求形式正义;对被害人权利的弥补、修复、保护更多地涉及生活中实际、具体的事件之合理性与被害人个别处遇,因此偏重于追求实质正义。在传统刑事司法制度中,被害人的权利长期遭受不应有的忽视,而在欧美获得蓬勃发展的恢复性司法制度则针对不同案件、不同犯罪人和被害人开展了形式多样的恢复性司法计划,为我国惩治犯罪人、保护被害人与实现个案中的实质正义提供了良好的理论资源与制度进路。     

论作为高层次伦理规范的正义

正义是古往今来人们所憧憬所讴歌的景状 ,从柏拉图到罗尔斯 ,西方学人叙说了数不清的关于正义的见解 ,既贡献了种种经典性论说 ,也使正义成为一张普洛透斯似的脸。正义实际上不是虚玄的事物 ,它也像法和道德一样 ,是为社会生活提供标准和指明方向的规范 ,不过不是普通的规范 ,而是高层次伦理规范。正义对主体的精神和行为都予以调整。正义不取文本形式 ,不是明文记载的制度 ,而是以观念化的形态存在于人的头脑、心灵、社会舆论和历史文化的积淀之中。正义是人们无法捧读的 ,但它却像时间一样 ,时刻就在我们身边。正义是伦理规范体系中规格和境界最高的规范 ,它以一系列美德或善为其基本内容。正义要求个人具备公平、公正、公道、正直、合理的美德 ,要求国家和社会体现自由、平等、安全这一类善 ,而法如果与正义结合便成为良法。正义的强制力比法更深刻 ,它以理性为强制力量 ,不以国家强力和法定程序保障其实现。正义的触角或统辖范围远远大于法的范围 ,它是关涉领域最广、时空跨度最大、尤具普适性的社会规范。在迄今衍生的形形色色正义理论中 ,亚里士多德和罗尔斯的学说 ,影响尤为深远。正义具有绝对和相对两重性 ,是绝对和相对的统合 ;具有主观和客观两重性 ,是主观和客观的统合。正义是以具体的形式     

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.     

Workplace justice and employee worth

Distributive and procedural justice gain new meaning in light of other distinctions about how organizations value employees (the employees' “worth”). Fair compensation gives employees worth as achieved status: how the employee is like some employees (similarly rewarded) and not like others (dissimilarly rewarded). But employees also want to be treated uniquely as individuals and in other ways to be treated like all other employees, both reflecting worth as ascribed status. Such worth need not involve the distribution of outcomes; it can be gained if procedures function as ends in themselves. Different types of worth thus become the source of different criteria for justice. Based on a paper entitled “Justice as Worth,” which was prepared for the Third International Conference on Social Justice research (held in the Netherlands during July 1991).     

论司法程序公正要素

司法程序公正要素的结构体系应以人的主体性为理论基础。只有能够体现当事人的尊严和人格,保护当事人的程序主体地位的要求和内容,才可以纳入结构体系的架构。     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

Distributive justice: Theory and research

The concept of distributive justice and the theoretical and empirical work conducted on it during the past two decades are examined. Three questions provide the structure for this examination: (i) What are fundamental conceptual dimensions of distributive justice and the specific substantive issues to which they are related? (ii) What central questions has recent work on distributive justice addressed? and (iii) What are the most important emerging issues on which work in the near-term future should focus? Much of the theory and research examined in the paper is social psychological in nature, but reference is made to related work in related disciplines, particularly sociology and philosophy.     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Doing justice to justice

Adshead's recognition that only when taken together can the many different conceptions of justice accommodate what is called for in the particularly demanding setting of forensic mental health care, is to be applauded. Each must be honoured and built into the systems of assessment and treatment that are the tasks of the forensic psychiatrist, she demonstrates. Adshead's far‐reaching revisions could resolve much that is troubling about the present practice of forensic psychiatry. Yet how much these revisions can overcome the moral dilemmas associated with dual roles in forensic psychiatry, is not so clear.     

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.     

Regenerative justice,beyond restoring

This paper outlines a new form of justice, called regenerative justice. Regenerative justice is the coupling of restorative justice with the notion of generative justice, which involves the explicit and intentional discovery and building of life meanings, as well as the consideration of the relationships that those meanings have with wrongdoing and ‘making things right’. This exploration comes about after first considering restorative justice, then providing a critique that uncovers potential blind spots in restorative practice. Logotherapeutic techniques, including: Socratic dialogue, attitude modulation, and dereflection, are used by therapists to help people discover meaning and purpose and have successfully assisted crime victims and offenders. Borrowing from these techniques and specific questioning approaches, restorative dialogue facilitators can enhance restorative practice, particularly in the phases of preparation for restorative dialogue and follow-up after restorative dialogue, by deliberately emphasizing meaning-building discussions (generative justice). Therefore, regenerative justice synthesizes the restoration of people and relationships with the generation of peaceful and healing meanings that can help stakeholders in wrongdoing make sense out of suffering and move forward with a sense of purpose. An example of this process is illustrated in a victim-offender dialogue in a crime of severe violence, where meaning-building can be particularly powerful.     

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.