Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice,access to justice,and the role of income

Courts have long struggled to bridge the access-to-justice gap associated with in-person hearings, which makes the recent adoption of online legal proceedings potentially beneficial. Online proceedings hold promise for better access: they occur remotely, can proceed asynchronously, and often rely solely on written communication. Yet these very qualities may also undermine some of the well-established elements of procedural-justice perceptions, a primary predictor of how people view the legal system's legitimacy. This paper examines the implications of shifting legal proceedings online for both procedural-justice and access-to-justice perceptions. It also investigates the relationship of both types of perceptions with system legitimacy, as well as the relative weight these predictors carry across litigant income levels. Drawing on online traffic court cases, we find that perceptions of procedural justice and access to justice are each separately associated with a litigant's appraisal of system legitimacy, but among lower-income parties, access to justice is a stronger predictor, while procedural justice dominates among higher-income parties. These findings highlight the need to incorporate access-to-justice perceptions into existing models of legal legitimacy.     

Detecting deception: Practice, practitioners, and theory

Conclusions Of the forty-six types of detectives studied, all but one used the same general procedures to detect deception. (The exception was the adversarial method used by trial lawyers working in the American judicial system.) All others used standard logical systems (both deductive and inductive) in combination with intuitive methods. The more successful detections seemed to be closely associated with intuitive methods, particularly so-called “indirect thinking”. Authors'Note: The “I” in this chapter refers to the principal author, Bart Whaley. Since it was first written in 1999, Whaley has increased the number of types of detectives studies to over 100, and the number of major works cited to over 500. The most important finding was to reinforce the recommendation that effective detection and deception is crucially dependent on large and accurate data bases based on systematically collected and analyzed case studies.     

Autonomy, justice, and disability

In this Article, Professor Carlos A. Ball explores the philosophical foundations for the types of rights and benefits that our society currently provides to individuals with disabilities. The concept of autonomy places on society a moral obligation to assist individuals with disabilities when their basic human functional capabilities are impaired. The exercise of this obligation entails assisting individuals with crossing a minimum threshold of functional capabilities below which it is not possible to lead autonomous lives. In making this argument, Professor Ball responds to libertarian critics who contend that notions of freedom or liberty proscribe an activist role for government in this arena. He explains how even a libertarian state redistributes wealth in order to provide for some incapacities. Professor Ball also disputes the idea that the meeting of the needs of the disabled is enough to provide moral justification for the rights and benefits provided to individuals with disabilities. The problem with the concept of needs, Professor Ball argues, is that it fails to account sufficiently for the human good of personal autonomy.     

Pursuing justice,respecting the law

Conclusion In the 1980s, despite the rise of terrorist attacks worldwide, the international community failed to respond cooperatively. When U.S. citizens were the focus of attacks, even friendly countries had little incentive to risk the safety of their citizens or the tenets of their foreign policy to prosecute terrorists. In response, the United States passed statutes providing for extraterritorial jurisdiction over acts committed abroad against U.S. citizens and then engaged in a series of dramatic seizures to enforce these measures. Unfortunately, these abductions were generally not defensible under international law and, in any event, could not be used when a terrorist was located within the territory of a major friendly country. In large part unexpectedly, however, the statutes have rendered such extraordinary measures unnecessary while still remedying what was a visible failure of international criminal cooperation.Even without threatening international abductions, the United States can use the Hostage Taking Act and the Terrorist Prosecution Act to demand extradition and to undertake independent investigations of violations of federal laws. These efforts put pressure on governments that have custody over terrorists. The international and the diplomatic consequences of neither extraditing nor prosecuting have proven sufficient to encourage U.S. allies to prosecute terrorists themselves. Surprisingly, therefore, the statutes have turned out to be effective because they encourage prosecutions of terrorists abroad, thereby remedying a failure in international cooperation and helping to ensure a consistent, strong, international response to acts of terrorism despite the continued inability of the United States to obtain custody of those attacking its citizens.This is a revised version of a paper presented at an international workshop on Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, organized jointly by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany, May 21–25, 1991.Class of 1993, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.     

Social justice and legal justice

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice.     

Procedural justice,minorities, and religiosity

The current research explores six hypotheses derived from the well-known procedural justice-based model of legitimacy in two different religious groups in Israel, and adds to the model the effect of religiosity on the perceived legitimacy of rules and institutions of social control. Our results, based on data from a representative sample of 1,216 Israeli Jews and Arabs, provide general support for the hypotheses. We found that the social order is perceived as less legitimate by the Arab minority compared with the Jewish majority, and by highly religious members of the Jewish majority compared with those who are less religious.     

Crisis,justice, and managing the appetite for risk

Jindal Global Law Review - The phrase ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’ is often (mis)attributed to Winston Churchill. It expresses the common perception that the sentiments evoked...     

Citizenship, mental illness, and the criminal justice system

The concept of citizenship in regard to persons with mental illness has gained increasing attention in recent years, but little empirical research has been conducted on this topic. In addition, little research or conceptual writing has been done on the topic of criminal justice in regard to citizenship for people with mental illness, in spite of the high incidence of criminal charges and incarceration among this group. We review our work on an applied theoretical framework of citizenship, including its origins in mental health outreach work to people who are homeless and in a jail diversion program. We then suggest the contribution the framework can make to the intersecting issues of mental illness, its criminalization in the U.S., and the goal of community integration for people with mental illness.     

SCOTUS in the time of COVID: The evolution of justice dynamics during Oral arguments

We assess changes in oral arguments at the US Supreme Court precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which those changes persisted once the justices acclimated to the new procedures. To do this, we examine whether key attributes of these proceedings changed as the Court experimented with telephonic hearings and subsequently returned to in-person oral arguments. We demonstrate that the initial telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the chief justice new power and reconfigured justices' engagement during these proceedings. However, we also show that the associate justices adapted to this new institutional landscape by changing their behavior. The findings shed light on the consequences of significant, novel disruptions to institutional rules and norms in the government and legal system.     

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.     

恢复性司法的价值与理念——报应性司法和恢复性司法比较研究

犯罪包含着犯罪人与受害方，犯罪人与社会及其国家之间的衔突。报应性司法采用形而上的哲学方法分析犯罪原因，认为犯罪是犯罪人自由选择的结果，犯罪所侵害的主要是国家的统治秩序，因此，在“以怨报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人承担刑罚这样的抽象责任。恢复性司法以实证的方法研究犯罪，认为犯罪是社区关系失调的产物，犯罪侵害的不仅是国家利益，还包括被害人利益和社区利益，因此，在“以直报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人要面对受害方承担道歉、赔偿等具体责任。