Mock Defendants' Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Trial Procedures in a Medical Malpractice Case

Mental health professionals were asked to imagine themselves in the role of defendant in a medical malpractice case. Each participant was told that their case could be tried according to standard adversary trial procedures or by an alternative procedure. The alternative procedures involved either varying the way that expert testimony would be developed or bifurcation of issues at trial. Participants rated the available alternative procedure relative to the ADVERS procedure in terms of preference, fairness, willingness to comply with trial outcomes, and other procedural justice dimensions. Results indicated a strong endorsement of potential alternatives to the standard adversarial trial process for resolving medical malpractice claims.     

Procedural justice in managerial selection: Identification of fairness determinants and associations of fairness perceptions

The study examined procedural fairness in managerial selection practices. A sample of professional managers were asked to make first, fairness judgments about managerial selection procedures in general; and second, specific fairness judgments based on their own previous experiences in applying for such positions. Using the general fairness ratings, the determinants of procedural fairness in selection were identified by the factor analysis technique. Five procedural factors (three process and two decision factors) accounted for 57.4% of the total variance. The factor scores derived from fairness ratings of specific selection procedures were then correlated with ratings of candidates' later organizational commitment, work satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Results showed that process factors were significantly associated with candidate variables but decision factors were not. The findings were discussed in the context of current procedural justice theories.     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.     

What is procedural justice: Criteria used by Dutch victims to assess the fairness of criminal justice procedures

The study examines the meaning of procedural justice to Dutch victims of crime. Using victimological research and the group-value or relational model or procedural justice developed by Lind and Tyler, a model for procedural justice judgments is developed and tested using the structural equation model. Data used for the analysis consist of 221 interviews with victims regarding their experience with the public prosecution. Although the emerging model differs from that of Lind and Tyler, results support Lind and Tyler's assertion that procedural justice judgments are normative and not instrumental. Victims are particularly concerned about being treated with dignity and respect and are not interested in influencing the outcome of their case.     

Context effects on procedural justice: Effects of interrelatedness,trust, and penalty on procedural preferences

The relationship of context to procedural preferences was studied by examining the effects of interrelatedness, trust, and penalty on preferences for adversary and inquisitorial hearing procedures. Subjects imagined themselves members of different communities and were led to believe that they had been accused of committing an offense of which they knew they were innocent. Interrelatedness, trust, and penalty interacted to affect subjects' ratings of both hearing procedures. Subjects in highly trusting settings (i) preferred the inquisitorial procedure more than those in nontrusting settings and (ii) preferred the adversary procedure less than their nontrusting counterparts. A penalty effect was also found. As penalty increased, subjects increased in their preference for the adversary procedure and decreased in their preference for the inquisitorial procedure, but only in noninterrelated communities. The implications for prior research and for the role of interrelatedness in procedural choice are discussed.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

Informal,Inquisitorial, and Accurate: An Empirical Look at a Problem‐Solving Housing Court

Substantive justice is often seen as elusive in courts dominated by low‐income individuals. Complex court rules, coupled with pervasive lack of counsel, can make it difficult for the traditional adversary process to identify and redress legitimate grievances. This article takes on the social problem of substandard housing and examines whether inquisitorial procedure has the potential to produce accurate outcomes in a tribunal dominated by the unrepresented. Relying on in‐court observations of nearly 300 hearings, and a longitudinal review of nearly seventy‐five cases, this article surfaces the regularized procedures utilized by a purported “problem‐solving” housing court, and theorizes that the inquisitorial features of judicially controlled investigation and enforcement may motivate landlords to repair substantiated housing code violations. This article adds nuance to our understanding of informal justice by identifying the hidden procedural formalisms that may guide alternative decision‐making processes. Furthermore, it evaluates the relationship of one iteration of experimental formalism to substantive justice, and suggests that inquisitorial procedures may be correlated with improved accuracy in case outcomes.     

Predicting future litigiousness

Using a national sample of adults with various legal experiences, the current study examines the impact of prior legal experiences, general attitudes about lawyers and the legal system, and status characteristics on individuals' perceived likelihood of hiring a lawyer for resolving various personal problems in the future. Persons who have been involved in prior legal disputes, who have more positive attitudes about lawyers, and who hold more favorable views about the effectiveness of law in resolving conflict report significantly higher chances of hiring an attorney. Individuals' assessments of their future litigiousness, however, are largely independent of their status characteristics (e.g., gender, income, education, age) and the quality of treatment in their prior legal disputes (e.g., ratings of procedural justice, level of satisfaction with case outcome, and how their lawyer handled the case). The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for improving the quality of legal services and for the future use of law as a method of conflict resolution.     

中日刑事非常救济程序比较研究

刑事非常救济程序是刑事诉讼的最后一道屏障 ,其设计得科学与否 ,直接关系着刑事审判的质量和程序的公正。日本的刑事司法制度独具特色 ,其程序设计有不少值得借鉴的因素     

Is It the What or the How? The Roles of High‐Policing Tactics and Procedural Justice in Predicting Perceptions of Hostile Treatment: The Case of Security Checks at Ben‐Gurion Airport,Israel

What affects perceptions of hostile treatment by police, characterized by feelings such as humiliation and intimidation? Is it what the police do to the citizen, or is it about how they do it? The important effects of procedural justice are well documented in the policing literature. Yet, it is not clear how high‐policing tactics, coupled with procedural justice, affect one's sense of hostile treatment: is it the case that what the police do does not matter as long as they follow the principles of procedural justice, or do some invasive or unpleasant tactics produce negative emotions regardless of the amount of procedural justice displayed by the officer? In the present study we examine this question in the context of security checks at Ben‐Gurion Airport, Israel. Using a survey of 1,970 passengers, we find that the behavioral elements of procedural justice are an important antidote, mitigating the negative effects of four “extra” screening measures on the perceived hostility of the checks. At the same time, two security measures retain an independent and significant effect. We discuss the implications of our findings and hypothesize about the characteristics of policing practices that are less sensitive to procedural justice.     

Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations

The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.     

Coming to Terms with the Past in Germany after 1945 and 1989: Public Judgments on Procedures and Justice

Germany presents the unique case of a society that has been forced to come to terms with its past twice within a fifty‐year period. This double experience can contribute to our understanding of the legal processes of lustration. This paper examines a largely neglected dimension of this phenomenon: justice judgments by the general population. Justice judgments about the Nuremberg Trials and denazification after 1945 are compared to analogous procedures that took place in post‐communist East Germany after 1989. The study uses two theoretical models in its comparative approach: the Leventhal model, and the "group value" model of procedural justice set forth by Lind and Tyler. The analysis is based on survey data collected by the Office of the Military Government of the U.S. (OMGUS) from 1945 to 1949, and survey data taken in East Germany from 1989 to 1994. The results lend support to the "group value" model for the specific situation of social transition. During both periods justice judgments developed according to analogous patterns. The German experience yields some important lessons for legal policies of lustration.     

英美法对我国30年来法制改革的影响

英美法与大陆法的划分,仍是一项有益的认识工具。改革开放以来,英美法对我国法制改革产生了较大影响,这主要表现在:诉讼程序上增强当事人主义色彩,司法组织上确立普通法院的行政审判权,推动司法判决发挥更大的作用,建立英美法特色的具体法律制度,以及法律职业者培养方式改革等方面。考察和反思英美法的这些影响,能给我们若干启示。     

Disclosure of child sexual abuse: expressed emotions and credibility judgments of a child mock victim

Both lay persons and professionals believe that the emotions displayed by a child witness during disclosure of sexual abuse are a factor of importance when judging the child's credibility. Unfortunately, not all children display emotions according to expectations, leading to misjudgments, and possible miscarriage of justice. In the present study, we examined how lay people's credibility judgments were influenced by a child's displayed emotions during the disclosure of sexual abuse. Participants (n?=?119), viewed video recordings of a mock police interview of an 11-year-old child actor disclosing sexual abuse, displaying one of four emotional expressions (angry, sad, neutral, and positive). Results showed that participants were strongly influenced by the emotions displayed; in particular, the display of strong negative emotions (anger) or positive emotions during disclosure significantly reduced judged credibility. The credibility ratings predicted the participant? judgments of the defendant's guilt and the willingness to pass a guilty vote in a hypothetical trial.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

The effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy

Objective

The process-based model has influenced policing research for a number of years, but the role of individual differences on procedural justice judgments and perceived police legitimacy has received limited attention. The current study fills a void in the literature by examining the effect of low self-control on individuals’ procedural justice judgments and perceptions of police legitimacy.

Materials and Methods

The study uses a sample of young adults and estimates a series of OLS regression models to determine the effect of low self-control on the process-based model of policing.

Results

The findings demonstrate that low self-control is associated with unfavorable procedural justice judgments. In turn, procedural justice mediates the effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy. Low self-control, however, is also shown to condition the effect of procedural justice on legitimacy. Specifically, the effect of procedural justice on legitimacy becomes weaker with reduced levels of self-control.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that studies should account for self-control in process-based policing research and police policy should consider the impact of individual differences when implementing process-based strategies.     

美国对外国国家的送达制度

美国《外国主权豁免法》明确规定了对外国国家的送达程序,以区别于《联邦民事诉讼法》中的送达程序。这些特殊的送达规则以及送达实践强调被送达的外国国家实际接收和接受送达的效果,更加注重程序公正,在某种程度上给予外国国家更多的正当程序保障,增强审判程序和判决的可接受性,减少或避免国家豁免诉讼可能带来的政治风险。中国应对在美国法院被诉时,应当充分利用美国《外国主权豁免法》中的送达规则和实践,更好地维护我国的尊严和主权。     

Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities

A key problem in trying to manage diverse societies is finding social policies that will be acceptable to all individuals and groups. Studies suggest that this problem may not be as intractable as is often believed, since people's acceptance of policies is shaped to an important degree by the fairness of the procedures used by authorities to make policy. When policies are fairly made, they gain widespread support, even among those who may feel that the consequences of the policy for them or their group are undesirable or even unfair. These findings support an optimistic view of the ability of authorities to manage diverse societies. On the other hand, research suggests that the ability of procedural justice to bridge differences among individuals and groups may not be equally strong under all conditions. People's willingness to accept policies is more influenced by procedural justice judgments when they identify with the society that the authorities represent and view them as representing a group of which they are members. They are less influenced by procedural justice judgments when they identify more strongly with subgroups than with society and/or view the authorities as representatives of a group to which they do not belong.