Public choice in local judicial systems

For their contributions to earlier drafts, acknowledgements are extended to Webb Smathers, Ron Faas, Rod Ziemer and other reviewers.     

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 .     

Interaction of criminological research and public policy

We examine here some of the interactions of research and policy over the past several decades. The “rehabilitation period” was effectively terminated by nulleffect evaluations of various rehabilitation techniques. The “just deserts-utilitarian period” was fed by research estimates of the deterrent and incapacitative effects of criminal justice activities. The more recent “overt politicization period” saw the earlier attempt to bring rational and theory-based perspectives to policy development replaced by much stronger emphasis on political concerns. We explore possible ways to reestablish the research-policy connections. This paper was prepared for the Plenary Session,Journal of Quantitative Criminology 10-Year Anniversary, 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, MA.     

SCIENCE, RISK AND HEALTH POLICY: THE CHANGING OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP

Abstract: Scientific research is usually regarded as an impartial contributor to the public policy-making process. However, increasingly, such research in health matters to do with industrial processes, medical intervention and drug therapy is perceived to pose risks and thus produce uncertainty in government and anxiety among consumers of health services. This when the scientific research agenda is about to take increasingly dramatic steps with important implications for applied science. Five select issues intended to depict a lack of research consensus and resulting in perceptions of societal risk-taking are used to illustrate this phenomenon. The growing influence of the "Green" environmental and consumer movement promises increasing resistance to science-based societal risk-taking. Scientists have acknowledged problems and advocate a variety of responses including the adoption of radically different aims and methods in science. The quality of some medical statistics and the dominance of the research methods agenda by epidemiologists is also a cause for concern. The major dilemma, however, is that while both refutation and uncertainty are integral to the Popperian model of puzzle-solving in science, they are factors which pose serious political risks in decision-making for ministers and their advisers.