Procedural justice

Procedural justice is a concept dating back to the 1970s. It deals with ways to increase the satisfaction of individuals who utilize the justice system. Increasing satisfaction may lead to increased faith in the system, in addition to further use of the courts. It may also increase voluntary cooperation with judicial orders.

Psychologists believe that procedural justice hinges upon maximizing four factors: voice, neutrality, respect, and trust. Voice refers to an individual’s feelings of being heard. Most people want a chance to tell their side of the story without feeling judged or ignored. Neutrality refers to faith that a situation will be handled in a fair, unbiased manner. Respect refers to how people feel they have been treated by justice system officials, and acknowledges that police officers and judges are acting as representatives of the state. Trust refers to people’s personal feelings toward law enforcement and court officials.

Advocates of procedural justice believe that police officers and judges who strive to create fair treatment of people involved in the justice system will have significantly improved relationships with their communities. However, critics of procedural justice commonly argue that the purpose of the justice system is to resolve conflicts, not to maximize the satisfaction of its participants.

Background

Procedural justice was first discussed as a psychological concept in the early 1970s. Psychologists John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, and Tom R. Tyler were some of the first experts to bring the issue to the public. They empirically analyzed the third-party procedures used in criminal conflict resolution, including arbitration and adjudication. However, they soon began to make interesting correlative connections between the tactics used during arbitration and adjudication, and the subjective reactions of the individuals involved in those reactions. Researchers began to study this reaction, eventually coming to the conclusion that fair, unbiased practices by figures in authority correlate with more positive reactions from the people with whom they interact.

Over time, researchers studying this phenomenon realized that the manner in which court cases are handled by those in authority has a significant impact on the reactions of the people utilizing the justice system. If the people felt their concerns were being handled in a fair manner, they would have positive reactions, confirming feelings of legitimacy in the system. If the people felt their concerns were being handled unfairly, they would have negative reactions to the system, delegitimizing it. In these scenarios, the researchers did not deal with whether or not an individual won the case, but simply how their case was handled. They called this study procedural justice.

Overview

Procedural justice, also sometimes called procedural fairness, stems from research showing that fair and equitable interactions in courts and with law enforcement cause positive experiences in people utilizing the criminal justice system. If procedural justice is implemented, individuals who interact with authority figures in the system tend to feel more positive about their experiences and place more faith in the justice system. This can help reduce instances of noncompliance with judicial decisions.

Procedural justice emphasizes four key principles: voice, neutrality, respect, and trust. Advocates of procedural justice argue that increasing feelings of these four principles as individuals move through the justice system correlates with increased positivity toward the experience. Voice refers to feelings of being heard. Individuals moving through the justice system want to feel as if they have a chance to tell their story and have their side of events heard. Advocates of procedural justice argue that the importance of voice is why informal procedures like mediation have remained popular. They also argue individuals’ chances to advocate for themselves in court correlate highly with feelings of satisfaction regardless of the judge’s eventual ruling.

Respect refers to the feelings induced in court attendees by authority figures. Advocates of procedural justice argue that police officers and judges act as representatives of the state in their interactions with citizens. They have the power to show citizens that the state views them as valuable, worthwhile, and worthy of respect. To convey this, authorities need to treat citizens courteously and politely through all stages of the legal process. They also need to respect the legal and human rights of citizens as they utilize the courts. By following this, police officers and court officials can show people that the state will take their problems seriously and handle their issues fairly.

Neutrality refers to the belief that judges will make unbiased decisions. Neutral judges apply the law consistently throughout their careers and act in a transparent and open manner. They do not often make special exceptions, and their opinions are largely based on principles, not personal opinions.

Trust refers to citizens’ assessment of the personal character of decision makers. In many ways, trust ties into voice. Individuals moving through the justice system are more likely to believe that judges and police officers are of positive moral character if the citizens believe their opinions and views are being heard. In order to facilitate trust, judges and police officers strive to appear sincere and caring. They should be open about the reasons for their actions, and be honest with citizens asking questions. A positive rapport may also help police officers and judges convince citizens that they are working in everyone’s best interests.

Many judicial officials and law enforcement officers support procedural justice. Numerous studies show evidence of a correlation between procedural justice and more positive feelings about the justice system. However, critics of procedural justice sometimes argue that there is no proof of a causal relationship between procedural justice and positive results, only correlative proof. Other critics of procedural justice argue that the satisfaction of individuals involved with the justice system should not be a primary goal. Instead, the system should be primarily focused on conflict resolution.

While procedural justice is commonly discussed in the context of the criminal justice system, it has broad applications. Educational institutions, governmental agencies, and workplaces can benefit from understanding and applying the principles of procedural justice. Implementing these principles can improve employee job satisfaction and motivation.

Bibliography

Bobocel, D. Ramona. “Procedural Justice: A Historical Review and Critical Analysis.” The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, edited by Russell S. Cropanzano and Maureen L. Ambrose, Oxford UP, 2015.

Donne, Mariano Delle. “Procedural Justice: How a Simple Concept Can Help Cops Make a Big Impact.” PoliceOne, 6 May 2016, www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/procedural-justice-how-a-simple-concept-can-help-cops-make-a-big-impact-msXh4naM0y0nllJE. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Hagan, John, and Valerie P. Hans. “Procedural Justice Theory and Public Policy: An Exchange.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 13, 2017, pp. 1–3, doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121416-011426. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Longley, Robert. "What Is Procedural Justice?" ThoughtCo., 27 Apr. 2022, www.thoughtco.com/what-is-procedural-justice-5225379. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Maiese, Michelle. “Procedural Justice.” Beyond Intractability, July 2020, www.beyondintractability.org/essay/procedural‗justice. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

“Procedural Justice.” Trust & Justice, trustandjustice.org/resources/intervention/procedural-justice. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

"Procedural Justice." Yale Law School, law.yale.edu/justice-collaboratory/procedural-justice. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Röhl, Klaus F., and Stefan Machura. Procedural Justice. Routledge, 2020.

Tyler, Tom R. “Procedural Justice and the Courts.” Court Review, digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=ajacourtreview. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.