Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T18:54:15.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedural Justice in Felony Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Jonathan D. Casper ,
Tom Tyler  and
Bonnie Fisher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research on the determinants of litigant satisfaction has consistently found that abstract evaluations of the justness of case outcomes and of the fairness of the case disposition process contribute significantly to outcome satisfaction, independent of the favorability of the outcome itself. Most such findings have been produced either in laboratory settings using college student subjects or in survey research involving litigation in which the stakes are relatively small. As a consequence, skepticism has been expressed about whether procedural and distributive justice make a difference in serious civil or criminal cases. Reanalyzing data gathered in a previous panel study of defendants charged with felonies in three cities, we argue that the evidence suggests important effects for procedural and distributive fairness, even among a sample of litigants who share few attributes with college student populations and who are involved in litigation in which the stakes are high. The implications of these findings for case disposition processes such as plea bargaining and alternative dispute resolution techniques are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , 1988 , pp. 483 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This study involves reanalysis of data originally collected under a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice (75-NI-99-0027). Support for the work reported here was provided by the American Bar Foundation and the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research of Northwestern University. For helpful comments on this paper, we wish to thank Phillip Schrodt, Jeanne Brett, Max Bazerman, Allan Lind, Deborah Hensler, Roger Myerson, and John Donohue.

References

ADLER, J.W., D.R., HENSLER, and C.E., NELSON (1983) Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica: Rand.Google Scholar
ANDERSON, J.K., and R.M., HAYDEN (1980–81) “Questions of Validity and Drawing Conclusions from Simulation Studies in Procedural Justice,” 15 Law & Society Review 293.Google Scholar
BARRETT-HOWARD, E., and T.R., TYLER (1986) “Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation Decisions,” 50 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 296.Google Scholar
CASPER, J. (1978a) Criminal Courts: The Defendant's Perspective. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement and Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice.Google Scholar
CASPER, J. (1978b) “Having Their Day in Court: Defendant Evaluations of the Fairness of Their Treatment,” 12 Law & Society Review 237.Google Scholar
CASPER, J. (1972) American Criminal Justice: The Defendant's Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, J., and R., FOLGER (1983) “Procedural Justice, Participation, and the Fair Process Effect in Groups and Organizations,” in Paulus, P.B. (ed.), Basic Group Processes. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
HEINZ, A.M. (1985a) “Plea Bargaining, Participation Satisfaction and System Support.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, San Diego (June).Google Scholar
HEINZ, A.M. (1985b) “Procedure v. Consequences,” in Talarico, S. (ed.), Courts and Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
LANDIS, J.M., and L., GOODSTEIN (1987) “When Is Justice Fair? An Integrated Approach to the Outcome vs. Procedure Debate,” 1986 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 675.Google Scholar
LIND, E.A. (1982) “The Psychology of Courtroom Procedure,” in Kerr, N.L. and Bray, R.M. (eds.), The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
LIND, E.A., and T.R., TYLER (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEWEN, C.A., and R.J., MAIMAN (1984) “Mediation in Small Claims Court: Achieving Compliance Through Consent,” 18 Law & Society Review 11.Google Scholar
RASINSKI, K.A., and T.R., TYLER (in press) “Fairness and Vote Choice in the 1984 Presidential Election,” American Politics Quarterly.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, J., and L., WALKER (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1987a) “Conditions Leading to Value Expressive Effects in Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Test of Four Models,” 52(2) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 333.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1987b) “Procedural Justice: Future Directions,” 1(1) Social Justice Research 41.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1987c) “Why People Follow the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance.” Unpublished. Department of Psychology. Northwestern University.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1987d) “What Is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures,” 22 Law & Society Review 103.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1986a) “Citizen Support for Legal Authority.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Chicago (June).Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1986b) “Justice and Leadership Endorsement,” in Lau, R.R. and Sears, D.O. (eds.), Political Cognition. San Francisco.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1986c) “Procedural Justice in Organizations,” in Lewicki, R., Bazerman, M., and Sheppard, B. (eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R. (1984) “The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendants' Evaluations of Their Courtroom Experience,” 18 Law & Society Review 51.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., and A., CAINE (1981) “The Influence of Outcome and Procedures on Satisfaction with Formal Leaders,” 41 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 642.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R., J.D., CASPER, and B., FISHER (in press) “Maintaining Allegiance to Political Authorities,” American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R., and R., FOLGER (1980) “Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction with Citizen-Police Encounters,” 1 Basic and Applied Social Psychology 281.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R., K., RASINSKI, and McGRAW, K. (1985) “The Influence of Perceived Injustice on Support for Political Authorities,” 15 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 700.Google Scholar
TYLER, T.R., K., RASINSKI and N., SPODICK (1985) “The Influence of Voice on Satisfaction with Leaders: Exploring the Meaning of Process Control,” 48 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72.Google Scholar
WALKER, L., and E.A., LIND (1984) “Psychological Studies of Procedural Models,” in Stephenson, G.M. and Davis, J.H. (eds.), Progress in Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar