Abstract
As in other jurisdictions, the Dutch judiciary has been confronted with public unease about criminal justice and is trying to enhance its legitimacy. System and culture however contain hardly any opening for public involvement in criminal justice, and this implication of the publicity principle traditionally encounters disapproval. In its aim of (re)gaining confidence in the criminal justice system, publicity intertwines procedural fairness and public influence: it requires that the (perception of the) lay public is taken into account when conducting proceedings and phrasing the judgment, thereby ensuring visible conformity with publicly-held fairness standards and thus a perception of legitimacy by participants and the public alike. Procedural justice research confirms these notions in finding that the perception of proceedings as fair legitimizes the judiciary and the justice system. The judiciary’s wish to enhance transparency – of which the press guidelines (2013) are the most important expression – is therefore essential. Both publicity and the procedural justice concept refer to the procedure as central in legitimization and therefore provide important arguments for allowing the audiovisual registration of criminal proceedings. As system and culture do not change easily, this may lead to more public-minded proceedings and to a shift in the public debate towards procedure.
Highlights
The aim of this article is to assess the recent attempts by the Dutch judiciary to gain more public acceptance of its tasks and functioning in criminal justice by enhancing its relationship with the press
The more general notion of responsiveness has been firmly embraced and is generally regarded as a standard for the judiciary: judges are expected to foster and show awareness of societal concerns.[42]. Since responsiveness in this context refers to the ability of the criminal justice system to give room to public opinion, to open the door to influence from outside, it contradicts the Dutch tradition of distance as the safeguard of independence, impartiality, fairness as such
The procedural justice research, in finding that in assessing the judiciary people will generally make procedural justice judgments focusing on the four values termed ‘voice, neutrality, respect and trust’, provides an empirical ground for the basic idea of publicity as a requirement of public-oriented proceedings and judgments
Summary
The aim of this article is to assess the recent attempts by the Dutch judiciary to gain more public acceptance of its tasks and functioning in criminal justice by enhancing its relationship with the press. The central question to be answered is to what extent the current stance towards the media, as expressed in the press guidelines, corresponds with the principle of publicity, as well as with the empirical findings in the field of procedural justice. Both the principle of publicity and the procedural justice research, each in their specific context, aim at contributing to the judiciary’s legitimacy. The concept of and research into procedural justice are likely to be of value to this article’s aim, since they offer empirical data on how and by what standards people assess judicial procedures and authorities These data provide an insight into how to gain more public confidence in the judiciary. The conclusion entails an evaluation of these guidelines in the light of normative notions of publicity and empirical procedural justice findings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
