Concept Of Procedural Justice Research Articles

Sympathy for the Devil: Serial Mediation Models for Toxicity, Community, and Retention

Disruptive behaviors in online gaming communities are a growing concern, affecting player experience, retention, and well-being. While previous research has primarily focused on the victims’ experiences, this study examines the psychological mechanisms underlying the attitudinal and behavioral responses to both encountering disruptive behaviors and being flagged for such behaviors, as well as the effects on retention. The study retrieved longitudinal telemetry records of player reporting and gameplay data from the North American server of a popular competitive player vs. player multiplayer online game, coupled with a psychometric survey of a randomly selected sample of 1,217 players. Based on the rejection-disidentification model, this research identifies a shared pathway for both reporting and being reported for disruptive behavior. Our findings support a serial mediation model where both experiences are linked to decreased player engagement. This reduced engagement, reflected in diminished participation in game battles over time, is mediated by perceived discrimination and a reduced sense of community. Moreover, drawing on the concept of procedural justice from the group engagement model, the study delineates unique pathways for the disengagement process for reporters and those reported. Being flagged for disruptive behavior leads to a significant drop in sustained engagement through a decreased sense of community, which is not the case for reporting disruptive behavior. The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Training and ‘Doing’ Procedural Justice in the Frontline of Public Service: Evidence from Police

Procedural justice can impact on street-level bureaucrat (SLB)-citizen encounters as it shapes citizens’ experience with, and perception of, the delivery of public service. Specifically, in police encounters with the public, procedural justice has recently dominated the public discourse due to the tensions around police-community relations. One way to enhance the quality of SLB-citizen encounters is through procedural justice training. Utilizing a mixed methods design, we conduct a two-pronged analysis of (1) the content and teaching time of procedural justice training in state-mandated basic police curricula across U.S. states and (2) the ways training content (i.e., concepts of procedural justice) is conceptualized by the street-level bureaucrats who are the subjects of these curricula. The study identifies deficiencies in the length of the training and highlights discrepancies between the content emphasized in the training and the ways in which SLBs perceive and interpret its utility and applicability. It concludes by offering practical recommendations on how to improve procedural justice competencies, and by way, enhance SLB-citizen encounters through training.

‘Channel shift’: Technologically mediated policing and procedural justice

In recent years, police forces in the United Kingdom have introduced various technologies that alter the methods by which they interact with the public. In a parallel development, many forces have also begun to embrace the concept of procedural justice as a method through which to secure legitimacy and (in turn) public compliance and cooperation. What has not received sufficient attention, within policing or academia, is the extent to which these two trends are compatible, with the procedural justice literature still predicated on an assumption that police–public ‘contacts’ or ‘encounters’ are in-person. The effect of technologically mediating police–public contacts on ‘policing by consent’, is therefore unknown. In this article, we focus specifically on the possible implications of the Single Online Home (SOH) (a portal through which the public can report crime, get updates on cases, give feedback and pay fines, among other things, which is currently being rolled out across forces), considering ‘interactions’ between police and public where there is no physical co-presence. Noting the unique context that is policing, we draw on the limited existing research on procedural justice encounters in technologically mediated contexts to explore whether procedural justice theory is ‘future-proof’ for a policing context increasingly reliant on such encounters. We conclude that, through empirical research, we must update our conceptual understanding of what ‘contact’ can mean, and accept that current developments may in fact be transforming relationships rather than simply facilitating existing ones.

A quantitative method for benchmarking fair income distribution

Concern about income inequality has become prominent in public discourse around the world. However, studies in behavioral economics and psychology have consistently shown that people prefer not equal but fair income distributions. Thus, finding a benchmark that could be used to measure fair income distribution across countries is a theoretical and practical challenge. Here a method for benchmarking fair income distribution is introduced. The benchmark is constructed based on the concepts of procedural justice, distributive justice, and authority’s power in professional sports since it is not only widely agreed as an international norm that the allocations of athlete’s salary are outcomes of fair rules, individual and/or team performance, and luck but also in line with no-envy principle of fair allocation. Using the World Bank data, this study demonstrates how the benchmark could be used to quantitatively gauge whether, for a particular value of the Gini index, the income shares by quintile of a country are the fair shares or not, and if not, what fair income shares by quintile of that country should be. Knowing this could be useful for those involved in setting targets for the Gini index and the fair income shares that are appropriate for the context of each individual country before formulating policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 10 and other related SDGs.

The Relation between Trumpism and Compliance with the Rules during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Procedural Justice Perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly one of the more significant events that marked the21st century and changed the world. Also, the 21st century was marked by the peculiar rule of USA President Donald Trump. Trumpism as a concept has influenced many aspects of peoples lives around the world. Drawing on statements by former USA President Donald Trump regarding the global pandemic, the question arises as to whether trumpism could have had a global scale to spread the virus. As procedural fairness is one of the essential factors for compliance, this paper relates the concepts of procedural justice, compliance, and trumpism. The paper offers a unique review of literature and research, providing practical implications and suggestions for future international comparative research of these concepts.

THE IDEA OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE PENSION AUTHORITY

The concept of justice, crystallizing over the centuries, is very important in creation of material law and shaping the procedures necessary for their implementation. The importance of ideas and principles of procedural justice for social insurance is essential not only because of the demand of law itself. Procedural justice is also important, because it influences the society. Analysis of the procedure before the pension authority on application for pension or retirement through the prism of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, concept of procedural justice and principle procedural due process indicates that justice is indispensable to realize the principle of the democratic rule of law. Robert S. Summers, recognizing other values of the process, taken from social life, sees the necessity to apply them not so much to the procedure as a means to achieve a specific goal, but to the procedure itself. In this context the procedure before the pension authority should be seen through the prism of the error risk, good result of the procedure, procedure evaluation and participatory management.

Advancing procedural justice in conservation

AbstractJust participation in conservation decision‐making is a moral imperative and critical to achieving social and ecological goals. However, understanding of what constitutes a just decision‐making process in conservation remains limited. Integrating key literature from environmental justice, psychology of justice, and participatory conservation, we identify 11 procedural justice criteria, many of which have been overlooked in conservation literature. We develop a framework to help promote procedural justice in conservation decision‐making which organizes the criteria into three key domains (Process properties, Agency of participants, Interpersonal treatment), which are underpinned by the justice dimension of recognition. We highlight seven policy levers that can be used to enhance procedural justice (e.g., scalar and contextual fit, conflict resolution, facilitation). However, advancing just decision‐making using this framework requires addressing a number of key challenges, in particular those related to broader structural power inequalities, and elucidating and accounting for plural and situated conceptions of procedural justice. We outline a number of pathways to overcome these challenges, including promoting knowledge coproduction and self‐reflexivity.

A qualitative systematic review of governance principles for mangrove conservation.

Management of mangrove ecosystems is complex, given that mangroves are both terrestrial and marine, often cross regional or national boundaries, and are valued by local stakeholders in different ways than they are valued on national and international scales. Thus, mangrove governance has had varying levels of success, analyzed through concepts such as principles of good governance and procedural justice in decision-making. Although there is substantial research on case studies of mangrove management, global comparisons of mangrove governance are lacking. This research aims to fill this gap by comparing relationships among qualities of governance across mangrove social-ecological systems worldwide. Through a systematic literature search and screening process, we identified 65 articles that discussed mangrove governance and conservation. Case studies in these articles, drawn from 39 countries, were categorized as top-down, bottom-up, or comanaged and thematically coded to assess the influence of eight principles of good governance in mangrove conservation success. Across all three governance systems, the principles of legitimacy, fairness, and integration were most important in determining conservation success or failure. These principles are closely related to the concept of procedural justice, highlighting the importance of stakeholder inclusion throughout all stages of mangrove management. Thus, we recommend clearly defined roles for all governance actors, transparent communication of policy development to stakeholders, fairness in both process and outcome, and careful consideration of sustainable access to conservation resources.

Fueling Resistance

<i>Fueling Resistance</i>

Public Interest Technology, Citizen Assemblies, and Performative Governance

There are many domains of human endeavor which invoke the “public interest,” for example, environmental sustainability, law, journalism, and, perhaps most pointedly in 2020–2021, health. All of these domains require some sort of tradeoff between different and potentially competing stakeholder priorities. For example, public interest in environmental sustainability, with respect to air quality, potable water, and arable land, can be in contention with requirements of manufacturing, transport, and consumer demand. Advocacy for social justice through public interest law might set a disadvantaged or disempowered group against a privileged or powerful one <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">[1]</xref> , <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">[2]</xref> . Similarly, journalistic reporting in the public interest must consider holding the powerful accountable for their actions and decisions and the potential impact on society against basic rights to privacy and ethical practices in investigative journalism. Choices in public health sometimes appeal to the concept of procedural justice and can involve a multiperspective tradeoff between individual risk and collective benefit, personal preference and state mandate, financial costs and effectiveness of treatments, and speed and caution (and note these <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">are</i> tradeoffs not false dichotomies, as some would have it).

Patients' Views With Regard to Personal Recovery in Forensic Psychiatry in German-Speaking Switzerland-An Explorative Study.

Recovery orientation (RO) is a modality of supporting patients to improve self-determination, leading a meaningful life and well-being in general. This approach is widely studied in general psychiatry, but evidence is lacking for forensic inpatient settings in Switzerland. While secure forensic clinics tend to be regarded as total institutions, which are an anathema to RO, a project to implement RO interventions in this setting was financed by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice. This explorative study investigates baseline expectations and views of patients in forensic wards in German-speaking Switzerland in the context of a recovery-oriented intervention. As such wards are non-existent in Latin-speaking Switzerland, the investigation could only be carried out in this language region. Six focus groups with 37 forensic inpatients were conducted. Thematic analysis revealed two major and several subthemes. The major theme “heteronomy” includes the subthemes “stigmatization and shame,” “coercion,” “lack of support,” “mistrust,” “waiting,” and “structural impediments.” The subthemes “learning to live with the disorder and working on oneself,” “participation,” “connectedness,” “confidence,” and “joie de vivre” belong to the major theme “regaining self-determination.” In this way, results of prior research are extended to forensic peculiarities. Furthermore, the personal views of patients are discussed in detail regarding their possible influence on therapeutic outcomes and personal recovery. These findings should be of help to therapeutic staff in the respective setting to be better informed about, and to counter the effects of, heteronomy and long-term hospitalization. Important in this regard is the concept of procedural justice and the subjective client's perception thereof.

Procedural justice in the age of tech giants – justifying the EU Commission’s approach to competition law enforcement

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to highlight the need for a new understanding of what constitutes “procedural justice” in EU competition law enforcement. This is done via an exploration of the concept of procedural justice, followed by a synthetization of this concept with the conceptual underpinnings of EU competition law. The modern realities of EU competition law are then examined, with a particular focus on the Commission's approach to Google. The general thrust of the argument presented is that considering the nature of the problems facing the Commission, it is not necessary, as a matter of justice, to consider large tech firms as being endowed with a huge panoply of procedural justice rights.

O contato com o público importa?

Este artigo apresenta os resultados parciais de uma pesquisa que o Núcleo de Estudos da Violência da Universidade de São Paulo vem desenvolvendo sobre a legitimidade das instituições no Brasil, dentre elas o Judiciário. Parte-se do conceito de procedural justice, de acordo com o qual a legitimidade é resultado da inter-relação entre os cidadãos e os servidores públicos, bem como da noção de auto-legitimidade, que considera a crença que os agentes possuem no direito de exercer sua autoridade. Neste trabalho, explora-se a auto-legitimidade construída por juízes de diferentes áreas do direito, a partir de entrevistas realizadas na cidade de São Paulo. As análises preliminares indicam duas concepções antagônicas sobre autoridade judicial, expressas nas posições elaboradas pelos juízes sobre a importância do contato entre eles e a população: uma – mais comum entre juízes da área cível – de que o direito é uma atividade técnica mediada por seus operadores e que prescinde do contato com o público; e outra – expressa por alguns juízes da área criminal – de que o contato com as pessoas envolvidas no processo e sua situação particular é importante para produzir decisões corretas e justas.

Addressing the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Resources in Malaysia: A Procedural Justice Approach

The concept of procedural justice has been promoted as a potential solution in the contest for resources involving indigenous peoples and others. It seeks the formulation of processes that are fair and just both to indigenous peoples and to the other parties affected. Using a comparative approach, this paper analyses processes and mechanisms adopted in some selected common law jurisdictions against the ideal of procedural justice. It seeks to consider mechanisms which conform to the principle of procedural justice to address the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights to land and resources in Malaysia. The principle is relevant in Malaysian common law which also subjects matters affecting fundamental liberties to procedural justice. Comparative perspectives provide models for practical applications of indigenous peoples’ rights. They assist policy analysis through learning from the successes and failures of other jurisdictions in improving legal reform.

The Strain of Procedural Injustice in Parole among Former Prisoners: A Test with a Mixed-Gender Sample

The concept of procedural justice has been examined in a plethora of studies that encompass topics from citizens’ trust in police to their wiliness to obey the law. However, extant research has not moved beyond “if” procedural justice matters to “why” procedural justice matters. What’s more, the concept of procedural justice, though received substantial attention in policing studies, has not been explored sufficiently in the correctional context in general and in parole efficacy in particular. This study examines the why questions—the mechanism through which procedural injustice in parole can influence the reentry outcomes of released prisoners. Using longitudinal data from a mixed-gender sample of released prisoners, we test the applicability of strain mechanism on procedural injustice and disentangle the nexus of procedural injustice, negative emotions and reentry success. Additionally, we test the gendered effects of negative emotions. Findings indicate that the strain of procedural injustice on respondents is positively associated with an increase in criminal propensity, and depression mediates this relationship. Additionally, we find that the interplay of gender and negative emotions affects respondents’ criminal propensity and substance use.

The Mirage of Procedural Justice and the Primacy of Interactional Justice in Organizations

This paper offers a novel situational approach to study organizational justice in which the proposed unit of analysis is managerial behavior manifested in argumentation rather than employee justice perceptions. The currently dominant theoretical framework in justice research, which is built on justice perceptions, neglects the unique features of organizational order and vulnerability of procedural justice perceptions. As the procedural justice concept belongs chiefly to a spontaneous market order under which the rule of law is made possible, it is inappropriate to transfer this concept to an organization in which the rule of authority is dominant. Therefore, except the limited legal domain in which managerial freedom is restrained by laws, procedural justice in organizations represents a mirage that can give rise to hypocritical managerial actions that can legitimate morally controversial outcomes via eristic tactics. In contrast, interactional justice is of great importance to organizations in that employees and organizations can ensure their rational economic exchanges without deception. However, current formulations of interactional justice often regard interactions as a palliative recipe designed to alleviate reactions to outcomes and not as a constituent of distributive justice. Perelman’s argumentation theory can offer a new conceptualization of interactional justice that addresses this gap.

Equity in tourism development: procedural (in)justice and distributive justice in Mongolia, East Asia

This paper considers procedural justice and distributive justice as a means of examining equity in tourism development. The geographical focus of the paper is Mongolia - historically a unitary sovereign socialist state in East Asia that, in common with Central Asian republics and in contrast to other parts of the eastern sub-region of the Asian continent (China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan), has been shaped by Stalinist Soviet Union policies. This particular context is interesting not only in terms of consolidation of power, and economic, political and social transition, but also with respect to the nature of material wealth and livelihood options. Equity in tourism development in two rural Mongolian regions is explored with specific reference to the concepts of procedural justice and distributive justice. Drawing on political ecology and actor-oriented approaches, the paper considers equity from the perspectives of five actor groups: local grassroots, people in two geographical areas; private sector tourism operators; Government officials; International Development Organisations and academics; and NGOs. Three periods of fieldwork were conducted, providing qualitative interview data, complemented by non-participant observations, and secondary data. Framework analysis is applied as an analytic induction tool. Five emergent themes are discussed here relating to procedural (in)justice and distributive justice. Inequity was perceived to be rooted more strongly in the processes of tourism development rather than in the outcomes but the inter-related nature of process and outcome, linked to opportunities and capabilities, is noted (Sen, 1984; 1992; 1999).

WHY PROCEDURAL JUSTICE DOES NOT EXIST

Since the middle of the last century the interest in the naturally-legal research has been restored, and then intensified. At that time, there appeared new concepts advocating for the existence of different types of justice (corporate, solidarity, organisational, international, etc.) including procedural justice. The best-known advocates of the concepts of the existence of procedural justice were J. Rawls and O. Hffe, and later L. Fuller, H. Hart, R. Dworkin, P. Koller, M. Van den Bos and others. However, the aim of this work is not to support the idea of the existence of procedural justice suggested by the above writers, but rather to challenge it. This will be shown by referring to the obvious: justice is synonymous with truth, and not with rightness, on which the above writers develop the concept of procedural justice. Truthfulness is related to what exists, and rightness to the proper and accurate performance of appropriateprocedures. Otherwise, founding of procedural justice in truthfulness would be a kind of contradictio in adjecto arising from the confusion between justice and procedurality. The two terms are related but not similar, therefore truthfulness and rightness do not coincide, and nor do justice and law. Something that is truthful need not be righteous. And vice versa, something that is righteous need not be truthful. Apparently, it has to do with the relationship between the objective (truthfulness, justice and fairness) and the means (rightness, correctness, accuracy, reliability, etc., in a word, solidity). This relationship between truthfulness and rightness depicts rightness , first of all, as the means of the proper application of law, and only after that as the means of possible achievement of fairness in law. Of justice therein can be no mention. The aforesaid relationship shows another thing: only substantive legal rules can be just, while this cannot be the case with procedural rules. The consideration of the relationship of truthfulness and rightness in the example of the actually existing justice and the actually non-existent procedural justice, raises yet another important question: the relationship between material (substantive) and formal (procedural) legal rules. As it is rendered impossible to clearly and fully delineate them, thus are substantive rules relating to procedures declared the procedural, and all that only to acquire for procedural rules and positive law the aureole of justice. This cannot be accepted as correct because, for example, the principle of impartiality or the principle of fairness, which are wrongly considered procedural, indeed belong to substantive law. In still a deeper shade lies the question of the relationship between natural law and positive law. It seems that the insistence on the existence of procedural justice can beregarded as the belated response of the members of positivist jurisprudence. Strange enough, that the existence of procedural justice is advocated by the writers who originally belonged to the direction of naturally-legal jurisprudence. It seems that both the former and the latter aim at showing positive law as just. Only in this case, it is not a construct but a simulacrum. It must be hard to believe in any authority as truth instead in truth as the only authority. Between the truthfulness of justice and the rightness of procedure lies fairness as the place of occasional meeting of justice and procedure. Therefore, procedural justice does not exist, but justice exists, though it is not procedural, and nor is fairness. Procedure is the only righteous means of law, but law is not the only righteous means of justice.

Community interpreters’ experiences of police investigative interviews: how might interpreters’ insights contribute to enhanced procedural justice?

ABSTRACTProcedural justice refers to fairness in police dealings with members of the public. By facilitating communication between the police and people with whom they do not share a common language, interpreters assist policing organisations to provide fair and equitable services for all members of the community. Yet research findings suggest that interpreters’ presence, behaviour, and interpreting choices can negatively impact the fairness of police investigative interviews. To contribute to enhanced procedural justice in interpreted investigative interviews, this study explores the under-researched topic of interpreters’ perceptions of such interviews. Twenty community interpreters from diverse languages participated in interviews, in line with the procedural justice concept of voice. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts revealed interpreters’ perception that effective interpreting is impeded both by systemic issues arising from the structure of the interpreting profession and situational aspects of the police interview. Interpreters’ accounts urged police interviewers to develop familiarity with this developing profession and elaborated on what is helpful to them in interpreted police interviews whether on site or via telephone. Practical strategies for police interviewers to assist interpreters include familiarising them with interview rooms, giving advance briefings to prepare for emotional content, allowing time to check infrequently used words, and debriefing at the conclusion. Overall, the findings indicate some practical ways in which the procedural justice goals of neutrality, respectful treatment, and trustworthiness may be enhanced in interpreted investigative interviews. Further research is needed to assess the impacts of these suggestions on procedural justice outcomes in practice.

ISTRIA’S ARTISTIC AND SPIRITUAL HERITAGE IN ABEYANCE: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY RIGHTS

This article deals with the contested status of two groups of cultural objects – a collection of priceless artworks, and fifteen church bells – originating from Istria, precisely from the present-day territory of the Slovenian and Croatian Littorals, and preserved in Italy since the turbulent, tragic times of the Second World War. It argues that the ownership title to such objects does not lie at the centre of the current controversy between Slovenia (and potentially Croatia) and Italy. Instead, it seems that the fundamental issue in this regard refers to the recognition and realization of cultural community rights to such heritage, affected by political, territorial and ethnic transformations. This article discusses various international legal regimes that might be applicable in this case of Istria’s contested cultural heritage, with special focus on the enhancement of cultural human rights and international cultural cooperation. It also touches upon the concept of procedural justice, built on the principles of participation, voice and transparency, which are perceived as crucial in negotiating and managing cultural heritage matters and controversies.