Wednesday, February 18, 2015

procedural fairness the cornerstone of legitimate social control

proceduralfairness |  The theory behind procedural fairness, or procedural justice as it is sometimes called, has developed over a period of more than 25 years. Tom Tyler, one of the key figures in the field of procedural fairness, provides a concise overview for members of the court community in his article "Procedural Justice and the Courts."

In a recent lecture, Professor Tyler further explores and highlights the implications of procedural fairness on several aspects of the justice system.

Judges Kevin Burke and Steve Leben authored an extensive white paper on procedural fairness entitled, "Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction." The paper examines core research in the area and recommends various changes to "improve" the daily work of the courts and their judges. Click here to access the spanish version of the paper. 

In a December 2011 presentation to the Conference of State Court Administrators, Judge Kevin Burke presented an overview of procedural fairness and its practical applications. A copy of the powerpoint from his presentation can be found here.

Other scholars have explored the connection between procedural fairness and other areas of research. The article Fair Procedures, Yes. But We Dare Not Lose Sight of Fair Outcomes by Brian Bornstein and Hannah Dietrich discusses procedural justice and its interrelation with distributive justice. Similarly, Jonathan Jackson discusses procedural justice as an important aspect of criminology's definition of legitimate authority in his chapter, On the Dual Motivational Force of Legitimate Authority.

An Argument for Procedural Fairness
 Professor Tom Tyler's presentation to a 2007 Harvard Law School Conference focuses on how legitimacy, which is rooted in procedural justice, is important in decisions to adhere to social rules. The presentation is broken into three parts below:


Vic78 said...

I gave up explaining race issues to conservative whites when I was 19. I accepted they were cultural dead weight. It's maddening to see these scholars and pundits punch the same brick wall that I gave up on as a kid. All that wasted intellect and resources would be better spent selling viable solutions that take conservative stupidity into account. Dude sounds like a bitch right now. "They listened to Comey but won't listen to Obama." Seriously, fuck those people.

If Joe's so badass, why won't he run for President? It's been an open field for two cycles now. He's held elected office and it shouldn't be too taxing on him to get on the road. He's just another tough talking bitch with his chest out.

CNu said...

Wish I could find this article in html instead of pdf with a bunch of formatting I'd have to edit just in order to copy and paste. Legal authorities and the public live in two separate worlds. One world is suffused with law, and the
other world is suffused with people’s lived experiences that support
their evaluations of fairness. When legal authorities discuss whether police policies and practices are desirable or not, a framework of the lawfulness of the relevant policies and practices dominates the conversation. Police departments, their policies, as well police
officers’ actions are viewed as right or wrong with reference to
constitutional standards, as interpreted by prosecutors, judges and
other legal actors. In contrast, we argue that the public is generally
insensitive to the question of whether police officers are acting consistently with constitutional standards. Instead, the public evaluates the propriety of police actions primarily by assessing whether or not police officers exercise their authority consistent with “procedural fairness.”Joe insists on labeling and stereotyping and the president is "intellectually flabby" for not getting on that bandwagon.

Pookie just seems desperate for a little dab of honorary whiteness, i.e., Comey said the right stuff, gave all us respectable negroes a pat on the head for respectability politics, why y'all ain't respond to your boy?!?!?! Why you ain't respond to Preznit Obama and AG Holder when they said the exact same things?

Stomping his little Paul Smith clad hoof, "It's not fair!"

ken said...

"Joe insists on labeling and stereotyping and the president is "intellectually flabby" for not getting on that bandwagon."

Would you the discussion about Bush's intelligence when he was president is also sterotyping, and if not, what is the factors that make it different than how you are describing Obama's critics?

CNu said...

Can anyone name me a well-known Democrat, in modern history, who has
ever developed a poplar media image as being stupid or dimwitted?

ken said...

So had Obama been a republican it wouldn't be stereotyping? I think many considered Carter incompetent.

CNu said...

lol, had Obama catered to Joes demand that he stereotype muslims or islam, that would have been unintelligent.

Carter was a nuclear engineer. Had Americans heeded his call to energy efficiency - just search him on this site.

Vic78 said...

Joe's jealous of the President. Joe knows that he won't even make it through the primaries. And if he somehow won, the Democrat would dispatch him easily. I can just look at the clip and tell he's a fish.

Vic78 said...

It wasn't stereotyping. Bush cultivated his image to appeal to the rubes. Many on the left went after him for it. His image served to make his base comfortable with him and made pushing his agenda easier than it would've been had people believed he was devious.

Tom said...

Clinton was viewed as a dumb guy by a lot of people. Funny thing is he's probably the one other president we've had in my adult life who's as smart as Obama.

No, wait, Bush's dad seemed bright too.

CNu said... How did politics in the US come to be
dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity
that has permitted mankind's closest living relative to spend two terms
as president? How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering
numbskulls get to where they are? How could Republican rallies in 2008
be drowned out by screaming ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama was a
Muslim and a terrorist?

Like most people on my side of the
Atlantic, I have for many years been mystified by American politics. The
US has the world's best universities and attracts the world's finest
minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and
power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the
developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning
is a grave political disadvantage.

One theme is both familiar and
clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you
stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian
fundamentalism is vast and growing.

But there were other, more
powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists.
The US is peculiar in devolving the control of education to local
authorities. Teaching in the southern states was dominated by the views
of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf
opened up. "In the south", Jacoby writes, "what can only be described as
an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas
that might threaten the social order."

The Southern Baptist
Convention, now the biggest denomination in the US, was to slavery and
segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South
Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the south stupid.
In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a
system of private Christian schools and universities. A student can now
progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to
secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the
public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University
of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state's state school
biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the
same time. White nationalist party has prided itself on ignorance and stupidity for a very long time now.

ken said...

You didn't ask if he accomplished anything, many considered Carter an incompetent president and he was democrat. I noticed Carter, at least from the perspective here, also threw some ad hominems Barak's way.

ken said...

Already has of course...

Looks like its a must for all....

CNu said...

yeah...., no. Jesuit educated Georgetown, Oxford, Yale Law - nobody viewed the slickster as dumb, his personal magnetism was/is exceptional and it was something he honed and focused like few others. The militia cats and proto-teatardials were hip to his game though, in fact, they pretty much declared war on him in a manner still not rivaled under Obama.

CNu said...

Um no Ken. The Hon.Bro.Preznit has no pretensions toward a very specific and toxic form of signification. Him putting a hat on his head is mostly indistinguishable from him wearing his mommy jeans and flubbing a first pitch. It's decidedly unnatural and not intended to establish good ole boy bona fides in black face.

CNu said...

lol, you're no Jimmy Carter Ken, and your elders and betters are entitled to their sour grapes. Worst case, Carter isn't parroting anything he's heard on talk radio or looking upskirt at faux news.

That said, he has personal beef with the mullahs because they brought about his greatest embarrassment, the Hon.Bro.Preznit carts no such impractical baggage. Further, Carter has a deeply vested stake in the outcome in Israel, once again, an idiosyncratic hole in his bucket. Like Roosevelt, Pres. Obama is not beholden to Israel for a damn thing and Israel has negative practical value for U.S. foreign policy.

Only cowboys, yahoos, and dingalings running around cheerleading for that unsustainable apartheid theocracy...,

CNu said...

Poppy was the old-line establishment keeping its hand on the tiller under the regional power-sharing glow of the arch rube himself

Tom said...

It's a puzzling fact. Maybe regional prejudice. People called him Bubba up here.

CNu said...

Dood, he's in Westchester County. Those cats upstate worried about whether he might bump into their wives/daughters....,

Tom said...

lol yeah Connecticut's looking better and beter

makheru bradley said...

(1) Joe Biden

stephendavion said...

As the oil prices are dumping to the lowest in 10 years ( correct me if I am wrong ) .. why cant they maintain a constant value??? say 65$ fixed irrespective of the oil production ... that way we can save some companies going bankrupt and laying off many jobs in northern sea ( BP ) .... A month back we saw a sharp dipping of oil prices below the $50 but past few days oil prices got some momentum and reached $62+ place .... but stock data from US shown increased level crude oil forced the prices to push down to below $61 .. this inconstancy is helpful for some countries which are importing crude oil but its no good to the countries which are producing ....

Vic78 said...

Where do they find these shmucks? That guy's embarrassing. Will their handlers figure out their tokens are playing them?

CNu said...

What are consumers seeing at the fuel pump in India?

Ed Dunn said...

Al Sharpton...

This What You Want To Do?!?!?!?! - Reap The Whirlwind....,