Constructs of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation

Tomkins, Alan J.; Applequist, Kimberly F.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74490-2_13

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals are more likely to accept adverse outcomes and follow unwanted directives when they perceive the procedures used to arrive at those outcomes as procedurally fair (e.g., Hegtvedt, Johnson, Ganem, Waldron, & Brody, 2009;Thibaut & Walker, 1975;Tyler, 2006a), and when they have high trust and confidence in governmental institutions (e.g., Baum, 2006;Gibson, Caldeira, & Spence, 2003. Perceptions of procedural justice have been examined in a range of contexts, both inside and outside the courtroom (e.g., Murphy, 2008;Tomkins & Applequist, 2008;Tyler, 2007), and they have been studied in both experimental and more naturalistic settings (MacCoun, 2005). Studies looking at procedural justice and compliance typically vary (or assess) the level of procedural justice in some proceeding, and then measure its relationship to subsequent compliance (e.g., Barry & Tyler, 2009;Murphy, 2008;Murphy & Tyler, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing courts' failure-to-appear rate by written reminders.

Bornstein¹,

Tomkins²,

Neeley³

et al. 2013

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanor defendants' failure-to-appear (FTA) rates. A subset of defendants was surveyed after their scheduled court date to assess their perceptions of procedural justice and trust and confidence in the courts. Reminders reduced FTA overall, and more substantive reminders (e.g., with information on the negative consequences of FTA) were more effective than a simple reminder. FTA varied depending on several offense and offender characteristics, such as geographic location (urban vs. rural), type of offense, and number of offenses. The reminders were somewhat more effective for Whites and Hispanics than for Blacks. Defendants with higher institutional confidence and those who felt they had been treated more fairly by the criminal justice system were more likely to appear, though the effectiveness of the reminder was greatest among misdemeanants with low levels of trust in the courts. The implications for public policy and pretrial services are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing courts' failure-to-appear rate by written reminders.

Bornstein¹,

Tomkins²,

Neeley³

et al. 2013

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In answer to our second research question concerning the nature of these dimensions, our results extend prior work on how the court is experienced. In particular, our scales include notions of distributive and procedural justice (Tomkins & Applequist, 2008; Tyler & Lind, 2000). These constructs translate roughly into the fairness of the outcome of the proceeding (distributive), and the fairness of the process leading to the outcome (procedural).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These constructs translate roughly into the fairness of the outcome of the proceeding (distributive), and the fairness of the process leading to the outcome (procedural). In their discussion of procedural justice, Tomkins and Applequist (2008) include the construct of voice in this conceptualization, identifying it as a key component of perceived fairness of the court process. The factors described here capture these theoretical elements, but go beyond them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Court Impact Scale

Cattaneo

Dunn

Chapman

2012

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The court system is a central part of the societal response to intimate partner violence (IPV), and is a frequently used source of help for victims. The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence suggests that the court should be evaluated not just for its potential effect on recidivism, but for its impact on the well-being of all those who participate in it, and IPV scholars suggest that empowerment is a key component of any therapeutic intervention for victims. Research in these areas is limited by the lack of a standard method for examining victim experience in the court system. This article describes the development and piloting of a 23-item measure designed to address this gap. The pilot sample included 157 victims of IPV seeking civil protection orders (CPOs). Exploratory factor analysis yielded 5 factors: Negative Impact, Positive Impact, Fear, Validation, and Network Impact. Validation was most strongly correlated with global satisfaction with the court process. Implications and applications for work in therapeutic jurisprudence and empowerment are discussed.

show abstract

“…Scholars suggest individuals’ subjective experiences with the justice system include two key constructs: procedural justice and distributive justice, defined as the perceived fairness of the court process and outcome(s), respectively (Tomkins & Applequist, 2008). Research suggests that when people believe they were treated fairly during a proceeding (procedural justice) and they received a fair outcome (distributive justice), they are more likely to be satisfied with the context in which the proceeding occurred, less likely to reject that context in the future, and more likely to have improved mental health over time (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).…”

Section: Defining Subjective Experiences: Procedural and Distributivementioning

confidence: 99%

The Subjective Court Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Victims: Does Motherhood Matter?

Calton

Grossmann

Cattaneo

2015

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many women with children experience intimate partner violence (IPV). These survivors are particularly important to assist, because countless have complex safety concerns related to their children. Mothers' concerns about their children have been shown to impact their decision making related to abuse, but researchers have not closely explored what happens during mothers' interactions with help sources. This study examined whether women with (n = 98) and without (n = 44) children differ in a) their court experiences through their perceptions of procedural and distributive justice, and b) the context of their lives surrounding the court experience. We also explored the relationship between contextual factors and procedural and distributive justice. Results indicate participants were relatively satisfied with their court experiences, despite experiencing reabuse, danger, and fear throughout court processes. Mothers reported significantly higher levels of distributive justice and contact with the abusive partner than non-mothers. However, mothers did not differ significantly from non-mothers with regard to procedural justice, fear, danger, reabuse or reliance on the abusive partner. Results of multiple regression analyses indicated the interaction between fear and motherhood significantly predicted participants' perceptions of distributive justice, as did the interaction between danger and motherhood. In these interactions, mothers' fear and perceptions of danger were not related to their perception of distributive justice. However, non-mothers who reported higher levels of fear and danger perceived less distributive justice. Results suggest mothers and non-mothers enter the system with similar life contexts, and that these contextual factors impact their perceptions of court outcomes differently.

show abstract

Constructs of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation

Cited by 9 publications

References 37 publications

Reducing courts' failure-to-appear rate by written reminders.

Reducing courts' failure-to-appear rate by written reminders.

The Court Impact Scale

The Subjective Court Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Victims: Does Motherhood Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About