Examining changes in procedural justice and their influence on problem‐solving court outcomes

Dollar, Cindy Brooks; Ray, Bradley; Hudson, Mary Kay; Hood, Brittany J.

doi:10.1002/bsl.2329

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is relatively little research on procedural justice and it is not conclusivefor instance, Atkin-Plunk and Armstrong (2016) find no relationship between procedural justice and drug court graduation or recidivism. Dollar et al (2018) find similar mixed results noting that perceptions of procedural justice among problem-solving court populations toward judges was more negative than case managers; however, greater procedural justice among justices is associated with better outcomes. Redlich and Han (2014) find that while there is no direct effect of therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health court success in a mediational model, procedural justice was associated with decreases in new arrests and program compliance and increases in rates of graduation.…”

Section: Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 75%

How do drug courts work?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We report the results of a multilevel structural equation model of the Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation that empirically tests theoretical pathways to desistance from drug use and criminal behavior. Methods First, we consider how to operationalize the theoretical mechanisms through which drug court practices are meant to impact outcomes. A path model is proposed that delineates how drug-court practices change perceptions and attitudes, and how these changes subsequently affect drug use and crime. Proposed mediators include changes in court practices (e.g., court appearances, drug testing, and treatment) and psychological mediators, including perceived risk and reward (deterrence), perceived legitimacy (procedural justice), and motivation to change one's behavior through substance abuse treatment. Results Results suggest that one element of procedural justice, the clients' attitude toward the judge, is the most crucial theoretical mediator on the pathway to desistance from drug use and crime. Conclusions Study limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 75%

How do drug courts work?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, procedural justice has been used to guide the development of the problem-solving courts that VTCs are modeled on (McIvor, 2009;Poythress et al, 2002;Rossman et al, 2013). Evidence supports associations between procedural justice and completing mental health court (Dollar et al, 2018) and a decreased likelihood of criminal recidivism in mental health (Wales et al, 2010) and drug treatment courts (Gottfredson et al, 2007).…”

Section: Procedural Justice Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of legal legitimacy in veterans treatment courts: A test of a modified version of procedural justice theory.

Gallagher

Ashford

2021

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Perceptions of the legitimacy of a society's legal system help explain individual responses to courts and legal actors. Normative considerations such as fair and respectful treatment as well as social identification have demonstrated the ability to enhance perceived legal legitimacy and future cooperation. Veterans treatment courts (VTCs) are a rapidly disseminating and understudied intervention. Their targeting of a socially esteemed group presents an interesting venue to explore normative theories of justice. The present study tested a modified version of Tyler's theory of procedural justice in this setting. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that procedural justice, social bonds, and receipt of gratitude for military service would be positively associated with veteran identity and legal legitimacy. We further hypothesized that participants' identification as veterans would mediate the relationships between the three independent variables and legitimacy. Method: A cross-sectional survey design was used with a convenience sample (N = 191) of participants in two VTCs. Analyses controlled for race, ethnicity, recidivism risk, and combat exposure. Results: Perceptions of procedural justice, social bonds, and receipt of gratitude were positively associated with veteran identity and perceptions of legal legitimacy. Further, veteran identity was found to be a significant mediator between the first three constructs and legal legitimacy. Conclusions: The results support the importance of procedural justice in explaining perceptions of legal legitimacy in a novel context that is rapidly proliferating and understudied and has unique social identity considerations. The addition of gratitude and veteran identity to Tyler's model raises implications for VTC practice and further inquiry. Public Significance StatementThe study examined factors associated with perceptions of legal legitimacy in veterans treatment courts (VTCs). Legal legitimacy is important for its association with the prosocial attitudes and behaviors that VTCs strive to increase. The study supported the association between fair treatment, shared veteran status, and being thanked for service with perceived legitimacy. The study underscores how the socially valued veteran identity can further VTC practices and objectives.

show abstract

“…It is possible that courts, which are designed to give laypeople voice either as litigants or jurors, foster fairness (Hamm 2019;Machura 2003). More recent research focusing on specialized, problem-solving courts, for instance, has found that defendants in drug courts and community courts report higher levels of procedural fairness, which reflects the less adversarial, more deliberative design of these settings (Connor 2019;Somers and Holtfreter 2018, see also Dollar, et al 2018;Atkin-Plunk and Armstrong 2016;McIvor 2009).…”

Section: Literature Review Procedural Fairness and Legal Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Civility Matters in Civil Matters: Procedural Justice and Court Legitimacy in the Midst of a Legitimacy Crisis

Burdziej¹,

Guzik²,

Pilitowski³

2021

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The procedural justice thesis that quality of treatment matters more than outcomes in people’s perception of institutional legitimacy is supported by a large body of research. But studies also suggest that distributive justice and the effectiveness of authorities are more important in certain legal settings (civil courts) and national contexts (posttransition societies). This study tests these ideas through a survey of 192 civil litigants in Poland, a postcommunist country where the national judiciary has recently been subject to intense political scrutiny. Our findings support the generalizability of procedural justice, and especially voice, but also demonstrate the significance of outcomes and legal cynicism. We also discuss prior court contact, role (plaintiff versus defendants), and representation (presence of counsel) as potential moderators on litigants’ perceptions of court legitimacy.

show abstract

Examining changes in procedural justice and their influence on problem‐solving court outcomes

Cited by 16 publications

References 37 publications

How do drug courts work?

How do drug courts work?

Perceptions of legal legitimacy in veterans treatment courts: A test of a modified version of procedural justice theory.

How Civility Matters in Civil Matters: Procedural Justice and Court Legitimacy in the Midst of a Legitimacy Crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About