How Going to Court Affects the Attitudes Towards Courts

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to explore how different types of experiences with courts shape attitudes towards the courts and the justice system, through a secondary analysis of data collected in 2006-2007 using a nationally representative sample of adult urban population of Turkey. Findings indicate that the attitudes of citizens with prior court experience are less positive than attitudes of those with no such experience. It is argued that a negative attitude towards the courts is the outcome of having an experience with the courts, rather than the other way around. It was found that satisfaction with the court experience positively influenced the attitudes towards courts for those who experienced court as civil and criminal plaintiffs, as well as observers and witnesses, while satisfaction with outcomes had same effect for criminal defendants. It is argued that attitudes towards courts are shaped by two components: The stable base which reflects a general and abstract trust in institutions, and a flexible component which is shaped by the nature of the experience and interaction that one has with the courts.

Exploring the Concept of Leadership

“…The above implies that the autocratic leadership style is that in which the leader is full of himself/herself, does not allow any form of questioning from employees or subordinates as the case may be, decision-making role is his/her prerogative and neither requires the participation nor consults with staff in the process and lacks trust and faith in his/her employees. In line with the foregoing insights of this style of leadership, the likely adverse effects it has on subordinates/employees are instability, uneasiness, vulnerability, and general distress, since followers' impression of such leadership behaviours is that they stand a high level of peril that the leader can abuse the power reliance irregularity in etiquettes that are risky to followers (Akdeniz, Kalem, 2020). Furthermore, followers/subordinates end up hypocritical in the services they render.…”

Victim Care or Defendant Rights? Assessing Public Attitudes towards Special Measures Designed to Support Vulnerable Witnesses at Trial

“…Research also suggests that attitudinal variables may be even more efficient at assessing CJS opinion than demographics alone (Flanagan et al 1985;Lieberman and Krauss 2016). Attitudes regarding the treatment of victims and defendants are shown to be influenced by beliefs about the relative importance of procedural and distributive justice (Akdeniz and Kalem 2020;Lucas et al 2011). Distributive justice and procedural justice refer to differing approaches toward social justice that can be applied to the CJS (Cohen 1986).…”

Constitutional Design And the Perceived Legitimacy Of Court Systems: Evidence From Cross-National Time Series Data

“…Similarly, Hansen (2017) in his study of trust in the judiciary in the UK finds that crime rates directly affect the trust in court. Other such single country studies in the Netherlands (Grootelaar and van den Bos, 2018), Russia (Hendley, 2016), China (Wu, 2014), Zambia (Kerr and Wahman, 2021), Turkey (Akdeniz and Kalem, 2020) and the Czech Republic (Urban, 2014) also highlight how differences in context can affect public support for the judiciary.…”