The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems.

Abstract

Two studies provide empirical support for Thibaut and Walker’s (1978) theory that inquisitorial and adversarial dispute resolution systems are associated with different psychological values: the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice. Study 1 suggests that, in civil and criminal disputes, the adversarial system is perceived to produce less truth than it does justice, and less truth than does the inquisitorial system. Conversely, the inquisitorial system is perceived to produce less justice than it does truth, and less justice than does the adversarial system. Study 2 examines how legal outcomes moderate litigants’ perceptions of the truth and justice produced by these dispute resolution systems. Study 2 suggests that perceptions of the truth and justice provided by the adversarial system are highly sensitive to the outcome of the dispute, whereas perceptions of the truth and justice provided by the inquisitorial system are not affected by dispute outcomes. Implications for Thibaut and Walker’s theory are discussed.

Fairness at Trial: The Impact of Procedural Justice and Other Experiential Factors on Criminal Defendants’ Perceptions of Court Legitimacy in Poland

“…Sometimes, indeed, both parties are unhappy, because even those who won did not win as much as they wanted." And this logic is thought to apply even more so in an inquisitorial justice system, which is argued to be more concerned with truth and efficiency than fairness (Anderson and Otto 2003;Sevier 2014). But this is not the case for this sample of criminal defendants in Poland-procedural justice matters more than outcome satisfaction (including the court's ability to establish truth).…”

“…15. Studies of procedural justice have generally been approached from a single methodological approach, statistical analyses of public opinion surveys, and many of these have been based on vignette studies that ask people how they would react to certain legal situations rather than using samples of people with actual legal experience (Tankebe 2013;Sevier 2014). While an ideal methodological approach for collecting random samples of respondents is necessary for rigorous statistical analyses, such surveys are not intended to explore the experiences and opinions of people coming into contact with courts, which other methodological approaches, such as in-depth interviews or observations of authorities in practice, could offer.…”

On Juror Decision Making: An Empathic Inquiry

“…As Frank (1949, p. 87) observed, "One party or the other is always supremely interested in misrepresenting, exaggerating, or suppressing the truth." It has been argued that while sharp clashes of truths presented with adversarial zeal might be a suitable mechanism for debating matters concerning values, principles, and public policy, they are less conducive to the level-headed task of seeking factual truth (Sevier 2014, Thibaut & Walker 1975. The courtroom environment can hinder the factfinding task in five ways.…”

Self-Representation: Pro se Cross-Examination and Revisiting Trauma upon Child Witnesses

“…It is part of the process allowing a defendant Bto be confronted with the witnesses against him^or her (Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution). In addition, in the United States, citizens may also feel that procedural justice is served through crossexamination (Sevier 2014), although surveys reveal public exceptions to that view in the case of child victims (Batterman-Faunce and Goodman 1993). The key purpose of cross-examination has long been framed as truth-finding (Ram 1873).…”