Which of the following is true when comparing distributive and procedural justice

2.1 Direct Experience

The procedural justice literature documents the importance of direct personal experience in shaping the public's views of law and legal authorities. Most citizens have had direct contact with the police; some have had contact with lawyers; fewer have participated in trials; and only a minority have direct experience with the penal system.

For many citizens, jury service is their major (or only) direct experience with the court system. Diamond (1993) has reviewed survey evidence on the effects of jury service on public attitudes, finding that a majority of jurors provide positive evaluations of the jury system, and of the legal system, after their service. Most jurors say their attitudes became more favorable than before their service, and attitudes are more favorable among those who are selected for a jury than among those who serve but are not seated.

2.4 Principles Underpinning HTA Processes

The concepts of distributional and procedural justice are both relevant to HTA. Distributional justice concerns the fair allocation of health and healthcare in society. It is therefore related to the fairness of decisions and the criteria underpinning them. Procedural justice concerns fairness in the processes that lead to the allocation of resources. It is particularly important when it is difficult to agree on how health care should be distributed, such as when subsidy decisions might affect access to medicines and other health technologies. The importance of procedural justice has been highlighted in the context of HTA and related decision-making (Rawlins,2005).

Daniels and Sabin’s ‘Accountability for Reasonableness’ framework has been popularly cited as supporting fair decision-making around priority setting in healthcare, including in access to high cost medicines (Daniels and Sabin,1997; Daniels,2000; Daniels and Sabin,2002; Hasman and Holm,2005; Daniels and Sabin,2008). Their framework is underpinned by four principles which if followed promote fair decision-making: publicity, reasons, appeals, and enforcement. The principles of procedural justice are often mirrored in the policy frameworks underpinning HTA. For example, according to the Australian Government, HTA processes in Australia are intended to be sustainable, transparent, accountable and independent, consultative and reflective of Australian community values, administratively efficient, flexible and fit for purpose, and informed by robust and relevant evidence (DHA,2011).

However, achieving these principles in health technology decisions may be challenging in practice. Publicity is linked to transparency, which has been questioned, particularly where information and evidence underlying a decision may be commercial in confidence, as can be the case for processes involving pharmaceuticals (Stafinski etal.,2011). Appeals are possible, but often relate to the process and not the decision, and are not available in all jurisdictions (Stafinski etal.,2011). Appeal mechanisms have sometimes been criticised for not being independent from the decision-making authority (Stafinski etal.,2011).

Timeliness of the HTA process and/or limitations in the available evidence, which potentially lead to delays in access to technologies, has also created a challenge for policy makers (Stafinski etal.,2011). The average duration from lodgement to listing of a request to consider funding of a medical service in Australia has been reported to be as high as 30 months (range 19–48 months) (O’Malley,2010), likely contributing to the rationale for a review of HTA processes in Australia (DHA,2009). Access or Coverage with Evidence Development (AED or CED) and risk sharing schemes have been introduced in some HTA processes to provide interim funding with requirement for evidence development in an attempt to avoid delays in access (Owen etal.,2008; O’Malley,2010). The former has most often been introduced to support decisions around non-pharmaceutical technologies, the latter for pharmaceuticals (Stafinski etal.,2011).

12.5.1.1 Overall results

Fig. 12.11 shows the mean values of the desirability and suitability of the three meetings.

Fig. 12.11 shows that the participants rated the meeting highly in the order of congruence of purpose>procedural justice>goal deviation for the desirability and suitability items. Furthermore, Figs. 12.12 and 12.13 show the order of meeting desirability and meeting satisfaction in the control group of Experiment 1.

From the abovementioned figures, it was found that the desirability of the meeting was highly evaluated in the order of congruence of purpose>procedural justice>goal deviation. As for the satisfaction of the meeting, the order of evaluation was goal matching>goal deviation>procedural justice.

Abstract

In the previous chapter, we examined the group decision experiment where three conditions were established: the procedural justice condition, in which bad decisions are made because rules are too important; the goal deviation condition, in which discussion are deviated from the purpose; and the goal matching condition, in which discussions are conducted in accordance with the goals. The participants were asked to evaluate the decision process after viewing the video of group decision meeting. The experiment in this chapter examined whether participants who observe the group decision process can notice when the outcome of a decision is unreasonable. In the present study, it was suggested that the participants were able to make adequate judgments about the meeting process and to detect the irrational group decision-making process.

2.3.4 Chinese legal culture: continuity and change

Chinese legal culture continues to reflect competing currents. Traditional values remain strong. Many Chinese remain unwilling to take their disputes to courts, choosing to rely on personal relationships or to defer to authority. In the courts, concern for procedural justice is weak. Bureaucrats continue to want to enjoy broad discretion. At the same time, the extensive social and economic changes sparked by reform have promoted consciousness of legal rights and willingness to use legal processes to assert such rights. Lawsuits against government agencies are increasing, although they remain relatively small in number, and peasant and worker protests often invoke published laws and policies to resist official behavior that they consider to be unjust. Some Chinese legal scholars, officials and intellectuals have called for a legal system with a national and autonomous judiciary that applies standards of procedural fairness. Some economic actors in the non-state sector desire stronger protection of their transactions by rules enforced meaningfully and consistently by the power of the Chinese state. Despite the resistance of the CCP to the growth of civil society, the continuing development of non-state economic activity, the strength of communal traditions and the tenacity of some nongovernmental organizations in Chinese society could combine to advance the development of legal consciousness.

Crime and Crime Control in the New Millenium

Recent research in community policing has studied the impact of relationships between communities and the police. Community policing advocates look at crime as a social problem affecting life in that community. Therefore, community policing aims to build community and prevent crime by having the community play a more active role with the police and become more empowered. The hope too is that by participating in policing efforts, neighbors will form stronger social bonds with each other, which will improve life in that community by improving informal social controls and diminishing fear of crime.

Unfortunately, the promise of stronger neighborhood bonds remains unrealized as for a variety of reasons, chief among them being community members’ general reluctance to participate and police hesitation in embracing the different roles and attitudes important for community policing. Nonetheless, efforts to increase community participation in policing continue, as do initiatives to improve police relationships with residents.

The once-popular broken-windows theory of community crime control hypothesized that cracking down on ‘quality of life’ offenses like littering and graffiti would forestall more serious offenses because evidence suggests that high crime neighborhoods have high levels of disorder. Broken-windows policing was adopted by certain American police forces, most notably those in New York City, but enthusiasm has waned as this very expensive mode of policing has not been empirically demonstrated to affect crime rates.

More promising is a growing body of social science scholarship focusing on the importance of an individual’s experience of justice in relating to the police and the courts. Justice is seen as having two distinct aspects, namely distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice has to do with whether a participant feels the outcome was fair. Procedural justice, on the other hand, involves the participants’ sense of whether the procedures leading to the outcome were fair. Several studies indicate that procedural justice diminishes criminal offending.

Procedural justice has certain key components: people perceive the decision making as neutral, rule based, and consistent; they feel their rights are acknowledged, and that they are treated with dignity and respect; and parties to the conflict have an opportunity to participate in solving the conflict. Advocates of the procedural justice theory believe that procedural justice has a value to people that is independent of the outcome of the enforcement. They theorize that where procedures are perceived as fair and fairly applied, people are more likely to see police and court authorities as legitimate and therefore entitled to cooperation and compliance. In addition, seeing the rules followed and being treated with respect may also solidify the participants’ sense of being in a relationship with the other participants and therefore with their community. This theory suggests that people may be more likely to conform with community’s norms when they feel like a valued member of the community.

Restorative justice is another community-oriented crime control theory. Drawing on the justice processes of premodern and non-Western societies, restorative justice advocates see it as a way to enhance contemporary adversarial criminal justice systems. With restorative justice, those who have been injured have the opportunity to tell the offender about that injury and its consequences, and the offender has the opportunity to make amends and obtain forgiveness and reconciliation. Restorative justice rejects retribution, instead concentrating on fixing problems and healing the community. By the same token, restorative justice aspires to develop and reaffirm community members’ sense of obligation to each other. It also enhances truth seeking by making reconciliation contingent upon cooperation with the process’s effort to identify and understand what happened. As people become focused on correcting mistakes and finding workable solutions rather than on punishment, all participants are more committed to discerning the truth rather than denying responsibility. Restorative justice is also seen as profoundly democratic because members of the community become responsible for addressing the problems in their community, rather than delegating them to legal professionals. James L. Gibson’s research into South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s contribution to racial reconciliation postapartheid is one example of empirical work on restorative justice that looks at these questions.

Restorative justice initiatives have been criticized. Empirical studies question some of its theoretical claims of effectiveness in reducing crime and victimization. Bureaucratization threatens the emotional depth of the process, and some raise concerns about power imbalances among the participants. Nonetheless, restorative justice is a growing global movement even within highly adversarial criminal justice systems.

6 Why Do People Care About Justice?

The question of why people care about justice received different answers in different social psychological theories. One group of theorists assume that people are concerned about justice because it serves their self-interest of maximizing their outcomes in the long run. For instance, equity theorists (Walster et al. 1978) proposed that social systems develop rules of justice, and induce members to follow these rules, because this can maximize collective outcomes. People expect others to follow the rules and follow the same rules themselves as long as it is in their interest to do so. Early theorizing on procedural justice (Thibaut and Walker 1975) argued in a similar way. People care about fair procedures, and regard procedures that give them control over outcomes to be fairer, because they help them to maximize their outcomes in the long run. The relational or group-value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler 1988, Tyler and Lind 1992) provides an alternative perspective. According to this theory, people are concerned about their position in groups. They use experiences with their treatment by authorities as a source of information about their position. The evidence that they are treated justly indicates that they are regarded as valuable and worthy members of the group. This has positive implications for their self-esteem and self-worth. While providing different explanations of people's caring about justice, due to instrumental concerns about outcomes versus relational concerns about group status, both groups of theorists regard justice as a means rather than an end in itself. Other authors criticize that these views do not capture the essential feature of justice as a moral ought. Without denying that justice may be used as an instrumental means, they argue that justice often is an end in itself. People are motivated intrinsically to behave justly, and sometimes act in ways which are not in line with self-interested motives and maximizing own outcomes. Future justice research will have to consider, and try to integrate, the different theoretical positions and analyze the conditions which stimulate the two manifestations of justice concerns in people's conduct and thinking.

13.3.1 Sourcing and Positioning

In the early stages of formation and development, most organizations will be populated entirely by relatives and close friends, and others within the founders’ networks. For this reason, there is typically very little need to advertise in newspapers and so forth. Network recruiting is perceived as beneficial for all parties involved. For the organization concerned, there is little need to look at professional qualifications, aptitude or track record, or education, nor with wasting time and resources going through a selection process. Rather, the company will just select individuals based on the trust intrinsic to network request/recommendations—eg, for the sensitive cashier role, there may be no concern for accountancy qualifications, so long as they are proficient in bookkeeping, or were even just numerically proficient at school.

This is both quick and effective, so much so that a boss may ask existing staff to ask around if they have a friend for that position they could refer. One organization we know has also recently taken to sourcing Myanmar engineers based in Singapore on the basis of offering a similar salary with lower living costs and ‘home’ residence. But it’s not just any Burmese engineers being tapped, only from those within network of a close friend of the controlling family, somebody who had already recommended one individual from this groups and with whom the family were ‘delighted’ and anxious to secure additional recruits.

For the ‘suppliers’—typically the parents or friends of the candidate concerned—it may also be beneficial in that it will help them in the uncertain period following graduation during when it may be difficult to find suitable employment. Unlike in Western culture, in Myanmar it is still traditional for parents to secure employment for their children. But if you know somebody senior at an organization, you can request them to appoint your children or relatives, or children of friends even. You can also, as one participant phrased it ‘…check your boss for your friend to get a job, because according to Burmese business culture, we must help each other even not your relatives…’. For the government/civil service sector, the importance of the right contacts here cannot be overstated. It has become commonplace for highly positioned military government officials people requested to appoint their children and relatives at the department of their liking. This has also, increasingly, spilled over into the private sector where they are often ‘placed’ inside a company.

Unsurprisingly, the company has to accept even if sure it does not have any suitable vacancy, no choice if they want to remain in business. An army chief may ask his son or daughter—or the son and daughter of an associate, or relative or such—what position they would like to get. And of course, the major consideration is one which will entail most benefits/power, even if there is no such position available, or in existence and it has to be created especially for the purpose. In this context ‘western’ notions of distributive or procedural justice are not only nonexistent, but almost unthinkable. This is not to say that among the individuals involved there will be none without the qualifications and attitude and—yes—contacts to succeed. But, at least according to our participants, there are very few cases like this and, more often than not, where qualifications and documents are required they tend to be fabricated. One respondent recounted that:

to get a government job my father asked and checked his friends and family. I had never heard of the position offered and I was told that this was because it was reserved or ‘VIP kids’ only. It was a good job in that there was no need to go anywhere else other than in head office in Rangoon, the perks were good and included several foreign trips and also there was not so much to do so that I could also study at the same time for my Master’s entrance exam….

Another spoke of a friend of hers who’d once been married to the son of a government minister. During the parent-arranged courtship the suitor:

…was working at one company as a Director, this is what his parents had told my parents, as well as me as well. After marriage I realized that the position was a fake one, that it had all been about adding to his nominal value as prospective husband, and also to look good on the wedding invitation card for his family’s ‘face’. This he finally confessed to when I asked him, and he added the reason of looking to get from that company as they owed a favour to his father for giving them a project in years gone by…I found out that though he would go there every day in actual fact he was not really working, just messing around all day, not even sure exactly what he was doing at office all day…I was shocked so I told him to quit that job and do something else instead because it was clearly just nonsense…

Examples of Measures Used in Organizational Behavior

Table I presents examples of multiple item scales capturing various types of employee attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and behaviors that are widely used in measuring employee perceptions concerning organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational justice, job stress, and workplace behaviors. These particular measures have been used in multiple research studies that were published in the 1990s in 15 peer-reviewed organizational behavior research journals.

Table I. Examples of Organizational Behavior Measures

The measures illustrated in Table I describe employee perceptions that are frequently of interest in the field of organizational behavior. For example, organizational commitment has been defined as a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in an organization. Other various definitions reflect three broad themes: (1) commitment reflecting an affective orientation toward the organization, (2) recognition of costs associated with leaving the organization, and (3) the moral obligation to remain with an organization. The concept of job satisfaction is defined as an employee's affective reactions to her or his job based on comparing actual outcomes with desired outcomes. Job satisfaction is generally recognized as a multifaceted construct covering both intrinsic and extrinsic job elements. Organizational justice is measured through a process by which employees judge fairness in the workplace by comparing the equity of their inputs and outcomes to the perceived inputs and outcomes of their co-workers. One aspect of organizational justice is the distributive justice, a summary judgment about the fairness in distribution of pay, promotions, and other incentives. Another is procedural justice, focused on the process of how reward decisions are made.

Measures of job stress tend to recognize the fact that stress does not reside solely in the environment or solely in the individual, but is established when the interactions between the two are appraised as demanding enough to threaten personal well being. Employee workplace behavior can be generally characterized as either contributing to organizational goals or contributing to the employee's occupational control. A good deal of attention has been devoted to work behavior that is sometimes beyond the reach of traditional definitions of job performance, because these “organizational citizenship behaviors” may contribute to organizational innovation, flexibility, and responsiveness to changing external conditions.

An example of an organization level measure is a three-item measure of the tendency for an organization to be innovative. The items making up the measure were originally designed for a study of hospitals, but are presented here as general statements. The statements are formatted as follows: “(a) This [type of organization] is a little behind in utilizing the most adequate equipment and medicines. (b) This [type of organization] has not introduced any new methods and techniques. (c) This [type of organization] is very behind in the application of new administrative techniques.” The responses from organizational members are collected using a five-point scale ranging from 1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree. The use of this type of measure within an organization or group requires identification of an appropriate set of respondents who have been working in the organization long enough to have adequate information about innovative tendencies. These individuals are referred to as “key informants” about the organization. Once collected, the responses from these informants are evaluated in terms of the level of agreement. High levels of agreement and small variations in the responses to the three items would suggest that the measure provides a reliable assessment of the organization's innovativeness. Several different measures can be used to assess agreement among raters. These include the percentage of raters whose responses are the same value (using a Likert-type response with limited choices of responses), the average interitem correlation across raters and the intraclass correlation produced in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure.

The measures described here are designed to be completed as part of a questionnaire or survey, or administered as part of an interview. Measures of this sort can be “closed end,” whereby the respondent must choose one of several predefined response options. It is also possible to measure variables in organizational behavior using “open-ended” questions, whereby a respondent can compose an answer using their own words. These types of measures are somewhat difficult to interpret and cannot be evaluated from a reliability point of view because each person's response may be unique.

Ad Hoc Criminal Trials

In the absence of a permanent international criminal court, the UN has been influential in ensuring that human rights violations do not go unnoticed and unpunished as most war crimes have over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Two examples where the UN has stepped in and created ad hoc tribunals include the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR); these are both discussed below.