Abstract
When criminal defendants appear before their court hearings, are they concerned only with the outcomes of their cases or also with the fairness of the procedure? Which aspects of procedures make defendants feel treated fairly? And are there circumstances under which procedures that are perceived as unfair may have nice
... read more
aspects? These questions were central to the current research. The overarching research aim was to subject perceived procedural justice to a critical test.
Previous studies have often found a fair process effect: a positive association between perceived procedural justice and important other variables, such as trust in judges. In addition, studies in organizational and laboratory contexts indicate that the fair process effect may sometimes be attenuated or even reversed. People then respond less positively or even negatively to perceived procedural justice. This has to do with people’s need to protect their self-esteem by attributing negative outcomes to external causes. Unfair procedures offer more opportunities for making such external attributions than fair procedures. Hence, unfair procedures may have nice aspects, especially when people feel strongly evaluated.
The current research examines the importance of perceived procedural justice, and the possibility of an attenuated or reversed fair process effect, in the context of criminal cases. First, qualitative interviews with 100 defendants in single judge criminal cases examined whether defendants mention aspects of procedural justice themselves and, if so, which aspects they mention. The large majority of respondents mentioned aspects of procedural justice themselves at some point during the interview, and in particular perceived neutrality appeared to play a central role in this regard.
Second, a survey was conducted among 198 defendants with a non-western ethnic-cultural background involved in single judge criminal cases. The underlying idea was that some of them might feel negatively evaluated by society in the sense of perceived discrimination, which could make them respond differently to perceived procedural justice. The results showed that perceived procedural fairness was significantly associated with how defendants judged their outcomes, the extent to which they wanted to protest against their outcomes, their self-esteem, and their trust in Dutch judges. These associations were not attenuated or reversed depending on perceived discrimination.
Third, an experiment was conducted among 239 citizens with a non-western ethnic-cultural background who imagined being the defendant during a single judge criminal court hearing. This study assessed external attribution ratings more directly. Procedural justice had a significant effect on outcome judgments, protest intentions, and trust in Dutch judges. An attenuation of the fair process effect was found on only one variable: For participants with relatively high external attribution ratings the effect of procedural justice on trust in judges was not significant.
Collectively these results indicate that perceived procedural justice matters, even when it is subjected to a critical test in the context of criminal cases, during which there may be much at stake for defendants. These results are relevant for judges who want to enhance perceptions of procedural fairness, for example. The final chapter reflects on such possible implications from a normative perspective.
show less
