Exploring the Overlap Between Procedural-Justice Principles and Emotion Regulation in the Courtroom
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1068Mots-clés :
Procedural justice, judges, emotion, emotion regulationRésumé
Extensive research shows that adherence to procedural-justice principles by law-enforcement officers and judges leads to greater compliance with orders, a greater sense of the legitimacy, and greater overall satisfaction. The main principles leading to positive views of procedural justice in this research are voice (allowing participants to be heard), neutrality (applying neutral rules transparently), respect (treating participants with dignity while respecting their rights), and trustworthiness (appearing sincere and caring). Separate research on emotion regulation suggests ways in which judges may successfully regulate their own emotions and those of other courtroom participants. Several threads in these separate fields suggest potential overlap and areas for further research. There are many ways in which good procedural-justice practices are also recommended practices for emotion regulation. Scholars in the emerging emotion-regulation field could gain greater awareness of their work by exploring ties to procedural justice, which is more often being included in judicial education.
Téléchargements
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 369
Références
American Judges Association et al., 2018. Bench Card on Procedural Fairness/Procedural Justice [online]. Available from: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-03/procedural_justice_bench_card.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2019].
Burke, K., 2010. Just What Made Drug Courts Successful? New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement [online], 36(1), 39–58. Available from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nejccc36&id=41&collection=journals&index= [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Burke, K., and Leben, S., 2007-2008. Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction. Court Review [online] 44(1/2), 4–24. Available from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/226/ [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Burke, K., and Leben, S., 2009. The Evolution of the Trial Judge from Counting Case Dispositions to a Commitment to Fairness. Widener Law Review [online], 18(2), 397–413. Available from: https://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/11204/2753/The%20Evolution%20of%20the%20Trial%20Judge%20from%20Counting%20Case%20Dispositions%20to%20a%20Commitment%20to%20Fairness.pdf [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Casadonte, A., and Contini, F., 2018. Observing Emotions in Divorce Proceedings. Draft paper presented at the workshop on Judging, Emotion, and Emotion Work, held at the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law, May 3-4.
Casper, J.D., Tyler, T.R., and Fisher, B., 1988. Procedural Justice in Felony Cases. Law and Society Review [online], 22(3), 483–508. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053626 [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Chase, D., and Hora, P.F., 2009. The Best Seat in the House: The Court Assignment and Judicial Satisfaction. Family Court Review [online], 47(2), 209–238. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01250.x [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Conference of State Court Administrators, 2008. Resolution 6, In Support of AJA White Paper on Procedural Fairness, reprinted in Court Review [online], 44(1/2), 48. Available from: http://amjudges.org/publications/courtrv/cr44-1/COSCA-2008-Res-6.pdf [Accessed 12 July 2019].
Eckberg, D., and Podkopacz, M., 2004. Family Court Fairness Study [online]. Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota. Research report. May. Available from: http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Family_Court_Fairness_Report_Final_(2004).pdf [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Farley, E.J., Jensen, E., and Rempel, M. 2014. Improving Courtroom Commiunication: A Procedural Justice Experiment in Milwaukee [online]. Research report. January. Available from: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2019].
Goff, P., and Martin, K., 2013. Unity Breeds Fairness: The Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity Report on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police department. Report. The Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity.
Heuer, L., 2005. What's Just About the Criminal Justice System? A Psychological Perspective. Journal of Law and Policy [online], 13(1), 209–228. Available from: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol13/iss1/11/ [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Kitzmann, K.M., and Emery, R.E., 1993. Procedural justice and parents’ satisfaction in a field study of child custody dispute resolution. Law and Human Behavior [online], 17(5), 553–567. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045073 [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Leben, S., 2000. Thoughts on Some Potential Appellate and Trial Court Applications of Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Seattle University Law Review [online], 24(2), 467–475. Available from: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol24/iss2/14/ [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Leben, S., 2011–2012. An Expectation of Empathy. Washburn Law Journal [online], 51(1), 49–59. Available from: http://contentdm.washburnlaw.edu/cdm/ref/collection/wlj/id/5910 [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Leben, S., 2014. The Procedural-Fairness Movement Comes of Age. Trends in State Courts [online], 59-62. Available from: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Future%20Trends%202014/Procedural%20Fairness%20Movement%20Comes%20of%20Age_Leben.ashx [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Lee, C.G., et al., 2013. A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center [online]. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Available from: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf [Accessed 29 September 2018].
MacKenzie, B., 2016. The Judge is the Key Component: The Importance of Procedural Fairness in Drug-Treatment Courts. Court Review [online], 52(1), 8. Available from: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr52-1/CR52-1.pdf [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Madan, M., and Miller, C., 2018. Judge Who Bullied Woman in a Wheelchair–Stirring Outrage–Quits, Effective Now. Miami Herald [online], 23 April. Available from: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article209663659.html [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Maroney, T.A., 2011. The persistent cultural script of judicial dispassion. California Law Review [online], 99(2), 629–681. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38K98M [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2012. Angry Judges. Vanderbilt Law Review [online], 65(5), 1205–1286. Available from: http://vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2012/10/Maroney_65_Vand_L_Rev_1207.pdf [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Maroney, T.A., 2013. The Emotionally Intelligent Judge: A New (and Realistic) Ideal. Court Review [online], 49(2), 100–113. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2688731 [Accessed 7 May 2019].
Norman, J., 2016. Americans’ Confidence in Institutions Stays Low. Gallup [online], 13 June. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/192581/americans-confidence-institutions-stays-low.aspx [Accessed 7 May 2019].
Redlich, A.D., 2005. Voluntary, But Knowing and Intelligent? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law [online], 11(4), 605–619. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.605 [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2017. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts. London: Palgrave.
Roach Anleu, S., Rottman, D., and Mack, K., 2016. The Emotional Dimension of Judging: Issues, Evidence, and Insights. Court Review [online], 52(2), 60–71. Available from: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr52-2/Anleu.pdf [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Rottman, D.B., 2005. Trust and Confidence in the California Courts: A Survey of the Public and Attorneys [online]. Commissioned by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of the Judicial Council of California. September. Available from: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PTC_phase_I_web.pdf [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Rottman, D.B., 2007. Adhere to Procedural Fairness in the Justice System. Criminology and Public Policy [online], 6(4), 835–842. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00478.x [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Rottman, D.B., 2007–2008. Procedural Fairness as a Court Reform Agenda. Court Review [online] 44(1/2), 32-35. Available from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/219/ [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Rottman, D.B., and Tyler, T.R., 2014. Thinking About Judges and Judicial Performance: The Perspective of the Public and Court Users. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 4(5), 1046–1071. Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/issue/view/36 [Accessed 29 September 2018].
Schauffler, R., and Burke, K.S., 2013. Who Are You Going to Believe? Court Review [online], 49(3), 124–131. Available from: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr49-3/CR49-3.pdf [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Sunshine, J., and Tyler, T.R., 2003. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law and Society Review [online], 37(3), 515–548. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3703002 [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Thibaut, J., and Walker, L., 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T.R., 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT / London: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T.R., 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice [online], 30, 283-357. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/652233 [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Tyler, T.R., 2006. Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology [online], 57(1), 375–400. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Tyler, T.R., 2008. Procedural Justice and the Courts. Court Review [online] 44(1/2), 26–31. Available from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/217/ [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Tyler, T.R., and Sevier, J., 2014. How Do the Courts Create Popular Legitimacy?: The Role of Establishing the Truth, Punishing Justly, and/or Acting through Just Procedures. Albany Law Review [online], 77(3), 1095–1137. Available from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5984&context=fss_papers [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Tyler, T.R., et al., 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tyler, T.R., et al., 2007. Reintegrative Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders’ Psychological Mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment. Law and Society Review [online], 41(3), 553–585. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00314.x [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Wistrich, A.J., Rachlinski, J.J., and Guthrie, C., 2015. Heart Versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings? Texas Law Review [online], 93(4), 855–923. Available from: http://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Rachlinski-93-4.pdf [Accessed 18 August 2018].
Zimmerman, N., and Tyler, T.R., 2010. Between Access to Counsel and Access to Justice: A Psychological Perspective. Fordham Urban Law Journal [online], 37(1), 473–507. Available from: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol37/iss1/15 [Accessed 29 September 2018].
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Steve Leben 2019
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
