Shared Race/Ethnicity, Court Procedural Justice, and Self-Regulating Beliefs: A Study of Female Offenders

Baker, Thomas; Pickett, Justin T.; Amin, Dhara M.; Golden, Kristin; Dhungana, Karla; Gertz, Marc; Bedard, Laura E.

doi:10.1111/lasr.12137

Cited by 51 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adding nuance to this basic four‐component model of procedural justice, Hollander‐Blumoff and Tyler (: 5) included trustworthiness of the decision maker(s) in the mix. Specific details of the model aside, this research reveals that, to quote Baker et al (: 435), “even when negative outcomes occur the individual may be more … satisfied with the results and the decision makers if the process is viewed as equitable.”…”

Section: Procedural Justice Substantive Outcomes and Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 87%

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners, Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

Jenness¹,

Calavita²

2018

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists have long investigated the social, cultural, and psychological forces that shape perceptions of fairness. A vast literature on procedural justice advances a central finding: the process by which a dispute is played out is central to people's perceptions of fairness and their satisfaction with dispute outcomes. There is, however, one glaring gap in the literature. In this era of mass incarceration, studies of how the incarcerated weigh procedural justice versus substantive justice are rare. This article addresses this gap by drawing on unique quantitative and qualitative data, including face‐to‐face interviews with a random sample of men incarcerated in three California prisons and official data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Our mixed‐methods analysis reveals that these prisoners privilege the actual outcomes of disputes as their barometer of justice. We argue that the dominance of substantive outcomes in these men's perceptions of fairness and in their dispute satisfaction is grounded in, among other things, the high stakes of the prison context, an argument that is confirmed by our data. These findings do not refute the importance of procedural justice, but show the power of institutional context to structure perceptions of and responses to fairness, one of the most fundamental principles of social life.

show abstract

Section: Procedural Justice Substantive Outcomes and Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 87%

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners, Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

Jenness¹,

Calavita²

2018

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, race similarity between actors and defendants may affect case processing, as Spohn (1990) and Johnson (2006) suggest. Baker et al (2015) found that white female defendants who shared the same race as the prosecutor in their case perceived the courts to be more procedurally just. It has been suggested that these perceptions could influence the chosen mode of disposition (Albonetti 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Courtroom Workgroups in Felony Case Dispositions: An Analysis of Workgroup Familiarity and Similarity

Metcalfe¹

2016

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While pleading guilty has become ubiquitous in criminal trial courts, limited research has focused on the plea process and the factors that influence guilty plea convictions. Numerous theoretical accounts of the plea process highlight the importance of the court actors and their interactions. Based on this research, the current study analyzes the impact of courtroom actor familiarity and similarity on the chosen mode of disposition and the time to disposition. The findings demonstrate that similarity among the actors and familiarity between the prosecutor and judge increase the odds of a plea disposition and reduce the days to disposition. However, familiarity of the defense attorney seems to impede on the informal plea process, such that cases are more likely to proceed to trial when the defense attorney is more familiar with the other actors.

show abstract

“…These statements were combined to create an index of “participation, process control, or voice” (p. 194). Other scholars have examined the degree to which participants have voice through a single question such as “how much of a chance or opportunity did the members of the courts give you to describe your problem to them before making any decisions about how to handle it?” (Baker et al., , p. 446). Use of these measures taps the general concept of making one's views known, but it does not make clear how the context of the dispute helps to frame voice, what participants would want to say, or the obstacles they face in having voice.…”

Section: Measuring Voicementioning

confidence: 98%

Role of voice in the legal process*

Pennington

Farrell

2019

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As communities face unrest and protest because of perceived racial bias and decreased trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, it is critical to explore mechanisms that foster institutional legitimacy. Voice is a central element in the procedural justice framework because it is anticipated to promote process control as well as a shared understanding between institutions and communities. As a concept, however, voice is undertheorized. Measures of voice used in legitimacy research may result in oversimplification of the concept, not fully capturing the struggles disadvantaged people face in trying to exercise influence in the court system. Through the use of rich data from qualitative interviews with youth and families involved in the juvenile justice system and in‐depth observations of juvenile court events, we explore what voice is, the mechanisms through which people try to assert voice, and how voice matters in the legal process. Respondents sought voice for many reasons, including to validate their experiences, to affirm their membership in a community, and to assert concerns about perceived police misconduct. Contrary to traditional conceptualizations of voice as a static event (e.g., having voice or not having voice), voice was a process of negotiating dialogue between court officials and court participants throughout the legal process.

show abstract

Shared Race/Ethnicity, Court Procedural Justice, and Self-Regulating Beliefs: A Study of Female Offenders

Cited by 51 publications

References 62 publications

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners, Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners, Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

The Role of Courtroom Workgroups in Felony Case Dispositions: An Analysis of Workgroup Familiarity and Similarity

Role of voice in the legal process*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About