Speaking of Justice: A Qualitative Interview Study on Perceived Procedural Justice Among Defendants in Dutch Criminal Cases

Abstract

Qualitative interviews with one hundred defendants in Dutch criminal cases examine whether perceived procedural justice is a relevant concern for defendants, and, if so, which procedural justice components they refer to. The study provides a point of epistemological departure from the quantitative studies dominating the field, as it assessed which components of procedural justice (if any) respondents put forward themselves rather than asking about predetermined procedural justice components. The large majority of respondents mentioned procedural justice issues themselves, and six components were at the core of their procedural justice perceptions: (1) information on which decisions are based, (2) interpersonal treatment, (3) due consideration, (4) neutrality, (5) voice, and (6) accuracy. Although these procedural justice components largely correspond with the literature, respondents thus mentioned some components more often, and others less often, than the literature would suggest. In particular, neutrality plays an important role in the Dutch legal context examined here.

Procedural Justice on Trial

“…We measured perceived procedural justice with a 6-item scale based on the findings of our recent qualitative interview study among 100 defendants in Dutch criminal cases (Ansems, Van den Bos, & Mak, 2020a). Specifically, we asked respondents to indicate, on a Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree), to what extent they agreed with the following six statements: "During the court hearing, I was treated in a pleasant way", "During the court hearing, I was treated in an unprejudiced manner", "During the court hearing, I was sufficiently able to tell my side of the story", "During the court hearing, my side of the story was listened to", "During the court hearing, everything important has been taken into account", and "During the court hearing, my case was treated in a careful manner".…”

“…In addition, Dutch court hearings involve only professional judges and thus do not have bifurcated proceedings in which juries determine defendants' guilt and judges decide on sentences. Court hearings before a single judge usually last around 30 minutes, and judgments are mostly delivered directly afterwards (Ansems, Van den Bos, & Mak, 2020a, 2020b.…”

“…After reading the scenario, participants were asked to indicate their perceptions of procedural justice during the court hearing, their judgments of the outcome they received in the scenario (which was held constant across conditions), the extent to which they made external attributions with regard to what happened in the scenario, the extent to which they wanted to protest against their outcomes, their levels of trust in Dutch judges, and the grade they gave their trust in Dutch judges. The text of the scenarios was based on findings of our recent qualitative interview study in which we interviewed 100 defendants in criminal cases to examine what makes them feel treated fairly during their court hearings (Ansems et al, 2020a). The measures following the scenario were based on earlier research, which also treated trust in judges as a main dependent variable (see, e.g., Grootelaar & Van den Bos, 2018;Hulst, 2017).…”

“…Third, we manipulated procedural justice by varying whether participants read the fair scenario or the unfair scenario. These scenarios were based on findings of our recent study which examined what makes defendants in criminal cases feel treated fairly during their court hearings (Ansems et al, 2020a). Future research may examine whether manipulations focusing on other aspects of procedures or focusing on a single procedural aspect yield attenuated or reversed fair process effects.…”

“…Related to this, it has been noted that judicial authority is no longer a given: Rather than deriving individual authority from the authority of the judiciary as an institution, individual judges today can gain authority through the ways in which they interact with litigants (Verburg, 2015; see also Mak, 2020). Here, too, perceived procedural justice can play an important role.…”