外文翻譯--司法構(gòu)造：超越民事訴訟-全文預(yù)覽
【正文】 call for distributing a larger share to those parties that produce the most. In a given situation, then, how might one decide which principle(s) should be applied to make an appropriate allocation determination? There is, perhaps not surprisingly, some dispute about this. Rawls himself felt that the principles apply in some sort of orderly hierarchy, but others have argued that people may use most or all of the principles to some degree, depending on the given situation . Research in the area of distributive justice also suggests that there may be differences in priority for people of different demographic groups. Gender, race, and cultural background can all affect distribution prioritization, as can cognitive processes such as attributions. Given the principles that appear to be at work in the distributive justice construct, then, it is not difficult to see how research in this area could tell us much not only about civil justice in courtroom settings, but also about legislative decisions that regulate courtroom outes or allocate resources directly. Distributive justice principles would be particularly valuable to examine public satisfaction with administrative agency decisionmaking, which regulates so much activity in American society, particularly with respect to the allocation or distribution of resources. Procedural Justice Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, distributive justice principles are often less important to disputants than other factors when individuals are asked to evaluate their overall satisfaction with the resolution of some dispute or resource allocation. In many instances, procedural justice principles carry greater weight than distributive oute measures like equity or equality in determining the overall level of satisfaction for parties to a dispute. In other words, individuals who view the dispute resolution process as fair are often more willing to accept outes that are objectively less equal or equitable. Starting with early research by John, a social psychologist, and Laurens Walker, a law professor, into procedural justice, the role of perceptions of procedural justice has been and continues to be a major focus for researchers. Indeed, research into the interactive roles of procedural 260 A. J. Tomkins, K. Applequist and distributive justice indicates that a sense of procedural justice is usually more important than a sense of distributive justice in determining whether an oute or distribution allocation is likely to be accepted by the parties to a dispute. Procedural justice, as the name implies, focuses on whether the procedures used to make an allocation determination are fair, without regard to the actual oute. Tyler identifies four key factors that individuals weigh when determining whether a proceeding is procedurally fair: fairness and neutrality of the decision maker。 and respectful treatment of all parties during the course of the proceedings. Perhaps least surprising among the four ponents of procedural justice is the requirement th
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1