外文翻譯--司法構(gòu)造：超越民事訴訟-在線瀏覽
2024-07-24 07:40本頁面
【正文】 tings, 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。 opportunity to present one’s side of the dispute。 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 that the decision maker be perceived as neutral. Although it might seem reasonable that one would prefer to have a dispute heard by a judge known to be biased in favor of the claimant’s position,2 it is also the case that no one would want to have a matter resolved by a decisionmaker known to be biased against the claimant. Thus, it is important that the decisionmaker be perceived as neutral by all parties to a dispute in order to prevent either party from feeling that justice has suffered due to the decisionmaker’s bias. As important as the neutrality of the decisionmaker is the opportunity to present one’s side of the dispute in front of that neutral decisionmaker. Research indicates that the opportunity to voice one’s position is critical to the overall perception of procedural justice. Indeed, there are reports of instances where even though a party has received everything sought in a dispute, he
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1