{"title":"地区检察官如何感知正义的考察。","authors":"Jackie Chavez, S. Mathers","doi":"10.18352/IJCA.257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have identified four primary types of justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational. These four types of justice correspond, respectively, to the perceived fairness of one’s outcomes, to the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine one’s outcomes, to the degree to which people are treated with dignity and respect, and to whether individuals receive complete, truthful, and timely explanations of procedures and decisions. A significant amount of criminal justice research has examined how perceptions of justice affect attitudes and behavior (Denver 2011). Understanding how district attorneys view justice gives insight into the decisions they make including how to dispose of cases, what charges to bring against defendants, what sentences to recommend, and even how victims should be treated throughout the court process. As noted by Colquitt (2001), a large number of studies have sought to link justice perceptions to a variety of organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal, and organizational citizenship behavior (p. 425). Nonetheless, the extant literature is lacking on conceptualizations of justice related to jury trials. Since ensuring that justice prevails is the primary responsibility of the district attorney (Felkenes 1975), this study seeks to examine district attorneys’ perceptions of justice resulting from the use of jury trials.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Examination of How District Attorneys Perceive Justice.\",\"authors\":\"Jackie Chavez, S. Mathers\",\"doi\":\"10.18352/IJCA.257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars have identified four primary types of justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational. These four types of justice correspond, respectively, to the perceived fairness of one’s outcomes, to the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine one’s outcomes, to the degree to which people are treated with dignity and respect, and to whether individuals receive complete, truthful, and timely explanations of procedures and decisions. A significant amount of criminal justice research has examined how perceptions of justice affect attitudes and behavior (Denver 2011). Understanding how district attorneys view justice gives insight into the decisions they make including how to dispose of cases, what charges to bring against defendants, what sentences to recommend, and even how victims should be treated throughout the court process. As noted by Colquitt (2001), a large number of studies have sought to link justice perceptions to a variety of organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal, and organizational citizenship behavior (p. 425). Nonetheless, the extant literature is lacking on conceptualizations of justice related to jury trials. Since ensuring that justice prevails is the primary responsibility of the district attorney (Felkenes 1975), this study seeks to examine district attorneys’ perceptions of justice resulting from the use of jury trials.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Court Administration\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Court Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18352/IJCA.257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Court Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/IJCA.257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
An Examination of How District Attorneys Perceive Justice.
Scholars have identified four primary types of justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational. These four types of justice correspond, respectively, to the perceived fairness of one’s outcomes, to the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine one’s outcomes, to the degree to which people are treated with dignity and respect, and to whether individuals receive complete, truthful, and timely explanations of procedures and decisions. A significant amount of criminal justice research has examined how perceptions of justice affect attitudes and behavior (Denver 2011). Understanding how district attorneys view justice gives insight into the decisions they make including how to dispose of cases, what charges to bring against defendants, what sentences to recommend, and even how victims should be treated throughout the court process. As noted by Colquitt (2001), a large number of studies have sought to link justice perceptions to a variety of organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal, and organizational citizenship behavior (p. 425). Nonetheless, the extant literature is lacking on conceptualizations of justice related to jury trials. Since ensuring that justice prevails is the primary responsibility of the district attorney (Felkenes 1975), this study seeks to examine district attorneys’ perceptions of justice resulting from the use of jury trials.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal for Court Administration (IJCA) is an on-line journal which focuses on contemporary court administration and management. It provides a platform for the professional exchange of knowledge, experience and research in those areas for a diverse audience of practitioners and academics. Its scope is international, and the editors welcome submissions from court officials, judges, justice ministry officials, academics and others whose professional, research projects, and interests lie in the practical aspects of the effective administration of justice. IJCA is an open access journal, and its articles are subjected to a double blind peer review procedure. Please contact the editors if you are not sure whether your research falls into these categories.