Procedural Fairness and Community Courts

We are blogging from the 2nd Annual International Community Courts Conference in Washington D.C.

Tom Tyler is discussing Procedural Justice theory and its relevance to the Community Courts movement. According to Tyler, the key question we must ask is: What do people want when they engage the courts?
The answer, based on his work, is Procedural Justice.

Procedural Justice is a theory of justice that posits perceptions of fair treatment is strongly associated with acceptance of outcomes compared to positive or negative decisions rendered by authority figures (courts, police, supervisors). While people are not happy when they don't "win" in court, they are more likely to accept the outcomes if they were treated fairly. The effects of Procedural Justice are "robust" even in circumstances where the monetary stakes are high, the matter is emotionally charged (i.e child custody), or when important ethical or moral values are at stake. The positive effects of Procedural Justice cut across racial and class lines. The effects are also durable with some research showing lower rates of re-offending years after a decision. 

Regarding reentry, Tracey Meares work has shown that a single two hour meeting with offenders that is procedurally fair reduces recidivism rates compared to other interventions -- provision of social services, traditional community supervision.

Tyler suggest that a "systems level model" of Procedural Justice is needed  This approach would incorporate the following elements:

• Voice: Help people to to have a chance to state their case in decision making;
• Neneutrality: Decisions based on facts and rules and helping people to understand that this is happening (transparancy);
• Respect: Take concerns seriously and acknowledge rights, using courtesy and politness;
• Trust: A belief that an authority is "sincere and caring" and acting in the interest of parties, not their own intrests.

Read More

What works for parole violations?: "Swift, predictable, and moderate punishment."

The Sunday times article, Prisoners of Parole, describes some innovative approaches to reducing parole violations and gang violence. One program, Judge Alm's HOPE (Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) imposes immediate, moderate punishment for technical parole violations instead of allowing parolees to violate their conditions of parole a few times with no consequence followed by a harsh sanction such as jail time. The program's ethos is grounded in classical deterrence theory which offers the wisdom that: "the threat of a mild punishment imposed reliably and immediately has a much greater deterrent effect than the threat of a severe punishment that is delayed and uncertain." Such thinking may also underlie the increasing use of graduated sanctions for parolees who violate the technical conditions of their parole. (Check out Vera Institute for Justice and The Center for Court Innovation).


Why does "swift, predictable, and moderate" punishment work? The New York Times article points to recent studies in behavior economics: " [P]eople are more sensitive to the immediate than the slightly deferred future and focus more on how likely an outcome is than how bad it is," as well as Judge Alm's own revelations: “When the system isn’t consistent and predictable, when people are punished randomly, they think, My probation officer doesn’t like me, or, Someone’s prejudiced against me rather than seeing that everyone who breaks a rule is treated equally, in precisely the same way.”

Judge Alm's statements touch upon the relationship between a parolee's (or any defendant's) perception of procedural fairness and their compliance with a court sanction as well as their overall trust in the law. For more information on this critical and fascinating issue, take a look at Tom Tyler's groundbreaking work and the Red Hook Community Justice Center's Case Study.

Read More