Measuring Procedural Justice
The rationale for measuring citizen/court user
satisfaction has rested mostly on the argument that we should improve courts on
the basis of what we learn from those served (or not so well served) by the courts,
rather those who run the courts. Two new
developments make this argument more compelling: the emergence of the theory of
procedural justice (or procedural fairness) and the finding that our desire for
being heard, for having a voice in matters, is hard-wired into our brains.
Procedural
Justice
Here is what Kevin Burke, District Court Judge in
Minnesota, current President of the American Judges Association, and a
long-time proponent of court performance measurement, recently had to say about
the importance of procedural fairness (Judicature,
Viewpoint, May/June, Volume 95, Number 6, 251 -254):
Procedural
Justice
Here is what Kevin Burke, District Court Judge in
Minnesota, current President of the American Judges Association, and a
long-time proponent of court performance measurement, recently had to say about
the importance of procedural fairness (Judicature,
Viewpoint, May/June, Volume 95, Number 6, 251 -254):
Better
performance is the key to building public support for the judiciary… A court or
a judiciary
that
is as good as its promise is known not just for speed or efficiency (heaven
knows many courts
are
good at that), but also for other, less quantifiable aspects of justice—things
like fairness and respect,attention
to human equality, a focus on careful listening, and a demand that people leave
our courts understanding court orders…. For courts to build public trust and
enhance the legitimacy of judicial decision
making, there must be a willingness to commit to measuring procedural fairness.
It can be done. .. Some courts are already doing this. At least at a rudimentary
level the measurement tools are largely available in The National Center for
State Courts CourTools #1. .. Procedural fairness develops from research
showing that how disputes are handled has an important influence upon people’s
evaluations of their experience in the court system. How
people and their problems are managed has more
influence than case outcome based upon two key issues:
•
Whether people accept and continue to abide by the decisions made.
•
How people evaluate judges, the court system and the law.
Giving people a voice – the opportunity
to participate in their case by expressing their viewpoint, telling their story
– is seen as an important element of procedural justice. People who are allowed
to have their say in court are more willing to accept a negative outcome and
comply with the law.
Neuroscience
One reason that people who are
allowed to have their say in court are more compliant with law may be that talking
about oneself is pleasurable at the level of brain chemistry. Psychological
research, as well as recent neuroscience reported in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (Wall Street
Journal, May 8, 2012) indicates that talking about ourselves, especially
self-disclosure, triggers the same sensation of pleasure in the brain as food
or money. It is rewarding, at the level
of cells and synapses, to give voice to our thoughts and feelings.
Although talking about oneself is not the same as “giving
voice” to ones opinions in a survey of court user satisfaction such as Measure
1 of the CourTools, it may
trigger similar sensations of pleasure.
The takeaway lesson from these two new
developments is this: Quite apart from the value to performance measurement and
management provided by surveys of court user satisfaction, the active engagement
of litigants and other court users with issues of procedural justice and fairness
in such surveys without more may enhance
trust and confidence in the courts.
© Copyright CourtMetrics and the National Center
for State Courts 2012. All rights reserved.