Justice evaluations have become a widely studied area in the past 25 years. Such research indicates that victims have numerous legal preferences, which are in tune with the theories of procedural and interactional justice. This study examines these theories with regard to victims and the justice system from a comparative perspective including the Netherlands and New South Wales. After outlining the victim’s position in criminal justice, hierarchical regression analysis investigates several differences in perceptions of justice. Findings indicate that victims in the Netherlands perceived greater levels of process control and decision control, in addition to less improper treatment by the defence counsel. Accuracy and treatment by the police, prosecutor and judge were not significantly different between legal systems. Implications are discussed.
AndersonRAOttoAL (2003) Perceptions of fairness in the justice system: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal31(6): 557–563.
2.
BiesRJ (2001) Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In: GreenbergJCropanzanoR (eds) Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 89–118.
3.
BiesRJMoagJS (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: SheppardB (ed.) Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 43–55.
4.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
ColquittJA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology86: 386–400.
6.
ElliottIThomasSDMOgloffJRP (2011) Procedural justice in contacts with the police: Testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychology, Public Policy and Law17(4): 592–610.
7.
EllisonL (1999) The protection of vulnerable witnesses in court: An Anglo-Dutch comparison. International Journal of Evidence and Proof3: 29–43.
8.
EllisonL (2001) The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
ErezEBienkowskaE (1993) Victim participation in proceedings and satisfaction with justice: The case of Poland. Journal of Criminal Justice21: 47–60.
10.
GramatikovMBarendrechtMLaxminarayanMVerdonschotJKlamingLVan ZeelandC (2010) A Handbook for Measuring the Costs and Quality of Access to Justice. Apeldoorn: Maklu.
11.
GreenbergJ (1993) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: CropanzanoR (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 79–103.
12.
GroenhuijsenMSLetschertRM (2008) Compilation of International Victim Rights Instruments. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
13.
GroenhuijsenMSPembertonA (2009) The EU Framework Decision for Victims of Crime: Does hard law make a difference?European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice17(1): 43–59.
14.
HoughMRuuskanenEJokinenA (2011) Trust in justice and the procedural justice perspective: Editors’ introduction. European Journal of Criminology8(4): 249–253.
15.
LeventhalGS (1980) What should be done with equity theory? In: GergenKJGreenbergMSWillisRH (eds) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Plenum Press: New York, 27–55.
16.
LindEA (1975) The exercise of information influence in legal advocacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology5: 127–143.
17.
LindEATylerTR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.
18.
LindEAKurtzSMusanteLWalkerLThibautJW (1980) Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(4): 643–653.
19.
McCannLISakheimDKAbrahamsonDJ (1988) Trauma and victimization: A model of psychological adaptation. The Counseling Psychologist16(4): 531–594.
20.
MickeyRMGreenlandS (1989) The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. American Journal of Epidemiology129(1): 125–137.
21.
OrthU (2002) Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Social Justice Research15(4): 313–325.
22.
ShaplandJWillmoreJDuffP (1985) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Brookfield, VT: Avery Publishing Company.
23.
TakPJP (2008) The Dutch Criminal Justice System. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
24.
ThibautJWWalkerL (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
ThibautJWWalkerL (1978) A theory of procedure. California Law Review66: 541–566.
26.
TylerTR (1989) The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57: 830–838.
27.
TylerTR (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
TylerTR (2010) Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
TylerTRBiesRJ (1990) Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In: CarrollJS (ed.) Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 77–98.
30.
Van KoppenPJPenrodS (2003) Adversarial or inquisitorial: Comparing systems. In: KoppenPJPenrodSD (eds) Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems. New York: Plenum.
31.
WemmersJM (1996) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Amsterdam: Kugler.
32.
WemmersJM (2010) The meaning of fairness for victims. In: ShohamSGKnepperPKettM (eds) International Handbook of Victimology. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, 27–42.
33.
WemmersJMVan der LeedenRSteensmaH (1995) What is procedural justice: Criteria used by Dutch victims to assess the fairness of criminal justice procedures. Social Justice Research8(4): 329–350.
