Discerning Justice: A Quantitative Analysis of Juvenile Offenders' Perceptions of Interactional and Procedural Justice in Restorative Conferencing Open Access

Gilbert, Talia Nicole (2016)

Permanent URL: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/6682x460n?locale=en
Published

Abstract

Research suggests that restorative justice (RJ) conferences are more effective than standard court proceedings in promoting perceptions of justice for victims, offenders, and the community. This study uses data from the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) to examine the elements of the adjudication process most influential in shaping juvenile offenders' perceptions of justice. I evaluate perceptions of two distinct types of justice: interactional and procedural justice. I consider the impact of the offense-type (victim or victimless), adjudication treatment (RJ conference or court), and offender's experience of shame processes (shame and reintegrative shame) on justice perceptions. Results confirm expectations that juvenile offenders who go through RJ conferences have greater perceptions of justice than those who go through courts. Contrary to expectations, findings also show that among juvenile offenders who go through courts, those who committed a victimless crime perceived more interactional justice than those who committed a crime with a personal victim. Regardless of offense type or treatment, however, support, as measured by the strength of juvenile offenders' relationships to others at the adjudication, was consistently and positively related to perceptions of justice. Overall, findings support the need to distinguish between perceptions of procedural and interactional justice. They also indicate that RJ conferences may not always be the most effective adjudication treatment. As future research develops on the specific components of RJ conferences that engender perceptions of both kinds of justice, practices proven to evoke greater perceptions of fairness for juvenile offenders should be implemented in the current court system.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

II. Literature Review..................................................................................................................4

III. Methods.............................................................................................................................15

IV. Results...............................................................................................................................21

V. Discussion and Conclusion......................................................................................................25

VI. References..........................................................................................................................32

VII. Tables...............................................................................................................................37

VIII. Appendix A.......................................................................................................................43

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
School
Department
Degree
Submission
Language
  • English
Research field
Keyword
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Last modified

Primary PDF

Supplemental Files