Search results

This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.

Recent research finds that youth who identify as transgender or gender-expansive are disproportionately incarcerated in juvenile justice systems and are treated differently from their non-trans peers (Himmelstein and Brückner, 2011; Hunt and Moodie-Mills, 2012; Irvine, 2010; Mitchum and Moodie-Mills, 2014). Juvenile justice systems have paid little attention to this group of young people in terms of their unique service needs and risk factors. Using qualitative methods, the researchers analyze in-depth interviews and focus group findings from formerly incarcerated trans youth in juvenile justice settings to better understand their experiences. This paper aims to examine the challenges for young people, and, as well as considered recommendations for juvenile justice professionals to study toward making changes in policies, practices and programs that are needed to support young people who are transgender or gender expansive.

Using qualitative, case examples and descriptive analysis, this paper describes the experiences of trans youth in juvenile justice settings and studies toward developing models of promoting trans-affirming approaches to enhance juvenile justice institutions for trans and gender-expansive youth placed in them. The paper describes the evolution of an approach used by the authors, in New York state juvenile justice settings to increase a trans-affirming perspective as a central role in the organization’s strategy and design, and the methods it is using to institutionalize this critical change. Findings culled from the focus groups and in-depth interviews with 15 former residents of juvenile justice settings and several (3) key staff members from the juvenile justice system, focusing on policies, practices and training models are useful tools for assessing progress and recommending actions to increase the affirming nature of such systems. At its conclusion, this chapter will provide clear outcomes and implications for the development of policies, practices and programs with trans and gender expansive youth in juvenile justice systems.

Finding are conceptualized in six thematic categories, namely, privacy, access to health and mental health care, the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, name and pronoun use, clothing, appearance and mannerism, and housing issues.

This study is limited as it focuses on formerly incarcerated youth in the New York City area.

The following implications for practice stemming from this study are as follows: juvenile justice professionals (including judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers and detention staff) must treat – and ensure others treat – all trans and gender-expansive youth with fairness, dignity and respect, including prohibiting any attempts to ridicule or change a youth’s gender identity or expression. Having written nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy is also essential. These policies can address issues such as prohibiting harassment of youth or staff who are trans or gender expansive, requiring the use of respectful and inclusive language and determining how gender rules (e.g. usage of “male or “female” bathrooms, gender-based room assignments) will be addressed for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth. Programs should also provide clients and staff with training and helpful written materials. Juvenile justice professionals must promote the well-being of transgender youth by allowing them to express their gender identity through choice of clothing, name, hair-style and other means of expression and by ensuring that they have access to appropriate medical care if necessary. Juvenile justice professionals must receive training and resources regarding the unique societal, familial and developmental challenges confronting trans youth and the relevance of these issues to court proceedings. Training must be designed to address the specific professional responsibilities of the audience (i.e. judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers and detention staff). Juvenile justice professionals must develop individualized, developmentally appropriate responses to the behavior of each trans youth, tailored to address the specific circumstances of his or her or their life.

Providing trans-affirming services to youth in juvenile justice settings is a matter of equity and should be the goal strived for by all systems that care for these young people. Helping trans and gender-expansive youth reenter and reintegrate into society should be a primary goal. There are many organizations and systems that stand ready to assist juvenile justice systems and facilities in supporting trans and gender expansive youth in their custody and helping them to rehabilitate, heal and reenter a society that welcomes their participation and where they can thrive and not just survive.

The paper is original in that it examines the lived experiences of trans and gender-expansive youth in juvenile justice systems. An area, which has not been fully explored in the professional literature.

The current criminal justice system is pledged to serve and protect society while preserving the rights of those who are accused. The purpose of this paper is to explore the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” and examine whether this assumption truly prevails under the current criminal justice system, or be modified to accommodate a sliding continuum of virtuosity.

This paper is a conceptual paper which relies heavily on the current literature about criminal justice and related ethical issues.

The paper argues that today’s criminal justice system fails to meet the standards of the virtuous continuum and that those who oversee that system need to rethink how the system operates and is perceived by the public if they wish the criminal justice system to be perceived as just, fair, and ethically responsible.

Because this paper is a conceptual paper it does not present research hypotheses.

This paper suggests that “virtue” and “ethics” must be the foundation upon which the criminal justice system is evaluated, and criminal justice must incorporate an ethical standard which is virtuous and fair to all parties and leaders who oversee that system must meet the standards suggested by the virtuous continuum.

This paper is among the first to identify the viewpoint of the virtuous perspective, moral perspective, amoral perspective, and immoral perspective in the criminal justice system.

Examines access to justice, within the Australian context of an adversarial system, from a consumer’s perspective. It is argued that the current system of justice represents the most conservative element of Australian society and that the courtroom discourse structure and the legal professional code of practice do little to ensure access to justice or quality of service. Inequality in communication and in the distribution of wealth, affecting all spheres of social life, especially the legal system, pose major barriers to access to justice. Stemming from these two principal barriers to equality in access to justice, a multitude of other barriers are perceived to exist. These perceived barriers are magnified by various platforms of social and political analysis as well as historical, contextual factors and administrative action. Attention is drawn to the emerging need for a continuous alignment of administrative and justice systems with democratic justice principles and global social changes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the validity of equitable, equal, and merit equity of social and economic privileges for both gifted intellectual people and laypeople in higher educational systems.

This paper is a conceptual comparative analysis of mass education and elitist education within the context of academic justice and academic ethical fairness. This paper is based on a review of the literature pertinent to justice and fairness in designing and implementing higher educational systems.

The research undertaken reveals that there are significant fundamental differences between academic justice and academic fairness. An analysis of perceptual similarities and differences, however, reveals that more variable perceptions exist between mass education and elitist educational systems. Although both sets of models consistently place great emphasis on the issue of competitive meritocracy among students, academic justice is based on a conventional idealistic system in terms of equality, whereas academic fairness is founded on a type of holistic judgment free from bias, prejudice, dishonesty, or illegitimacy that pursues ethical and moral considerations in regards to decisions and actions. Academic massification, however, shows tendencies to emphasize bureaucratic cost‐benefits in order to implement justice for all, while academic elitism places more emphasis on meritocratic cost‐effectiveness analysis.

Since this paper is based on an ethical conceptual deductive analysis of two major systems of higher education, it has pros and cons concerning each system. Ethics is a relative conceptual reasoning; therefore, there could be other types of reasoning that could be followed by other researchers.

This paper opens arguments concerning how to respond to the needs of students with a consideration of cost‐benefit analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis.

Many countries aim to improve public services by use of information and communication technology (ICT) in public service supply chains. However, the literature does not address how inter-organizational ICT is used in redesigning these particular supply chains. The purpose of this paper is to explore this important and under-investigated area.

An explorative multiple-case study was performed based on 36 interviews, 39 documents, extensive field visits and observations providing data on digital transformation in four European criminal justice supply chains.

Two different design approaches to digital transformation were found, which are labelled digitization and digitalization. These approaches are characterized by differences in public service strategies, performance aims, and how specific public characteristics and procedures are dealt with. Despite featuring different roles for ICT, both types show the viable digital transformation of public service supply chains. Additionally, the application of inter-organizational ICT is found not to automatically result in changes in the coordination and management of the chain, in contrast to common assumptions.

This paper is one of the first to adopt an inter-organizational perspective on the use of ICT in public service supply chains. The findings have scientific and managerial value because fine-grained insights are provided into how public service supply chains can use ICT in an inter-organizational setting. The study shows the dilemmas faced by and possible options for public organizations when designing digital service delivery.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss key risk factors in the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system by adopting a holistic and systemic approach that examines the collection and use of forensic evidence from crime scene to court.

The research on which the paper is based was a mixed-method five-year study of the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justice system in Australia using qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper draws on the in-depth analysis of qualitative data from 11 case studies of investigations of serious crime to identify key risk factors in the use of forensic science from crime scene to court.

Six key risk factors in the forensic process from crime scene to court are identified: low level of forensic awareness among first responders; crime scene examiners (CSEs) as technicians rather than professionals; inefficient and/or ineffective laboratory processes; limited forensic literacy among key actors in the criminal justice system; poor communication between key actors in the criminal justice system; and, financial resources not directed at the front end of the forensic process. Overall the findings demonstrate that forensic science is not well embedded in the criminal justice system.

The paper suggests that the risks inherent in the current practice of forensic science in the criminal justice system can be reduced dramatically through: forensic awareness training among first responders; the professionalisation of CSEs; continued improvements in efficiency and effectiveness at the laboratory with a focus on timeliness and quality; greater forensic literacy among actors in the criminal justice system; appropriate avenues of communication between agencies, practitioners and policymakers in the criminal justice system; and increased allocation of resources to the front end of the forensic process.

By adopting a holistic, systemic approach to the analysis of forensic science in the criminal justice system, and identifying inherent risks in the system, this paper contributes to the emerging body of research on the social processes that impact on the effectiveness of forensic science.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of Administration of Justice as a research field and set out an agenda for future studies that could promote the production of scientific knowledge in this area.

This paper explores the idiosyncratic features, dimensions of analysis upon the Administration of Justice, states a research agenda and discusses the main challenges on this theme. This paper conceptualizes Administration of Justice as a research field and discusses related phenomena from institutional and economic perspectives on innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy.

As a research field, Administration of Justice is defined as a set of theoretical concepts, research methods and techniques, aiming to investigate the management processes associated with the use and articulation of resources, knowledge and institutions, at different levels of the justice system, and their influence on the provision of justice in a given social context. As social phenomena, four levels of analysis are proper to investigate the justice system: societal, inter-organizational, organizational and operational. Innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy are central themes of the Administration of Justice and present various gaps and research opportunities.

The main implications is the proposal of an agenda for future studies on the Administration of Justice field, which is an important step in raising awareness of the issue.

Administration of Justice encompasses a growing interest among academics, justice practitioners and public managers regarding managerial and political practices carried out in the justice system. Although relevant, this subject has been scarcely studied by the management community. This paper invites community to adopt an organizational and institutional perspective to Administration of Justice, setting an agenda for future research.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the cases of “delayed and denied” justice that resulted from a lack of or poor record-keeping in the South African courts and police service with a view to encouraging proper records management. Proper records management plays a significant role in supporting the justice system. Records provide the critical evidence that a particular action or transaction took place and can be used as evidence in a court of law. Without reliable and authentic records, government cannot administer justice and, as a result, offenders can be set free while the victims are denied justice.

Utilising content analysis, this study extracted print media articles (2000-2012) relating to the “records and justice system” from the South African Media database, which is one of the databases hosted by the South African Bibliographic and Information Network. The study selected cases reported in the media to conduct follow-up interviews with a policeman, lawyer and judge to discover the implications of the unavailability of required records in court cases. Furthermore, access was given to three selected cases that were given high profile in the media and these cases were analysed to find out what the final verdict in each case was.

Results of the study suggest that some criminal cases were withdrawn due to missing dockets or cases not properly registered. In some instances, records were reconstructed, resulting in the travesty of justice. The study concludes by arguing that if records are not accounted for, lawyers, prosecutors and magistrates could dispute the authenticity of records. As a result, justice for victims would be delayed and ultimately denied while the perpetrators are freed.

The findings and recommendations of this study may go a long way in helping courts in South Africa to manage records properly to support the justice system. Furthermore, the study is a useful compilation of the importance of missing records for social purposes.

In an attempt to show the role of records management in the administration of justice in South Africa, this study used a triangulation of data collection tools. This is a new attempt, especially in the South African context. Previous studies in southern Africa only looked at the management of records in supporting justice system.