NCJ Number
194791
Journal
Social Justice Research Volume: 14 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2001 Pages: 305-326
Date Published
2001
Length
22 pages
Annotation
In this article, studies of a murder trial are presented in an attempt to validate the suggestion that self-expressive moral positions or stands are more important determinants of how people reason or decide procedural fairness.
Abstract
This article explores the impact of moral mandates (moral positions or stands) on perceived outcome and procedural fairness through two studies whose goal was to attempt to account for why people sometimes rejected the outcomes of fair procedures. The first study investigated whether lay people saw trial outcomes in mandated terms, whether people felt strongly that specific outcomes were required of legal trials, and explored peoples’ reactions to a newspaper account of a murder trial that varied in procedural fairness, insider knowledge of guilt, and verdict. The second study explored the reactions to a similar newspaper account of the murder trial but used a more egregious procedural violation to offer stronger test hypotheses. Results of these studies supported the propositions of the moral mandate hypothesis where moral mandates lead people to judge outcomes as fair only if the mandate is achieved. In contexts where people did not have a clear notion of just outcomes, procedural fairness was more important. The line of inquiry supports the idea that moral standards have an important impact on how people decide whether an event is fair or unfair and on people’s willingness to accept legal decisions as just. References