Analyses of procedural justice preferences and judgments for adjudicative dispute resolutions in Turkish context

Abstract

Procedural justice research conducted mainly in Western countries, focusing on disputants satisfaction with adversarial and inquisitorial legal procedures, has showed that adversarial trial procedures that give disputants most of the process control (voice) are the most ideal dispute resolution procedures. More recent investigation has challenged the superiority of the adversarial model of dispute resolutions. Present two studies with different samples (university students and non-student group) tested the generality of the procedural justice effects in Turkey where inquisitorial legal systems are used. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences and judgments (fairness, the role of lawyers, vs.) for using alternative procedures (single investigator, double investigator, hybrid and adversarial) to solve hypothetical adjudicated disputes (custody and malpractice). The results of two studies provide clear evidence for desirability of hybrid and adversarial procedures over the standard inquisitorial procedures across disputes. However, preferences for hybrid and adversarial procedures varied across the two studies. Also, differences in power distance beliefs and trust in the justice system have a moderating influence on procedural preferences, suggesting that procedural justice judgment might also affected by social structural factors.