Talk:Procedural justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Procedural Justice

Contents

[edit] These words are unclear

Is this accidental gibberish? Are these non-English words? (unsigned by User:Britonkolber 00:27, 3 March 2006)

This user was referring to the words "Procedural Justice" which was placed immediately above the subject line before the TOC broke the flow of text...Kenosis 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed mergers

Kindly reject proposed merge from procedural defense, as Procedural justice is not a term of art in law, at least not in the US, but rather a philosophical or meta-analytical term. Procedural defense on the other hand is, in common law deriving from UK and currently practiced in US at least, a specific class of defense in a court of law. Mccready, good to see you involved...Kenosis 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, superficial googling on "procedural justice" gives the following US sites using the term in jurisprudential sense: University of Colorado, LAWRENCE B. SOLUM, University of Illinois College of Law, Dr. William Gaeddert. Although this French based source actually says PJ studies have been "conducted primarily in the legal context", it is from an international mgt studies jrnl presumably read in the US.

I have noticed you have not edited here before and that your first edit here immediately after me would appear to be incorrect. I don't susbscribe to the wikistalking definition which does not include an element of harassment, but please in future take greater care. It is also not polite to remove such tags until there is agreement to do so. I'll replace the tag so other editors can comment. My view is that each merge proposal is sensible. There are far too many similar articles floating around. Mccready 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Three long hard years in law school in the US (successfully) says differently. Similar sounding does not mean these are compatible threads. Procedural justice is a separate thread, quite different from procedural law. The former is properly classified as a class of analysis concerning the issue of just (fair) legal procedure. Procedural law is a legal term of art that refers to the body of law which regulates procedure in the courts...Kenosis 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, the proposed merge came to my attention via a link from the article on Truth, section on Truth in law-- recent histories of the relevant articles will readily verify this assertion. This proposed merge of Procedural law into this article has been sitting since January and has not been acted upon. Now if you are asserting that it should remain pending further discussion, let's get started ...Kenosis 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Procedural law into this article

Procedural justice is not a term of art in law, at least not in the US, but rather a philosophical or meta-analytical term. Procedural justice is quite different from procedural law, the latter of which is a legal term of art (i.e. used and understood to have a specific meaning by practitioners of the law in actual practice). "Procedural justice" is properly classified as a class of analysis concerning the issue of just (fair) legal procedure. Procedural law is a legal term of art that refers to the body of law which regulates procedure in the courts...Kenosis 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reject the article on procedural law has nothing to do with the article on procedural justice, it doesn't even have a link to it. JenLouise 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Procedural defense into this article

Reject proposed merge from procedural defense, as Procedural justice is not a term of art in law, at least not in the US, but rather a philosophical or meta-analytical term. Procedural defense on the other hand is, in common law deriving from UK and currently practiced in US at least, a specific class of defense in a court of law which relies on the use of procedural devices in a legal forum....Kenosis 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reject for reasons stated in section above. The only thing the two articles have in common is that they both have procedural in the title. JenLouise 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of multiple sections of Due process into this article

This proposal should not even be here. Due process is a rich body of law and central legal principle in the US, and the article on due process properly reflects this richness. Due process is a legal term of art in the US at least, foundationally based upon two clauses in the US Consiitution, divided into two main categories, procedural due process and substantive due process. While there are vague conceptual similarities with some apparent aspects of the varied concepts of "procedural justice", there is little justifiable case to be made for merging "due process" into an article on a scattered, vaguely defined, and debatable term such as "procedural justice". Perhaps a possible future section on "due process" in this article (procedural justice) would be useful and informative along with a link to main article about due process. Similarly, a section on "procedural fairness" in Australia with a link to procedural fairness (currently redirected to procedural justice) may be genuinely useful. Similarly, fundamental justice in Canada, and perhaps other terms of art in other jusrisdictions, may be useful as well. The Australian use of "procedural fairness", incidentally, appears to me to be roughly equivalent to a synthesis of the two separate legal terms of art in the US known as fairness ot the parties and procedural due process. The use of "fundamental justice" in Canada does not, on my current understanding, appear to be synonymous with "procedural fairness" in Australia....Kenosis 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reject Perhaps Fundamental justice, natural justice and due process can be merged with some redirecting, because they are at least the same concept, just called different things in different countries, but though they all incorporate ideas of procedural justice they are definitely not the same thing. JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of multiple sections of Fundamental justice into this article

  • Reject See above. JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject per above discussion. No interest by the editors of that article. ... Kenosis 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of multiple sections of Natural justice into this article

  • Reject See above. JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject per above discussion. These are two different topics. No interest by the editors of that article either. ... Kenosis 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insertion of disputed-factual-accuracy tag

The reason for the insertion of this tag has to do with the first "definitive" sentence of the intro, which currently reads as follows...Kenosis 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Procedural justice is an umbrella term for the administration of justice and legal proceedings in a procedurally fair and transparent manner, and encompasses the related terms due process (U.S.), fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia) and natural justice (other Common law jurisdictions)." ... 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately,"procedural justice" is not an umbrella term for these various other terms, nor does it "encompass" them in any sense other than perhaps dealing with these other terms in arguing the case for procedural justice in the context of public policy debate. Rather, procedural justice is a phrase referring to the concept of just formulation of law and implementation of justice in a society, or globally. It is an academic or theoretical term that can be classified as philosophical principle involving a practical analysis of how justice operates in a society, and which advocates a "just" outcome of legal, quasi-legal or administrative proceedings, and for that matter in the normal course of business within any authority-based hierarchical structure. As just one specific example among many, disproportionate enforcement against minority groups might properly be analyzed as an issue relating to "procedural justice". The link provided above by Mccready ([1]} refers to it as a theory of civil dispute resolution, for example, which is not in any way related to a technical jurisprudential use. The definitive sentence might instead read something like "The concept of procedural justice asserts that the administration of justice and legal proceedings be done in a procedurally fair and transparent manner." .... Kenosis 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of two tags

I have removed two of the merge tags, because the articles have nothing to do with each other, and no arguments have been put forward for 6 months regarding why they should be merged. Have left the remaining tags because at least some of the content of the articles are related (in that they actually have a link to them) and no debate has really occured. However if someone wants to merge them, perhaps they should suggest how this would happen (because I can't understand how it would happen). JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)