Informational Justice
Informational justice is the perceived degree that those in authority are transparent,
accessible, and open in sharing information with others (Coquitt & Rodell, 2011). Scott and
colleagues (2007) have confirmed that informational justice and interpersonal justice combined
to be significant predictors of behavior. In context with the criminal justice system those who
are accused of crimes are unfortunately not provided access to critical information associated
with the complaints made against them. Even when efforts are made on the part of the accused
to obtain legal information, prosecuting attorneys and their staff often feel no compulsion to
respond to phone calls or even office visits -- even in cases when those who file a complaint may
themselves be of questionable integrity and/or may have a self-serving malicious motive to
request that a warrant be issued.
In addition, although “probable cause” is the foundation of prosecutorial justice, it
unfortunately appears to be a sliding scale in the criminal justice system. The probable cause
requirement for issuing a warrant has historically often been compromised when officers are
busy, when the complainant is a female, or when minorities are involved (Cole, 1999). Although
it is crucial that probable cause information be thorough enough to justify the issuing of a
warrant for arrest, the evidence suggests that this element of informational justice falls far short
of the standards required to be truly just and fair. The double standard of informational justice
may actually fall below the Amoral standard on the virtuous continuum.
Retributive Justice
The retributive justice paradigm for the American criminal justice system is that the
punishment for an offense should fit the severity of the crime (Zehr, 1990). However, that
1
paradigm flies in the face of the “innocent until proven guilty” presumption for all of the
accused. Under the present system, once a warrant is issued, an accused but innocent offender
must post a bail bond based upon what often seems an unending list of charges; pay for court
costs in preliminary hearings though not convicted; and hire an attorney to defend
herself/himself against a system unwilling to even provide specifics as to the nature of the
evidence alleged.
Darley and Pittman (2003) note that retributive justice is often influenced by both
cognitive and emotional factors and noted that moral outrage is often involved when retributive
justice is in play. Such subjective assignment of retributive justice is unfortunately far too
common, as in the previously cited example wherein Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Stanford
swim team member, Brock Turner, to only six months in confinement for the rape and sexual
assault of an unconscious Stanford coed. That case drew national attention as an example of
arbitrary, capricious, and inappropriate judicial malfeasance – despite the fact that Persky was
technically able to determine the sentence for the felonies involved.
Ashworth (2010) found racial and employment disparity in all phases of the conviction
and sentencing process at both the federal and local government levels with blacks, Latinos, and
the unemployed being penalized far more heavily than white or employed offenders. Once
again, the criminal justice system seems to meet an Amoral standard on the virtuous continuum
when applied to retributive justice and the issue of an equitable penalty for an offense
committed.
Restorative Justice
2
Restorative justice is an attempt to bring an offender and a victim together for the
purpose of enabling an offender to make amends to the victim. Leidner (2013) has suggested
that in the criminal justice system, a genuine victim has been dehumanized and denigrated by an
offender. But Strang (2002) noted that “victims” are often seeking revenge rather than the repair
or restitution of an injury.
The concept of restorative justice gets turned upside down when an innocent accused
becomes the victim of a system in which (s)he has been falsely accused. But if a warrant is
issued; the wrongfully accused is arrested, incarcerated, and forced to post a bail bond or remain
incarcerated until trial; required to pay court costs for a preliminary hearing; and required to pay
for an attorney to defend herself/himself against a wrongful complaint, there is an absence of
restorative justice for the innocent accused. Although restorative justice has a legitimate and
valid purpose, that purpose gets compromised and fails to meet the Virtuous standard on the
virtuous continuum if an innocent person is treated as if (s)he is guilty once a warrant has been
issued.
In summary, then, a criminal justice system designed to protect the innocent places the
burden or proving innocence on the accused—a fact clearly understood by every law student,
police officer, prosecuting attorney, correctional officer, or bondsman who regularly interacts
with that system. And, most unfortunately, the victims of such a system tend to be minorities,
the poor, the uneducated, and the unemployed, the exact constituency ill prepared to undertake
such a burden. The moral and ethical obligations and responsibilities of those who lead or
oversee the criminal justice system fails to be served – and the standard of justice provided by
that system fall far below the Virtuous standard on the virtuous continuum. The consequence, of
3
course, is that the criminal justice system is viewed negatively by a large portion of society for
its failure to be truly fair and just (Gallup, 2016).
Contributions of the Paper
It is in the interest of society that men and women who serve as police, sheriffs, marshals,
and state troopers are held in high regard and that the leaders who oversee the criminal justice
systems ensure that this system be responsible and virtuous (cf. Cameron, 2011). Most
importantly, the court officers who work as jurists, prosecutors, and public defenders should be
asked to perform their jobs with virtuous integrity and the utmost in competence. To improve
the image of the criminal justice system, those who work within that system can best change its
tarnished image by following the Virtuous perspective on the virtuous continuum. The failure of
those in the criminal justice system to follow a higher ethical standard in dealing with the
accused undermines public confidence in that system.
Against the backdrop of the above, this paper makes five significant contributions:
1) It identifies the importance of criminal justice system actors and their leaders
assessing their performance in context with the standards of the virtuous
continuum. Although those who work within the context of the rule of law are
measured by a standard to “what is legal,” that moral and ethical standard equates with
the Amoral perspective of the virtuous continuum. That Amoral perspective falls below
the ethical and moral standard of serving the public with dignity and respect for innocent
persons caught up in the system who nonetheless merit treatment as citizens worthy of
courteous and respectful treatment.
4
2) It explains the complex ethically-related nature of justice and offers insights into the
relationship between perceptions of justice and trustworthiness. Criminal justice
system employees who are prone to defining their conduct in terms of defined tasks and
duties may benefit in recognizing that the public they serve evaluates that conduct based
upon a higher and more complex set of ethical priorities – especially with regard to
interactional justice and the public’s expectations of being fairly treated.
3) It provides insights as to the importance of improving the reputation of the police,
court system, and other criminal justice system participants and suggests what
leaders that monitor and direct that system might do to enhance the image of
government and the criminal justice system. In today’s technological culture where
camera phones are recording many law enforcement encounters, virtuous and moral
behavior is necessary to mitigate public distrust and improve the image of the criminal
justice system in the eyes of stakeholder citizenry.
4) It provides a foundation for improving the dialogue between members of the
criminal justice system and the public about reasonable expectations of service and
interpersonal conduct and can enhance opportunities to improve the quality of
relationships – ultimately improving the image of the criminal justice system.
Given the current tensions between certain sections of the public and the criminal justice
system, particularly among ethnic minority members, the unemployed, and the working
poor, improving communication and increasing dialogue can only benefit those who toil
within the criminal justice system and the people whom they serve.
5) It suggests that the criminal justice system’s treatment of those accused to be
victims of crimes but who are innocent of those crimes must be carefully
5
reevaluated. The criminal justice system’s proud presumption that people are “innocent
until proven guilty” is, in fact, not a valid assumption and the innocent are unfairly,
unethically, and immorally treated under the current system of justice – probable cause is
determined to exist for an arrest. This reversal of the “innocent until proven guilty”
presumption is morally repugnant and disregards the accused’s burdens under our current
justice system.
The practical issues existing in our current criminal justice system make it imperative that the
various stakeholders in that system operate in a manner that optimizes public trust and
confidence. Although many individual participants in the system are entirely credible,
trustworthy, and have high character, many also do not meet that high standard and the actions of
a few individuals can completely undermine the public trust and confidence in the integrity of
that system.
The mandate for those who monitor and lead the criminal justice system – whether they be
judges, chiefs of police, wardens, district attorneys, or elected officials – is to ensure that the
system of justice is ethical, fair, and equally available to all members of society. Justice that is
not fair to the poor, the unemployed, and those who are members of minority groups is not
justice but is an insult to society and to those who work within such a system. Adhering to a
Virtuous standard on the virtuous continuum can enable those who lead the criminal justice
system to improve the quality of that system and its perception in the public eye.
There is a certain oxymoronic tone to those who allege that the criminal justice system is fair
and just in its dealings with all individuals – particularly in the manner in which it deals with
those who are unemployed, low income, or members of minority groups. Today’s criminal
6
justice system has come to a crossroads. A virtuous solution must be identified and the current
amoral and legalistic criminal justice system must be carefully examined, reformed, and
revitalized to meet the intent of our founding fathers in providing justice for all sectors of our
society.
7
References
Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice (p. 63). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International journal of psychology,
35(2), p[p. 117-125
United Nations. (2013), The Sentencing Project. Report of The Sentencing Project to the United
Nations Human Rights Committee
Walker, T. B. (1992). Family law in the fifty states: An overview. Family Law Quarterly, 417-
519.
Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Herald press.
8
