Differentiate between distributive justice and procedural justice.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.We often assess perceptions of legitimacy in the outcomes of legal disputes, such as whether the would-be pickpocket who came up empty-handed should be punished as severely as the one who got the loot. This focus on the fairness of the outcome in a legal dispute is the main concern of distributive justice models. According to the principles of distributive justice, a person will be more accepting of decisions and more likely to believe that disputes have been resolved appropriately if the outcomes seem just (or if the outcomes-in the same sense as salaries or promotions-seem distributed equitably, hence the term distributive justice).A series of classic studies in psychology and law showed that although distributive justice theories were correct, there was clearly more to the story. This work, conducted by a psychologist and a law professor, suggests that disputants' perceptions of the fairness of the procedures are vitally important to the sense that "justice" was done. Such an orientation leads us to think of justice not only as punishment for wrongdoing but also as a process by which people receive what they deserve or are due. Procedural justice models suggest that if individuals view the procedures of dispute resolution or decision making as fair, then they will view the outcome as just, regardless of whether it favors them or not. According to this perspective, important issues in a contested divorce include the means by which each person was wronged and whether the marriage can be dissolved in a manner satisfactory to both. In a dispute with an insurance company over an accident claim, one might ask whether the injured party was treated fairly or unfairly.