Psychological effects of criminal proceedings through contact with the judge: the moderating effect of legal system structure

References

• Anderson, R. A., & Otto, A. L. (2003). Perceptions of fairness in the justice system: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31, 557–563. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, M. E. (2007). Empowerment and disempowerment for victims of intimate partner violence: An overview of the effects of criminal justice system practices. In K. Kendall-Tackett & S. M. Giacomoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence (pp. 1–23). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. The Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676–685. doi:10.2307/256465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747–758. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blondel, E. C. (2008). Victims’ rights in an adversary system. Duke Law Journal, 58, 237–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brathwaite, F., & Yeboah, D. A. (2004). Victims of crime in the criminal justice system in Barbados. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 431–442. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, C. A., Kilpatrick, D. G., Beaty, D., & Howley, S. S. (1996). Victimization and psychological adjustment: Moderating effects of victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy Annual Convention, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 261–275.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campbell, R., Sefl, T., Barnes, H. E., Ahrens, C. E., Wasco, S. M., & Zaragoza-Diesfeld, Y. (1999). Community services for rape survivors: Enhancing psychological well-being or increasing trauma? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 847–858. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.847
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandek, M. S., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (1998). The efficacy of expectancy disconfirmation in explaining crime victim satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly, 1(4), 21–40. doi:10.1177/109861119800100402
   Google Scholar
• Cluss, P. A., Boughton, J., Frank, E., Stewart, B. D., & West, D. (1983). The rape victim: Psychological correlates of participation in the legal process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 342–357. doi:10.1177/0093854883010003009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damaska, M. (1986). The faces of justice and state authority: A comparative approach to the legal process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, I., Thomas, S. D. M., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2011). Procedural justice in contacts with the police: Testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17, 592–610. doi:10.1037/a0024212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison, L. (1999). The protection of vulnerable witnesses in court: An Anglo-Dutch comparison. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 3, 29–43.
   Google Scholar
• Freiberg, A. (2011). Post-adversarial and post-inquisitorial justice: Transcending traditional penological paradigms. European Journal of Criminology, 8(1), 82–101. doi:10.1177/1477370810385434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froeb, L. M., & Kobayashi, B. H. (2001). Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes. Economics Letters, 70, 267–272. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(00)00356-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramatikov, M., Barendrecht, M., Laxminarayan, M., Verdonschot, J., Klaming, L., & Van Zeeland, C. (2010). A handbook for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice. Apeldoorn: Maklu.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, J. L. (2003). The mental health of crime victims: Impact of legal intervention. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(2), 159–166. doi:10.1023/A:1022847223135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmstrom, L. L., & Burgess, A. W. (1991). The victim of rape. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Kessler, A. D. (2005). Our inquisitorial tradition: Equity procedure, due process, and the search for an alternative to the adversarial. Cornell Law Review, 90, 1181–1276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laxminarayan, M. (2012). Procedural justice and secondary victimization: The moderating effect of offense type. Social Justice Research, 25(4), 390–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laxminarayan, M., Henrichs, J., & Pemberton, A. (2012). Procedural and interactional justice: A comparative study of victims in the Netherlands and New South Wales. European Journal of Criminology, 9(3), 260–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, M. (1974). Scientific method and the adversary model: Some preliminary thoughts. American Psychologist, 29, 661–677. doi:10.1037/h0037627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, A., Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1976). A cross-cultural comparison of the effect of adversary and inquisitorial processes on bias in legal decision making. Virginia Law Review, 62, 271–283. doi:10.2307/1072298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, E. A. (1975). The exercise of information influence in legal advocacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(2), 127–143. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb01302.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, E. A., Walker, L., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., & Thibaut, J. W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(4), 643–653. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mickey, R. M., & Greenland, S. (1989). The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 129, 125–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montada, L. (1994). Injustice in harm and loss. Social Justice Research, 7(1), 5–28. doi:10.1007/BF02333820
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2004). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, W. (1998). Minimizing the likelihood of discovery of victims’ counseling records and other personal information in criminal cases: Massachusetts gives a constitutional right to confidentiality. New England Law Review, 32, 983–1022.
   Google Scholar
• Orth, U. (2002). Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Social Justice Research, 15, 313–325. doi:10.1023/A:1021210323461
   Google Scholar
• Orth, U., & Maercker, A. (2004). Do trials of perpetrators retraumatize crime victims? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 212–227. doi:10.1177/0886260503260326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, A. L., & Stroshine, M. S. (2005). The importance of expectation fulfilment on domestic violence victims’ satisfaction with the police in the UK. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 28, 301–320. doi:10.1108/13639510510597924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothbaum, B. O., Foa, E. B., Riggs, D. S., Murdock, T., & Walsh, W. (1992). A prospective examination of posttraumatic stress disorder in rape victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5, 455–475. doi:10.1002/jts.2490050309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapland, J., Willmore, J., & Duff, P. (1985). Victims in the criminal justice system. Brookfield, VT: Avery.
   Google Scholar
• Symonds, M. (1980). The “second injury” to victims. Evaluation and Change, 4, 36–38.
   Google Scholar
• Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Thibaut, J., Walker, L., & Lind, E. A. (1972). Adversary presentation and bias in legal decision making. Harvard Law Review, 86, 386–401. doi:10.2307/1339895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 103–135. doi:10.2307/3053563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411–428. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3<411::AID-EJSP766>3.0.CO;2-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Koppen, P. J., & Penrod, S. (2003). Adversarial or inquisitorial: Comparing systems. In P. J. Van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial vs. inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 2–20). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wemmers, J.-A., Leeden, R., & Steensma, H. (1995). What is procedural justice: Criteria used by Dutch victims to assess the fairness of criminal justice procedures. Social Justice Research, 8, 329–350. doi:10.1007/BF02334711
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. E. (1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology, 9, 66–81.
   Google Scholar
• Winkel, F. W. (2012). The sad story about victim impact statements (VIS): On the discrepancy between victim law in the books and law in action. Address. World Society of Victimology, 14th International Symposium, The Hague, May 20–25.
   Google Scholar
• Young, A. (1998). The wasteland of the law, the worldless song of the rape victim. Melbourne University Law Review, 22, 442–465.
   Google Scholar