A free ebook version of this title is available through Luminos, University of California Press’s Open Access publishing program. Visit www.luminosoa.org to learn more. In the United States, the exercise of police authority—and the public’s trust that police authority is used properly—is a recurring concern. Contemporary prescriptions for police reform hold that the public would better trust the police and feel a greater obligation to comply and cooperate if police-citizen interactions were marked by higher levels of procedural justice by police. In this book, Robert E. Worden and Sarah J. McLean argue that the procedural justice model of reform is a mirage. From a distance, procedural justice seemingly offers a relief from strained police-community relations. But a closer look at police organizations and police-citizen interactions shows that the relief offered by such reform is, in fact, illusory.
The UN’s capacity as an administrative decision-maker that affects the rights of individuals is a largely overlooked aspect of its role in international affairs. This book explores the potential for a model of administrative justice that might act as a benchmark to which global decision-makers could develop procedural standards. Applied to the UN’s internal justice, refugee status determination, NGO participation and the Security Council, the global administrative justice model is used to appraise the existing procedural protections within UN administrative decision-making.
Professor Jolowicz's comparative analysis of civil procedure concentrates on the purposes served by the institution of litigation rather than on the intentions of those who litigate. Stressing that those purposes go beyond mere dispute resolution by non-violent means, Jolowicz surveys a variety of topics of procedural law, making substantial use of the comparative method, in the attempt to examine and explain the ideas which underlie some of the most important of its constituent elements. In the final section, he deals with the reform of English law and ventures a prediction of the consequences that the new Civil Procedure Rules, together with the reforms which more or less immediately preceded them, will have on the character of English procedural law.
Public policy theory generally studies two types of institutional change: major changes at critical moments and incremental change. Using an institutional public policy theoretical lens, this Article explores congressional efforts to incrementally change the substantive law through procedural change and litigation reform. While much attention has been paid to the 115th Congress's policy-based proposals, scant attention has been paid to the fact that Congress had, at the same time, proposed sweeping changes to court access. From trans-substantive measures affecting procedure in every civil case, to targeted measures changing the procedures in police misconduct cases and medical malpractice lawsuits, the legislature proposed scaling back access to remedies in courts in almost every type of case. These bills -- while seemingly “procedural” -- have the potential to shape individual rights and remedies, incentives to sue, and the costs of litigation.The Article uses an institutional incremental approach to viewing legislative procedural law change. It examines both historical and current legislative efforts at litigation and procedural reform, identifying “major” and incremental policy proposals. Viewing legislative litigation reform in this light reveals that the legislature has taken an active role in the development of procedural law and retrenchment of court access, not just through major reform legislation, but through small, targeted actions that can have great effects over time. This Article then provides observations on the character and efficacy of legislative procedural reform. Unlike procedure generated from the court-centered REA process, incremental legislative procedure is often targeted to, and motivated by, altering remedies in a particular substantive area, nontransparent, and unmoored from adjudication and practice-based normative values. The history suggests that procedural scholars should rethink the legislative role in shaping the adjudicatory process.
