Trust in the Judiciary

A recent Gallup poll claimed that the trust American’s have in the judicial branch of government had fallen to a record-low. Only 53% of those polled said they had “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the judiciary. This decline was driven by conservative voters whose trust in the judiciary fell by 17%., which suggests a reaction to the Supreme Court’s decisions about same-sex marriage and Obamacare.

Trust in the Judiciary Requires Procedural Fairness

However, overall trust in the judiciary has been steady declining for several years, and while it is still higher than any other branch of government, the idea the judges make decisions based on politics and personal ideas, rather than the law, continues to grow among all Americans.

While it may not be possible to change the public’s perception in the short run, individual judges do have the power, though their interaction with those in the courtroom, to affect the public’s perception. People want to be treated fairly in a courtroom. They focus on fair procedures because people believe that will produce fair outcomes. Therefore, most people care more about procedural fairness—the kind of treatment they receive in Court—than they do about winning or losing. So, how can a judge affect the public’s perception? By embracing and practicing procedural fairness.

The Four Principles of Procedural Fairness

The concept of procedural fairness is based upon four principles. These principles are:

1. Voice: The ability to participate in a case by expressing one’s viewpoint engages individuals in the process of courtroom decision-making. This participation, as research suggests, is a critical indicator of overall satisfaction with a court proceeding. The presence of voice, or lack thereof, has been shown to affect an individual’s willingness to accept the decision in a courtroom.
2. Neutrality: Neutrality equates to a generalized concept of fairness. A person who believes that a judge is fair and is balanced between both sides is much more likely to accept the decision than one who believes that the judge has already decided the case for reasons extrinsic to the facts or law.
3. Respectful treatment: Although treating individuals with dignity constitutes respectful treatment and creates an environment of civility, this concept is incomplete. Actual fairness is not enough; the perception of fairness must be experienced by the individual and the group of participant observers as a whole. Research has shown that legitimacy is created through respectful treatment which, in turn, affects compliance.
4. Trustworthy authorities: Authorities need to be seen as benevolent, caring, and sincerely trying to help the litigants. Garnering that trust can be accomplished by listening to individuals and by explaining or justifying decisions that address the litigants’ needs. The level of trust that is generated by doing this will give participants an impression that, while not necessarily on their side, the judge is at least open to hearing what is said and then will decide the case fairly.

When combined these four principles create a sense of the court’s legitimacy. When that perception of legitimacy is substantiated, trust for the courts is enhanced. In other words, the perception of fairness, and the trust that flows from it, are the keys to the success of the justice system in a free society.