Procedural Justice Theory

According to Wales, Hiday & Ray (2010) the leadership in courts is to reduce recidivism. Earlier the role of a federal court system was to bring together the administration and judges (Cohen and Spitzer, 1996). The role of a judicial official is to administer procedural justice that helps a defendant to accept accountability. The Procedural Justice Theory suggests that a person will see rulings as legitimate, and adopt the court’s value and goals (Wales et al., 2010). O’Scannlain (2010) states the role of the federal judge is to apply the Constitution of the United States in a court setting. The decision-making process leads an individual to services they need to lead a law-abiding life. Individuals are held accountable for the behaviors in which they can maintain, and connects them with help to stay in control (Wales et al., 2010). Also, service providers are made accountable for the work they render. Judges demonstrate impartiality and fairness. During procedural justice, a judge needs to treat a defendant with politeness and respect. The judge emphasizes problem-solving over blame. He or she takes defendants’ issues into consideration, allows chances, and encourages during the release of sanctions. A
Judges are bound by strict rules and precedents which points out their duty in every case. There will be no arbitrary discretion in the courts. Whether a party prevailed would not depend on a judge but by the content of the applicable law (O’Scannlain, 2010). The courts and the public have long focused on the importance of judicial impartiality. Whether it is the United States Supreme Court, the federal bench, a state supreme court, or a county court, public scrutiny is important. Federal judges are bound by ethics to avoid circumstances in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (McKeown,