Talk:Procedural justice

message: this article need a better definition. the one provided does not help the the uniformed understand what procedural justice actually is. the provided one describes  this justice model by comparing it to others, not actually saying what it is. there are no defining characteristics listed, etc. the whole article is VERY unclear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.216.218 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: actual definition

message: Is this accidental gibberish?  Are these non-English words? (unsigned by User:Britonkolber 00:27, 3 March 2006)
:This user was referring to the words "Procedural Justice" which was placed immediately above the subject line before the TOC broke the flow of text...Kenosis 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  These words are unclear 

message: :Kindly reject proposed merge from procedural defense, as Procedural justice is not a term of art in law, at least not in the US, but rather a philosophical or meta-analytical term. Procedural defense on the other hand is, in common law deriving from UK and currently practiced in US at least, a specific class of defense in a court of law.  Mccready, good to see you involved...Kenosis 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three long hard years in law school in the US (successfully) says differently.  Similar sounding does not mean these are compatible threads.  Procedural justice is a separate thread, quite different from procedural law.  The former is properly classified as a class of analysis concerning the issue of just (fair) legal procedure.  Procedural law is a legal term of art that refers to the body of law which regulates procedure in the courts...Kenosis 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As it happens, the proposed merge came to my attention via a link from the article on Truth, section on Truth in law-- recent histories of the relevant articles will readily verify this assertion.  This proposed merge of Procedural law into this article has been sitting since January and has not been acted upon.  Now if you are asserting that it should remain pending further discussion, let's get started ...Kenosis 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed mergers

message: Procedural justice is not a term of art in law, at least not in the US, but rather a philosophical or meta-analytical term.   Procedural justice is quite different from procedural law, the latter of which is a legal term of art (i.e. used and understood to have a specific meaning by practitioners of the law in actual practice). "Procedural justice" is properly classified as a class of analysis concerning the issue of just (fair) legal procedure.  Procedural law is a legal term of art that refers to the body of law which regulates procedure in the courts...Kenosis 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Procedural law]] into this article

message: Reject proposed merge from procedural defense, as Procedural justice is not a term of art in law, at least not in the US, but rather a philosophical or meta-analytical term. Procedural defense on the other hand is, in common law deriving from UK and currently practiced in US at least, a specific class of defense in a court of law which relies on the use of procedural devices in a legal forum....Kenosis 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Procedural defense]] into this article

message: This proposal should not even be here.  Due process is a rich body of law and central legal principle in the US, and the article on due process properly reflects this richness.  Due process is a legal term of art in the US at least, foundationally based upon two clauses in the US Consiitution, divided into two main categories, procedural due process and substantive due process.  While there are vague conceptual similarities with some apparent aspects of the varied concepts of "procedural justice", there is little justifiable case to be made for merging "due process" into an article on a scattered, vaguely defined, and debatable term such as "procedural justice". Perhaps a possible future section on "due process" in this article (procedural justice) would be useful and informative along with a link to main article about due process.  Similarly, a section on "procedural fairness" in Australia with a link to procedural fairness (currently redirected to procedural justice) may be genuinely useful.  Similarly, fundamental justice in Canada, and perhaps other terms of art in other jusrisdictions, may be useful as well.  The Australian use of "procedural fairness", incidentally, appears to me to be roughly equivalent to a synthesis of the two separate legal terms of art in the US known as fairness ot the parties and procedural due process.  The use of "fundamental justice" in Canada does not, on my current understanding, appear to be synonymous with "procedural fairness" in Australia....Kenosis 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of multiple sections of [[Due process]] into this article

message: *Reject See above. JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of multiple sections of [[Fundamental justice]] into this article

message: *Reject See above. JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of multiple sections of [[Natural justice]] into this article

message: The reason for the insertion of this tag has to do with the first "definitive" sentence of the intro, which currently reads as follows...Kenosis 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Procedural justice is an umbrella term for the administration of justice and legal proceedings in a procedurally fair and transparent manner, and encompasses the related terms due process (U.S.), fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia) and natural justice (other Common law jurisdictions)." ... 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insertion of disputed-factual-accuracy tag

message: I have removed two of the merge tags, because the articles have nothing to do with each other, and no arguments have been put forward for 6 months regarding why they should be merged. Have left the remaining tags because at least some of the content of the articles are related (in that they actually have a link to them) and no debate has really occured. However if someone wants to merge them, perhaps they should suggest how this would happen (because I can't understand how it would happen). JenLouise 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of two tags 

message: There are research items referenced but not cited. The body of the article lacks any citation. I'd help clear this up but this is outside my field.
manasclerk (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking citations in several places 

message: It's not only that citation is lacking but some 'strange' ideas are the result: e.g. "The outcomes model". Would't the outcome model of procedural justice be the opposite of procedural because of focusing on outcomes and not procedures? D.S. Cordoba-Bahle (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation and logic 

message: Dr. Grimalda has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Grimalda has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Gianluca Grimalda & Anirban Kar & Eugenio Proto, 2012. "Everyone Wants a Chance: Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 2012/21, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellon (Spain).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Grimalda's comment on this article