This study was aimed at testing a structural model that analyzed the relationship between procedural and distributive justice and the amenability of psychological treatment for juvenile delinquents. Ninety-two adolescents receiving treatment in detention and community facilities following a judge’s sentence constituted the sample. Participants responded to a questionnaire including items that investigated the perception of police and judicial procedures and decisions, and the acceptance of psychological treatments. A structural equation model was specified and tested. Three factors were indicated “perception of police treatment”, “procedural justice”, “distributive justice”, and “amenability of the treatment”. It was expected a direct relationship between procedural and distributive justice and distributive justice and amenability of the treatment. It was also projected a direct relationship between distributive justice and amenability of the treatment. Results revealed that the adolescent’s positive perception of the judicial procedure predicted positively the amenability of both the treatment and the distributive justice system. Perception of the police treatment had an effect on procedural justice. Those findings seem to indicate that if adolescents perceive a fair police treatment and procedure, their acceptance of the treatment and sentence will be more likely. Such an outcome, in turn, could help in their reintegration to society.
Baumert, A., & Schmitt, M. (2012). Some Hypotheses on Cross-Cultural Differences in the Impact of Resource Type on the Preferred Principle of Distributive Justice. In K. Tornblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of Social Resource Theory (pp. 273-281). New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_17
Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6, Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc. http://www.econ.upf.edu/~satorra/CourseSEMVienna2010/EQSManual.pdf
Bou-Habib, P. (2011). Distributive Justice, Dignity, and the Lifetime View. Social Theory and Practice, 37, 285-308. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23558544 http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201137216
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Political Constitution of the Mexican United States) (2013). Reforma publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 12 de diciembre de 2005 (Published in the Oficial Journal of Federationon December 12 of 2015). http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_ref_165_12dic05_ima.pdf
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18, 217-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-6823-3
Fondacaro, M. R., Jackson, S. L., & Luescher, J. (2002). Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes. Social Justice Research, 15, 341-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021219124369
Golub, S. (2009). Make Justice the Organizing Principle of the Rule of Law Field. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 1, 61-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S187640450900061X
González de la Vega, R. (2005). Justicia e ideología (Justice and ideology.). México City: Universidad Autónoma de México (AutonomousUniversity of Mexico). Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (Legal Research Center). http://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/libro.htm?l=1554
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (MexicanInstitute of statistics, Geography and informatics). (INEGI). Encuesta Nacional de Gobierno de México (NationalSurvey of MexicanGovernment). (2010). www.inegi.org.mx
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (Mexican Institute of statistics, Geography and Informatics) (2010). Anuario Estadístico del Estado de Sonora (Statistics Yearbook of Sonora State). Mexico City: INEGI.
Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (2001). The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice and Intergroup Relations (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.
Lind, E. A. (1997). Litigation and Claiming in Organizations: Antisocial Behavior or Quest for Justice? In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations (pp. 150-171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Little, T., Cunningham, W., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. (2002). To Parcel or Not Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Maiese, M. (2004). Procedural Justice: Beyond Intractability. In G. Burgess, & H. Burgess (Eds.), Conflict Information Consortium. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/procedural-justice
National Center for Injury and Control (2013). http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/YV-DataSheet-a.pdf.
Otto, K., Baumert, A., & Bobocel, D. R. (2011). Cross-Cultural Preferences for Distributive Justice Principles: Resource Type and Uncertainty Management. Social Justice Research, 24, 255-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0135-6
Perelman, C. (1964). De la Justicia. México D. F.: Universidad Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas. http://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/1/453/1.pdf
Pound, R. (1951). The Need of a Sociological Jurisprudence. Justice According to Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.
Sangiovanni, A. (2012). The Irrelevance of Coercion, Imposition, and Framing to Distributive Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 40, 79-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01213.x
Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., Michelbach, P. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2001). Just Deserts: An Experimental Study of Distributive Justice Norms. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 749-767. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669322
Stammler, R. (1958). La esencia del derecho y la ciencia del derecho. Madrid, Es: Espasa—Calpe.
Stark, B. (2010). Jam Tomorrow: Distributive Justice and the Limits of International Economic Law. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 30, 3-34. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/30_1/twlj_30_1_web.pdf
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law. In M. H. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 30, pp. 431-505). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/652233
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Perception of Adolescents about the Judicial Procedure and Treatment in Detention and Their Effect on Social Rehabilitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2009). Procedural Justice, Identity and Deference to the Law: What Shapes Rule-Following in a Period of Transition? Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 32-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049530802607639
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond Formal Procedures: The Interpersonal Context of Procedural Justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., & Mentovich, A. (2011). Mechanisms of Legal Effect: Theories of Procedural Justice. A Methods Monograph. New York: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural Equation Modeling: Reviewing the Basics and Moving Forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03
Weisz, V., Wingrove, T., & Faith-Slaker, A. (2007). Children and Procedural Justice: Court Review. The Journal of the American Judges Association, 44, 36-42. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/216