skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 76564 Find in a Library
Title: Justice as Fairness - Perspectives on the Justice Model
Editor(s): D Fogel; J Hudson
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 308
Sponsoring Agency: Anderson Publishing Co
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
Publicity Director
2035 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45202
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Written for correctional practitioners, legislators, and students, this collection of essays focuses on a justice (as opposed to a rehabilitative) perspective which emphasizes treating prisoners as responsible, volitional, and aspiring human beings rather than as patients.
Abstract: The first three papers provide a conceptual framework for the justice-as-fairness approach. They discuss the appropriate goal of the justice system and the implications of holding to such a goal, especially in the exercise of official discretion. The first essay traces the historical evolution of the 'medical' model of offender rehabilitation and compares it with the justice model based on principles of retribution. In another essay, the issue of system goals provides a backdrop to a discussion of discretionary decisionmaking by criminal justice officials. Several recent critiques of discretion are reviewed, and some of the more prominent reform measures are assessed. Furthermore, problems likely to be encountered in structuring the discretion of officials are considered, and it is emphasized that debating on the means to be used for structuring discretion rather than determining goals or ends is likely to compromise the degree of fairness built into the system. The final paper in this section is based on a retributionist approach: restitution is seen as a punitive sanction, not as a rehabilitative treatment. This essay reviews the historical evolution of restitution and considers more recent developments in policy, legislation, and programs before turning to an examination of the extent to which restitutive sanctions are conceptually and practically consistent with the justice-as-fairness approach. The second section deals with justice-as-fairness in relation to sentencing and release practices. It includes a critique of indeterminate sentencing as well as an argument for the right to treatment. The third section examines fairness in juvenile justice. Individual papers describe the traditional juvenile court principle of tailoring dispositions to the presumed needs of the individual child; identify major areas for juvenile justice reform -- decriminalization of status offenses, diversion, increased emphasis on due process procedures, and limitations on discretion; and review the research literature in these areas. A section on justice-as-fairness in the prison contains chapters on formalized inmate participation in prison operation, noncoercive institutional programming, and the changing role of the prison guard. The final segment focuses on overseeing the discretion exercised by justice officials in order to extend fairness in the system. One chapter deals with the development, current status, and role of the corrections ombudsman, while the final chapter reviews recent developments in prisoner rights litigation. An index and chapter notes are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Correctional Officers; Correctional reform; Corrections effectiveness; Corrections management; Judicial discretion; Juvenile correctional facilities; Punishment; Restitution; Right to treatment; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing guidelines; Treatment
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.