This paper will compare and contrast a legal concept known as procedural due process with a psychological concept known as procedural justice. It deals with managerial procedures in a legal forum for those who commit crimes or are accused of committing a crime, and for employees who feel they have been wronged in their work environment. I will give detailed examples of the procedural due process and procedural justice and how it affects the environmental and social considerations of management planning.
Procedural Due Process and Procedural Justice Procedural justice in legal settings falls under three categories: neutrality, persuasive conflict, and settlement. Elements of procedural due process that fall under neutrality are: 1) No one should be a judge in his own case, 2) The judge should not have a private interest in the outcome, and 3) The judge should not be biased for or against either party. The elements of procedural due process that fall under the heading of persuasive conflict are: 1) Fair amount of advance notice, 2) The judge should hear the evidence and argument of both parties, 3) No ex parte communications with the judge, and 4) A party should be given an opportunity to respond to the argument and evidence of the other party.
The elements of procedural due process that fall under the heading settlement include: 1) There should be an outcome that can be supported by reasons, and 2) the reasons supporting the outcome should be based on the arguments and evidence presented (Posthuma, 2003).
Procedure due process has been identified across four different setting: civil service employee discharge proceedings, public employee grievance proceedings, proceedings involving disciplinary action taken against attorneys, and disputes over attorney admission to the practice of law in almost all settings, the following eight elements of procedural due process have...