1. Houlden et al., supra note 19.
2. E.g., the current proliferation of determinate sentencing reforms is based in part on the assumption that criminal sanctions, and the processes through which they are imposed, could and should be more fair than those existing under indeterminate systems of sentencing. Implicit, at least for some critics of indeterminacy, is the assumption that this increased fairness will be perceived as such by the criminal offender. Another arena of reform debate centers around the practice of plea bargaining. Underlying many criticisms of this practice is the concern that for various reasons, e.g., due process shortcuts, diminished confidence in the attorney-client relationship, low visibility and consequent high incidence of coercion and abuse, plea bargaining is “unfair” in fact and is so perceived by criminal defendants.
3. Tyler, supra note 8; Heinz, supra note 12. Heinz argues that not only are the outcome levels important but they become more important as the “stakes” become higher. In other words, as outcomes become increasingly consequential, judgments of fairness are more likely to depend on the outcomes received. Her study supports this argument, finding that defendants who have more at stake are least likely to view their outcomes as fair. Tyler reports limited support for this hypothesis, noting that while outcome level was more strongly correlated with outcome fairness among defendants who had rated the outcome as important than it was among those who rated the outcome as not very important, the difference between the correlations was not statistically significant.
4. Casper, supra note 7.
5. Casper, supra note 3, at 89.