Substantive and procedural justice

Unfair laws were not only an Indian problem. The chapter gives two examples from other countries.

In parts of the United States, the 'Jim Crow laws' kept African Americans and other people of colour out of places kept for white people: water fountains, public pools, even restaurants. They were officially removed only in the 1960s.

In South Africa, under apartheid, the law divided people by race. Many were kept out of public places and could not live with dignity. Those laws were removed in 1991.

Now think of a time you were treated unfairly. You might feel the wrong-doer should be punished, or should say sorry, or that you should get something back (compensation).

But the person accused feels something else: "Give me a chance to explain what happened."

Both feelings are about justice. They show its two sides.

Substantive justice looks at the final result. It asks: is the decision really fair, just and reasonable?

Procedural justice looks at how the decision is made. Everyone involved must get a full chance to be heard before the court decides.

One rule sits under procedural justice: every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Easy way to remember: substantive = the outcome; procedural = the fair process that leads to it. Justice needs both.