“The enactment of fair procedures is associated with the belief that one will be able to control one's own outcomes.”

The Ethics of Belief (1877), The Duty of Inquiry
Context: No man holding a strong belief on one side of a question, or even wishing to hold a belief on one side, can investigate it with such fairness and completeness as if he were really in doubt and unbiased; so that the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty.
Nor is it that truly a belief at all which has not some influence upon the actions of him who holds it. He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.

Likert, Rensis, and Jane G. Likert. New ways of managing conflict. McGraw-Hill, 1976. p. 7.

Source: A Theory of Justice (1971; 1975; 1999), Chapter IV, Section 31, pg. 197

기회는 평등할 것입니다. 과정은 공정할 것입니다. 결과는 정의로울 것입니다.
Inaugural address of the president of South Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOYaWLddRbU&feature=youtu.be&t=9m21s (2017)

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 224–25 (1953)
Judicial opinions
Context: Procedural fairness, if not all that originally was meant by due process of law, is at least what it most uncompromisingly requires. Procedural due process is more elemental and less flexible than substantive due process. It yields less to the times, varies less with conditions, and defers much less to legislative judgment. Insofar as it is technical law, it must be a specialized responsibility within the competence of the judiciary on which they do not bend before political branches of the Government, as they should on matters of policy which compromise substantive law.
If it be conceded that in some way [that the agency could take the action it did], does it matter what the procedure is? Only the untaught layman or the charlatan lawyer can answer that procedure matters not. Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied. Indeed, if put to the choice, one might well prefer to live under Soviet substantive law applied in good faith by our common-law procedures than under our substantive law enforced by Soviet procedural practices. Let it not be overlooked that due process of law is not for the sole benefit of an accused. It is the best insurance for the Government itself against those blunders which leave lasting stains on a system of justice but which are bound to occur on ex parte consideration.

Inaugural address of the president of South Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOYaWLddRbU&feature=youtu.be&t=9m21s (2017)

1990s, Speech to the Council for National Policy (1997)

The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

"The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing", p. 528
Cloud Atlas (2004)