Abstract
Scholars interested in procedural justice and legitimacy have long recognized that both the process by which social control is meted out and the quality of interactions that take place during the administration of justice play critical roles in inducing compliance and shaping perceptions of the criminal justice system. Due at least in part to a constant news cycle, increasing advances in technology (e.g., smart phones with high-quality video capacity), and the salience of social media in everyday life, encounters that were once largely private and undocumented are now regularly recorded and promptly made public. Indeed, although the majority of contacts with the police and other agents of social control may in fact be resolved in a fair and just manner, the spotlight continues to shine on those at the other end of the continuum; that is, interactions involving unnecessary and often, sadly, lethal use of force against citizens. It is perhaps no surprise that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system has come under increased scrutiny. Scholarship that addresses these issues is therefore critical not just for theory and research, but for generating evidence-based policy and practice that ensures fair and just treatment.
Such concerns are at the forefront of the “Experience With the Police” section of this special issue. For example, Lee Slocum, Stephanie Wiley, and Finn-Aage Esbensen use four waves of data to explore the multiple ways in which being stopped by the police or arrested act in concert with procedural justice to influence subsequent delinquency. Similarly, Kyle McLean and Scott Wolfe rely on a longitudinal research design to examine the links between procedural injustice perceptions, techniques of neutralization, and offending behavior. Given the salience of early interactions on subsequent perceptions and later experiences with the criminal justice system, the importance of focusing on youthful offenders—as both of these studies do—cannot be understated.
In the “Courts and Corrections” section of this special issue, the authors consider the importance of procedural justice for offenders’ experiences both within and beyond the system. Kimberly Kaiser and Kristy Holtfreter examine these issues theoretically, by proposing an integrated model that incorporates concepts from procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. Although this effort is focused specifically on the specialized court context, it provides an important point of departure for future research in that it could also be applied and tested at multiple stages of system processing. Using data from 1,241 Dutch offenders, Karin Beijersbergen, Anja Dirkzwager, and Paul Nieubeerta empirically examine the influence of inmates’ procedural justice perceptions on post-release offending behavior. Their work highlights the importance of longitudinal data in addressing questions pertaining to the potential long-term effects of the incarceration experience.
In the “New Contexts” section of this special issue, Mike Reisig and Stacy Bain test whether behavioral intentions to commit two forms of academic dishonesty (i.e., cheating on exams and plagiarizing a paper) are related to perceptions of university legitimacy. Although academic dishonesty is by no means criminal, white-collar crime scholars have long argued that deviant and unethical behavior in school settings—especially behavior that remains unsanctioned—is a precursor to more serious forms of workplace offending. Also investigating a rarely studied context, Tina Murphy, Ben Bradford, and Jonathan Jackson’s study considers the mediating influences of legitimacy and social identity in the relationship between procedural justice and tax offenders’ decisions to comply with future tax obligations. Taken together, these studies highlight the applicability of procedural justice and legitimacy for future research on white-collar crime.
As the previous sections demonstrate, the preferred approach for examining procedural justice and legitimacy tends to be quantitative, with scholars relying primarily on the use of survey methodology to answer key research questions. In the “Unique Modes of Inquiry” section of this special issue, the authors approach these issues through novel—albeit under-utilized—research methodologies. Along those lines, Steve Mastrofski, Tal Jonathan-Zamir, Shomron Moyal, and James Willis propose a framework for assessing the decision of police officers to engage in procedural justice, and empirically test it using data collected from systematic social observations of police interactions with the public. Finally, Melissa Barragan, Nicole Sherman, Keramet Reiter, and George Tita address related issues qualitatively by examining the ways in which perceptions of and experience with law enforcement condition detained gun offenders’ legitimacy beliefs, and ultimately, compliance. Importantly, the unique methodologies employed by the authors in this section largely confirm relationships reported in quantitative research.
To sum up, I would like to thank all of my contributors, reviewers, and most notably, Emily Salisbury, the Editor-in-Chief of Criminal Justice and Behavior. Each and every one of them played a critical role in making this special issue a reality. I hope that the scholarship included here will motivate readers to continue the discussion of procedural justice and legitimacy not only within the policing, courts, and corrections components of the criminal justice system but also in alternative contexts, and through the use of varied research methodologies. Given the general public’s rising concerns and questions about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, it is also my hope that this body of work will inform current thinking on these matters and stimulate the application of these important ideas in applied settings.