Reoffending After Release

Abstract

Reoffending rates after release from prison are high in most Western countries. Knowledge on how certain aspects of prison life affect postrelease recidivism could be useful to effective crime-control. One aspect of prison life that may potentially affect prisoners’ reoffending behavior refers to the extent to which prisoners feel treated fairly and respectfully. This notion is central to procedural justice theories, which argue that people will be more likely to comply with the law when they feel treated in a just and decent way by actors who enforce the law. At present, it is unknown whether or not a procedurally just treatment during imprisonment can reduce postprison reoffending rates. This study examined (a) whether prisoners’ procedural justice perceptions influence their postrelease offending behavior, and (b) whether the relationship between procedural justice and reoffending was mediated by prisoners’ perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Associations were explored with survey and registered conviction data of 1,241 Dutch prisoners from the Prison Project. Although the effect was small, prisoners who felt treated in a procedurally just manner during imprisonment were less likely to be reconvicted in the 18 months after release. No evidence was found for a mediating role of legitimacy.

Keywords

procedural justice legitimacy prisons recidivism

One way societies deal with crime is by incarcerating offenders. Imprisonment is a severe sanction as it interferes with the human right to liberty. For many Western countries, it is even the most severe sanction the criminal justice system can impose upon a person. Worldwide, more than 10 million people are held in penal institutions, mostly as pretrial detainees or as sentenced prisoners (Walmsley, 2011). Despite the severity of the sanction and the large numbers of prisoners, little is known about the actual effects of imprisonment and the effects of certain in-prison experiences. Crime prevention is one of the intended effects of imprisonment; however, worldwide postrelease reoffending rates are high (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014; Ministry of Justice, 2015; Nilsson, 2003; Wartna, Tollenaar, et al., 2011). In the United States, for instance, approximately two thirds of the ex-prisoners are arrested for a new offense within 3 years after release, and half of them are incarcerated again within that period (Durose et al., 2014). Clearly, more knowledge is necessary on the effects of imprisonment to reduce these high reoffending rates. As certain aspects of prison life are directly under the control of policy makers and correctional administrations, knowledge on how such circumstances affect postrelease offending behavior may be valuable to effective crime-control and successful prisoner reentry (Chen & Shapiro, 2007).

One aspect of prison life that may potentially affect prisoners’ reoffending behavior refers to the extent to which prisoners feel they are being treated in a fair and decent way. This notion is central to procedural justice theories, which argue that people will be more likely to comply with the law when they feel treated in a procedurally just manner by actors who enforce the law (e.g., Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990).

In general, prior empirical studies supported the procedural justice–compliance hypothesis, and showed that a more procedurally just treatment by criminal justice actors resulted in more cooperation with criminal justice actors and more law-abiding behavior (e.g., Murphy, Tyler, & Curtis, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990). However, most of these existing studies have been conducted among citizens; only a handful of studies have explored this association in offender populations. Research among offender populations is limited. At present, it remains unknown whether or not a fair and respectful treatment of prisoners during imprisonment can reduce postrelease reoffending rates.

In addition to knowing whether or not a procedurally just treatment during imprisonment affects recidivism, it is important to understand more about potential mechanisms that may explain this relationship. Tyler (1990, 2003, 2009) proposed legitimacy as a key factor mediating the relationship between procedural justice and compliance. According to Tyler, people who feel treated fairly and respectfully by criminal justice authorities, will view these authorities as more legitimate, and, subsequently, will be more likely to comply with the law and authorities’ decisions.

A number of studies among citizens have confirmed the mediating role of legitimacy (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Yet, questions still remain about the role of legitimacy, because research examining the extent to which legitimacy mediates between a procedurally just treatment by correctional authorities and prisoners’ postrelease reoffending is currently lacking.

The current study addressed these gaps in knowledge and examined whether and how a procedurally just treatment of prisoners in correctional facilities affected their reoffending behavior after release. The following two research questions were answered:

Research Question 1:To what extent do prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice in a correctional facility influence their postrelease offending behavior?

Research Question 2: To what extent is the relationship between a procedurally just treatment in a correctional facility and postrelease reoffending mediated by prisoners’ perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system?

These questions were answered using longitudinal survey and registered conviction data of 1,241 male Dutch prisoners from a nationwide study.

Theory and Prior Research

In this section, the theoretical background of and prior research on the associations between procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance are described. A schematic representation of our theoretical model is shown in Figure 1. First, we expect a direct effect of procedural justice on reoffending. Second, we expect an indirect effect of procedural justice on reoffending, in which this relationship is mediated by legitimacy. Both hypotheses are discussed in more detail below.

Figure 1:

Schematic Representation of Theoretical Model

The Relation between Procedural Justice and Reoffending

Traditionally, ideas on how to secure citizens’ compliance with the law have been limited to deterrence arguments, which rely on rewards and punishments to regulate citizens’ behavior (Tyler, 1990, 2009). Deterrence theory adopts an instrumental view of why people obey the law: they do so because the benefits of complying outweigh the costs (Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997). Contrary to deterrence theory, procedural justice theories argue that people’s conformity to group rules is more related to fair procedures than it is to favorable outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990). Procedural justice theories assume that people will be more likely to cooperate and comply with authorities’ rules and decisions when these authorities treat them in a procedurally just manner (e.g., Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990). Actions are considered to be procedurally just when authorities apply rules in an unbiased and consistent manner, treat people with dignity and respect, and allow people to state one’s case before decisions are being made. Tyler and Lind’s (1992) group-value model suggests that procedural justice is important and encourages compliance because the way a person is treated conveys information about a person’s group status. A procedurally just treatment communicates to people that they have standing and are a valued group member. Contrarily, a procedurally unjust treatment communicates disrespect, which may alienate and exclude people from their social group, and may result in resistance and noncompliance. Applied to the correctional setting, procedural justice theories suggest that an unfair and disrespectful treatment of prisoners will result in resistance and misbehavior both during and after imprisonment (see Figure 1).

In general, empirical research seems to support procedural justice theories. Previous studies among citizens have shown that perceptions of procedural fairness influence perceptions of satisfaction with, and willingness to cooperate with criminal justice authorities (Casper, Tyler, & Fisher, 1988; Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Mazerolle, Antrobus, Bennett, & Tyler, 2013; Murphy et al., 2009; Tyler, 2001). In addition, support is found for the link between perceptions of procedural justice and persons’ actual (future) behavior. For instance, research confirms that citizens who felt treated fairly and respectfully by authorities, like the police, reported more compliance and less lawbreaking behavior (Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990).

At present, research examining the relationship between procedural justice and reoffending among offender populations is limited, and has been restricted to the police and court setting, and to community correction programs, like drug treatment courts (DTC) and mental health courts (MHC). To our knowledge, only a handful of prior studies have been conducted. A study by Paternoster and colleagues (1997) showed that when police officers acted in a more procedurally just manner during the arrest of spouse assault suspects, the rate of future domestic violence reported to the police was significantly lower. A study among young offenders in court revealed that when the offenders felt treated respectfully by the judge during their court hearing, they were less likely to appear in court again due to a new offense (McGrath, 2009).¹ Research among DTC participants demonstrated that those who felt treated procedurally just by the DTC judge reported less criminal behavior (Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka, & Rocha, 2007). Redlich and Han’s (2014) study showed that MHC participants’ perception of procedural justice by the MHC judge (as a component of therapeutic jurisprudence) affected their likelihood of a new arrest and prison entry. Two other studies, however, did not find an effect of procedural justice on recidivism. A study by Canada and Hiday (2014) showed that MHC participants’ perceptions of procedural justice by the MHC staff were not related to being rearrested in the follow-up period. However, their sample size was small and only 6% were rearrested. Finally, Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes, and Woods (2007) examined the effect of procedural justice in court and restorative justice conferences on recidivism among offenders of drinking and driving. No direct effect was found of offenders’ procedural justice judgments about their conference or court processing on subsequent police-recorded recidivism. However, findings did support an indirect path via legitimacy. In sum, results are somewhat mixed, but overall it seems that a procedurally just treatment by the police and judge may help to decrease reoffending behavior.

To the best of our knowledge, empirical studies examining the link between prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice in a correctional facility and their postrelease reoffending are lacking. A handful of studies examined the effects of procedural justice on prisoners’ behavior, but these studies focused on prisoners’ misconduct during imprisonment (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015; Liebling, 2004; Reisig & Mesko, 2009; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013). A study by Reisig and Mesko (2009), for instance, revealed that prisoners in a Slovene prison who evaluated their treatment as procedurally unfair, more often engaged in (both self-reported and registered) misconduct. This finding was confirmed by a study among prisoners in the Netherlands (Beijersbergen et al., 2015). In a similar vein, research in Great Britain demonstrated that aspects of procedural justice, like perceived unfairness, injustice, and a disrespectful treatment, were related to prison order (Liebling, 2004; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995). While these studies suggest that prisoners who feel treated in a procedurally just manner by correctional authorities are less likely to misbehave during imprisonment, it is currently unknown whether or not a fair and respectful treatment of prisoners can also affect their behavior after release, and, therefore, reduce reoffending rates.

The Mediating Role of Legitimacy in the Relation between Procedural Justice and Reoffending

According to Tyler’s (2003) process-based model of regulation, procedural justice directly and indirectly affects whether or not persons comply with the law and authorities’ rules and directives. The indirect path of procedural justice and compliance runs through legitimacy. Legitimacy is the belief that authorities and institutions are appropriate and just, and, therefore, are entitled to be obeyed (Tyler, 1990, 1997, 2006). Put differently, “a legitimate authority is one that is regarded by people as entitled to have its decisions and rules accepted and followed by others” (Tyler, 2009, p. 313). Tyler’s model proposes that if authorities act in a procedurally just manner, people will view them and their rules as legitimate, and, subsequently, people will obey the rules and decisions of these authorities (see Figure 1). In line with Tyler’s model, several correctional scholars have stressed the importance of a fair and respectful treatment of prisoners in accomplishing legitimate prisons, and, subsequently, enhancing prison order (Bottoms, 1999; Jackson, Tyler, Bradford, Taylor, & Shiner, 2010; Liebling, 2004).

Although there are some new ideas on how to measure legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012), generally, legitimacy has been operationalized in two different ways (Tyler, 1990, 2003, 2009). First, prior studies have asked people about their feelings of obligation to obey the law and decisions of authorities. Statements measuring this aspect of legitimacy include, for example, “You should obey the law even if you think it is wrong.” Second, legitimacy has been operationalized as the perceived support for and confidence in authorities. To measure this aspect of legitimacy, people have been asked to respond to statements like, “Police officers are honest.” According to Tyler (1990, 2003), the perceived obligation to obey is the most direct way to measure legitimacy. A study by Tyler and Jackson (2014) showed that obligation to obey is more important for compliance, and support for authorities is more important for cooperation, although both elements of legitimacy were related to both outcome measures. Prior studies often combined both legitimacy measures into one overall measure (e.g., Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008); however, Reisig and colleagues’ (2007) study on the construct validity of these measures revealed two distinct legitimacy constructs.

Existing research among citizens has generally supported the mediating role of legitimacy in the procedural justice–compliance relationship (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Reisig et al., 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). For instance, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) showed that citizens who felt treated procedurally just by the police, viewed the police as more legitimate and reported higher levels of compliance with the law. Contrary to other prior procedural justice research that consists of observational studies, Mazerolle and colleagues (2013) conducted a field experiment involving alcohol testing roadblocks by the traffic police. In the experimental condition, policemen were instructed to treat the drivers in a procedurally just manner. Compared with the business-as-usual encounter (control condition), people in the experimental condition reported a higher level of procedural justice, viewed the police as more legitimate, and were more willing to cooperate with the police.

At present, research on the mediating role of legitimacy among offender populations is scarce. To our knowledge, only three prior studies have been conducted. As described above, Tyler and colleagues (2007) investigated the effect of procedural justice in court and restorative justice conferences on recidivism. Results revealed that offenders who experienced a higher level of procedural justice viewed the law as more legitimate 2 years later. Legitimacy was related to reduced levels of (both self-reported and police-recorded) offending. In addition, two studies within the correctional setting examined the mediating role of legitimacy in the relationship between procedural justice and compliance during imprisonment. In a qualitative study, Sparks and Bottoms (1995) compared two English correctional facilities and concluded that procedural justice and legitimacy are important for prison order. On the contrary, in a study by Reisig and Mesko (2009), the relation between prisoners’ perceived procedural justice and their misconduct in a Slovene correctional facility was not mediated by perceived legitimacy.

In sum, although prior procedural justice research among citizens supported the mediating effect of legitimacy, studies among offenders are scarce and show mixed results. Moreover, research examining whether legitimacy mediates between a procedurally just treatment by correctional authorities and prisoners’ reoffending behavior after release is still lacking.

Method

Research Context

The present study was conducted in the Netherlands. On an average day in 2011, about 12,000 adult persons were incarcerated, and about half of them were held in pretrial detention. Compared with the United States, prison sentences in the Netherlands are relatively short. More than 80% of all prisoners released in the Netherlands were confined for a maximum of 6 months. The median length of imprisonment was 1 month and the average was 3.6 months (Linckens & De Looff, 2013). At the time of the present study (2010-2011), the Netherlands had 58 correctional facilities for adult prisoners. Most prisoners were held in a single cell; the percentage of double bunking was about 15% of the total capacity (Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, 2013).

Prison conditions in the Netherlands have long been viewed as relatively lenient (Downes, 1988; Downes & Van Swaaningen, 2007). In the past decades, however, prison regimes have become more sober as a result of budget cuts and a growing punitive climate in society (Downes & Van Swaaningen, 2007; Kruttschnitt & Dirkzwager, 2011). For instance, prisoners’ daily activities were limited, rehabilitation efforts were restricted, and the tradition of one prisoner to a cell was abandoned. Currently, only a small group of long-term prisoners—with a prison sentence of at least 4 months after trial—are offered personalized educational and vocational training. Nevertheless, prison conditions in the Netherlands are still rather liberal compared with other countries. Dutch prisons, for instance, do not face major overcrowding or understaffing, prisoners can wear their own clothes, and staff–prisoner relationships are generally characterized as informal and supportive (Dervan, 2011; Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012).

Data

Prison Project Data

The present study used data from the Prison Project, a longitudinal study on the effects of imprisonment in the Netherlands. The target sample of the Prison Project consisted of all adult male prisoners between 18 and 65 years old, born in the Netherlands, and who entered one of the Dutch pretrial detention centers between October 2010 and April 2011. In the project, prisoners were surveyed several times, both during and after incarceration. Participation in the study was voluntary and prisoners were guaranteed confidentiality. All participants signed an informed consent declaration, and the study protocol was submitted to and reviewed positively by the Ethical Committee for Legal and Criminological research of the VU University Amsterdam. In the current study, data of the first and second waves during imprisonment were used.

The first wave took place approximately 3 weeks after prisoners’ arrival in pretrial detention. Between October 2010 and April 2011, 3,983 prisoners met the selection criteria. Of these, 2,841 were approached and informed about the study by employees of the project. The vast majority of the persons who could not be approached had already been released. Of those who could be approached, 1,904 prisoners (67%) participated in a structured interview and 1,748 of them (62%) also completed a self-administered questionnaire. The interview was held in private visiting rooms and conducted by Prison Project employees. The questionnaire was filled out by prisoners in their own cells. Registered data of the Dutch Prison Service revealed no significant differences between those participating in the first wave of the Prison Project and those refusing to participate regarding their age and marital status. However, compared with refusers, participants were less likely to have been arrested for a property crime (30.7% versus 36.2%; χ²(3) = 11.14, p < .05).

The second wave took place approximately 3 months after arrival in pretrial detention and at that time 1,275 prisoners were still imprisoned. Prison Project employees approached 1,056 of them and invited them to participate in the second wave. Again, the vast majority of the persons who could not be approached were already released before project employees were able to contact them. Of the 1,056 prisoners who were approached, 838 prisoners (79%) participated in the second wave and filled out a self-administered questionnaire in their cells. Registered data of the Dutch Prison Service and first wave data revealed that second wave participants and refusers did not significantly differ with respect to perceived procedural justice, perceived legitimacy, age, educational level, having a partner at the time of arrest, type of offense, length of imprisonment, and the number of prior incarcerations. Compared with refusers, participants in the second wave were, however, less likely to have a non-Dutch background (35% versus 49%; χ²(1) = 15.72, p < .05), and to be unemployed at the time of arrest (68% versus 58%; χ²(1) = 6.52, p < .05).

Recidivism Data

In addition to the Prison Project data, the present study used registered data from the Judicial Documentation System (JDS) of the Research and Documentation Center (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice. This database contains information on all registered crimes and convictions in the Netherlands. For every criminal case, it is registered when the case was recorded at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, along with details of the criminal acts and how and by which authority the case was resolved (Wartna, Blom, & Tollenaar, 2011). From the JDS, conviction data until December 2013 for all Prison Project prisoners were extracted.

Sample

The sample in the current study consisted of prisoners who participated in both the interview and questionnaire of the first wave of the Prison Project,² and who were incarcerated for a maximum of 9 months.³ Of the 1,748 prisoners who participated in both the interview and questionnaire, 500 prisoners spent more than 9 months in a correctional facility and were, therefore, excluded. In addition, conviction data were missing for 7 respondents, resulting in a final sample size of 1,241 prisoners.⁴

Measures

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study was reconviction within 18 months following release, and was based on information from the JDS. As most prisoners were only reconvicted once during the follow-up period, reconviction was measured dichotomously (0 = no reconviction; 1 = at least one reconviction). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the sample and shows that 45.6% of the prisoners were reconvicted within 18 months after release.

Table 1:

Descriptive Characteristics of 1,241 Prisoners

Variables	N	%	M	SD	Min	Max
Dependent variable
Reconviction within 18 months after release
No	675	54.4
Yes	566	45.6
Independent variable
Procedural justice during imprisonment	1,216		3.09	0.65	1	5
Mediators
Legitimacy: Support for criminal justice authorities	1,192		2.46	0.68	1	5
Legitimacy: Obligation to obey the law	1,202		3.10	0.65	1	5
Control variables
Age at arrest	1,241		30.51	10.74	18	65
Ethnicity
Dutch background	792	63.8
Non-Dutch background	449	36.2
Educational level at arrest
Low	784	63.2
Middle	386	31.1
High	59	4.7
Missing	12	1.0
Employed at arrest
No	760	61.2
Yes	479	38.6
Missing	2	0.2
Partner at arrest
No	637	51.3
Yes	604	48.7
Heavy drinker at arrest
No	756	60.9
Yes	481	38.8
Missing	4	0.3
Frequent drug user at arrest
No	888	71.6
Yes	349	28.1
Missing	4	0.3
Number of people in criminal network at arrest	1,241		0.61	1.13	0	5
Type of offense
Property offense	467	37.6
Violent offense	460	37.1
Drug offense	136	11.0
Other offense	155	12.5
Missing	23	98.1
Length of imprisonment in days	1,241		105.49	65.60	5	272
Age at first arrest	1,238		18.67	7.15	12	65
Number of prior convictions	1,241		8.85	10.27	0	110
Number of prior incarcerations	1,241		3.49	6.43	0	80

Independent Variable and Mediator

The independent variable in this study was perceived procedural justice during imprisonment. At both waves of the Prison Project, prisoners were asked about their perceptions of procedural justice within the correctional facility. Procedural justice was measured using 12 items relating to fairness, neutrality, standing, and having a voice that were commonly used in prior procedural justice studies (e.g., Henderson, Wells, Maguire, & Gray, 2010; Reisig et al., 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Prisoners were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the 12 statements (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Negatively formulated items were reverse coded, so that a higher score reflected a higher level of perceived procedural justice. In case prisoners participated both in the first and second waves, the mean of each item was used as an indicator for their perceived procedural justice.

The mediating variable in this study was perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system. At both waves of the Prison Project, prisoners were asked about their perceptions of legitimacy. In line with prior research, legitimacy was operationalized in two different ways: (a) support for criminal justice authorities and (b) obligation to obey the law (e.g., Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler, 1990). Each measure of legitimacy was measured with six items. Items relating to obligation to obey the law were based on items of the subscale “Tolerance Towards Law Violation” from the Criminal Sentiments Scale (Gendreau, Grant, Leipciger, & Collins, 1979; Simourd & Olver, 2002). Respondents rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each legitimacy item (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Items were coded so that higher scores reflected higher levels of legitimacy. Again, when prisoners participated in both the first and second waves, the mean score of each item was used as an indicator for perceived legitimacy.

To examine whether these 24 items related to procedural justice and legitimacy reflected the three hypothesized latent constructs, we conducted a principal-axis factor analysis. Because the factors were likely to be correlated, oblique rotation (i.e., direct oblimin) was used. The first step was to determine whether the data were suitable for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). This was the case, as the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.91 (well above the cutoff score of 0.50), and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² = 13,945.84, p < .001), indicating that the 24 items were correlated.

Table 2 presents the results of the factor analyses on the 24 survey items. Because oblique rotation was used, pattern coefficients are shown. A pattern coefficient summarizes an item’s contribution (i.e., loading) to the factor construct. In addition, communalities (h²) are presented in Table 2, which refer to the variance accounted for by the common factors. Using the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue > 1), the results indicated a three-factor solution. The 24 items loaded on the hypothesized latent constructs: Factor 1 was defined by procedural justice items, Factor 2 by items regarding support for criminal justice authorities, and Factor 3 by items on obligation to obey the law. No item cross loadings were observed, and all pattern coefficients were above 0.50, except for item 10. Because not only the pattern coefficient of this item was low but also its communality was below 0.20, we decided to remove this item. A second EFA without item 10 confirmed the three-factor solution and showed pattern coefficients above 0.50 (see Table 2). The three factors explained 52% of the total variance. The factors were weakly to moderately correlated (correlations ranged from 0.09 to 0.36). Procedural justice and support for criminal justice authorities shared the highest level of common variance (.36² = 13%). In sum, the EFA indicated that the three factors—procedural justice, support for criminal justice authorities, and obligation to obey the law—are distinct constructs.

Table 2:

EFAs for Procedural Justice and Legitimacy: Oblimin-Rotated Pattern Matrices and Communalities

	First Exploratory Factor Analyses				Second Exploratory Factor Analyses
	1	2	3	h²	1	2	3	h²
Procedural justice during imprisonment
1. Staff members of this correctional facility treat me with respect	0.82	0.01	−0.01	0.68	0.83	0.00	0.00	0.69
2. Staff members of this correctional facility apply the rules accurately	0.83	0.04	−0.02	0.70	0.83	0.03	−0.01	0.70
3. Staff members of this correctional facility respect my rights	0.84	0.03	−0.02	0.71	0.84	0.02	0.00	0.71
4. Staff members of this correctional facility give honest explanations for their actions	0.81	−0.02	0.03	0.65	0.81	−0.03	0.04	0.66
5. Staff members of this correctional facility try to get the facts before doing something	0.66	0.02	0.04	0.46	0.66	0.02	0.05	0.46
6. Staff members of this correctional facility give me a chance to express my views before they make decisions	0.77	0.00	−0.07	0.59	0.78	−0.01	−0.06	0.59
7. Staff members of this correctional facility are courteous to me	0.80	−0.05	−0.01	0.61	0.80	−0.06	0.01	0.61
8. Staff members of this correctional facility listen to me when deciding what to do with me	0.72	0.03	−0.07	0.53	0.73	0.03	−0.06	0.54
9. Staff members of this correctional facility treat me fairly	0.78	0.02	−0.03	0.62	0.78	0.01	−0.02	0.62
10. Staff members of this correctional facility take decisions based on opinions instead of facts	0.40	−0.03	0.07	0.16
11. Staff members of this correctional facility make decisions in fair ways	0.77	0.02	−0.02	0.60	0.77	0.01	−0.01	0.59
12. Staff members of this correctional facility treat everyone equally	0.65	0.00	0.03	0.43	0.65	0.00	0.04	0.42
Legitimacy: Support for criminal justice authorities
13. The police do their job well	0.01	0.65	0.09	0.46	0.01	0.65	0.09	0.46
14. The police are there when you need them	0.00	0.55	0.14	0.36	0.00	0.55	0.14	0.36
15. The State Counsel’s Office does its job well	0.03	0.84	−0.12	0.68	0.04	0.84	−0.13	0.68
16. The State Counsel’s Office is trustworthy	−0.01	0.81	−0.07	0.63	−0.01	0.81	−0.07	0.63
17. Judges are trustworthy	0.02	0.67	0.04	0.48	0.02	0.68	0.04	0.48
18. Judges do their job well	−0.01	0.74	−0.01	0.53	−0.01	0.74	−0.02	0.53
Legitimacy: Obligation to obey the law
19. People like me must break the law to get ahead	0.03	0.03	0.72	0.54	0.03	0.03	0.72	0.54
20. You should not break the law to try to get ahead in life	−0.01	0.06	0.61	0.39	−0.01	0.06	0.61	0.40
21. There is never a good reason to break the law	−0.04	0.02	0.50	0.25	−0.04	0.02	0.50	0.25
22. A hungry man has the right to steal	0.02	0.03	0.60	0.37	0.02	0.03	0.60	0.37
23. Only obey laws that seem reasonable	−0.01	0.00	0.57	0.32	−0.01	0.00	0.57	0.32
24. It is best to earn an easy living, even by breaking the law	0.02	−0.07	0.52	0.26	0.02	−0.07	0.52	0.26

Note. Pattern coefficients greater than 0.40 are shown in boldface.

Therefore, three summated scales were created representing procedural justice, support for criminal justice authorities, and obligation to obey the law. For procedural justice, the values of the 11 items (note that one item was eliminated) were added and divided by the number of items.⁵ The same was done for both legitimacy measures, each using six items. The internal consistency of the scales was good with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 (procedural justice), 0.86 (support for criminal justice authorities), and 0.76 (obligation to obey the law). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the measures. On average, prisoners expressed a neutral judgment about procedural justice (M = 3.09) and obligation to obey the law (M = 3.10). Support for criminal justice authorities was judged somewhat negatively by the prisoners (M = 2.46).

Control Variables

This study controlled for several background characteristics of prisoners. First, we accounted for two demographic characteristics of the prisoners: age upon arrival in pretrial detention according to the Dutch Prison Service registration, and ethnicity according to the Municipal Population Register (0 = Dutch background, 1 = non-Dutch background when one or both parents were born outside the Netherlands). Second, using data of the first wave of the Prison Project, we accounted for several prisoner characteristics related to social ties and the stability of an individual’s lifestyle prior to arrest. Variables included prisoners’ educational level (1 = low, 2 = middle, 3 = high), being employed at the time of arrest (0 = no, 1 = yes), having an intimate relationship at the time of arrest that lasted at least 3 months (0 = no, 1 = yes), being a heavy drinker prior to arrest (at least once a week more than six drinks on a day; 0 = no, 1 = yes), being a frequent drug user prior to arrest (almost daily drug use; 0 = no, 1 = yes), and the number of people in the prisoners’ criminal network prior to arrest (i.e., prisoners were asked with whom they discussed criminal activities and exchanged knowledge and skills that could be used to commit a crime). Third, we controlled for prisoners’ criminal history using data of the Dutch Prison Service and the JDS. Variables included the type of offense the prisoner was prosecuted or convicted for (property, violent, drug, and other offenses),⁶ the length of their current imprisonment, their age when they were arrested for the first time, the number of prior convictions, and the number of prior incarcerations.

Table 1 shows that, on average, the prisoners were aged 30 years and 36% of the prisoners had at least one parent who was not born in the Netherlands. Almost two thirds of the sample had completed a low educational level, 39% of the prisoners were employed at the time of arrest, and about half of the prisoners had a partner at the time of their arrest. Prior to their arrest, 39% were heavy drinkers and 28% used drugs on a daily basis. On average, the prisoners had 1.2 persons in their criminal network. Most of the prisoners were prosecuted or convicted for a property (38%) or violent offense (37%), and on average they were imprisoned for 105 days. On average, prisoners were 19 years old when they were arrested for the first time. Finally, the respondents had on average 8.9 prior convictions and 3.5 prior incarcerations.

Analytical Approach

To examine to what extent prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice in a correctional facility influence reconviction after release, logistic regression analysis was used. To establish whether or not prisoners’ perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system mediates the relationship between procedural justice and reconviction, four criteria must be met (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, the independent variable (i.e., procedural justice) must be related to the dependent variable (i.e., reconviction). Second, the independent variable (i.e., procedural justice) needs to be related to the mediator (i.e., legitimacy). Third, the mediator (i.e., legitimacy) must be related to the dependent variable (i.e., reconviction) while controlling for the effect of the independent variable (i.e., procedural justice). Fourth, the strength of the relation between the independent (i.e., procedural justice) and dependent variable (i.e., reconviction) needs to be significantly reduced when the mediator (i.e., legitimacy) is added to the model. Hence, three regression equations need to be performed to answer the research question on the potential mediating effect of legitimacy. The first analysis was already conducted when answering the research question on the relationship between procedural justice and reoffending. Subsequently, two additional regression equations were conducted for each legitimacy measure: one linear regression analysis examining the effect of procedural justice on legitimacy and one logistic regression analysis examining the effect of legitimacy on reconviction while controlling for procedural justice. All analyses were performed in SPSS Statistics 21.

Results

The Relation between Procedural Justice and Reoffending

A logistic regression analysis testing the effect of prisoners’ perceived procedural justice during imprisonment on their postprison reoffending behavior was performed. The results are displayed in Table 3. While controlling for several prisoners’ characteristics, it turned out that prisoners who experienced their treatment in the correctional facility as more procedurally just are less likely to get reconvicted in the 18 months following their release (odds ratio [OR] = 0.806, p < .05). This finding means that for one unit increase in perceived procedural justice (e.g., from value 3 to 4), the odds of getting reconvicted decreases with 19%. Although the effect is statistically significant, the magnitude of the relation is relatively small. In probability terms, keeping all the prisoners’ background characteristics at the average, a prisoner who, for example, evaluates his treatment in the correctional facility as procedurally just (i.e., value 4) is 5.3% less likely to get reconvicted after his release than a prisoner with a neutral procedural justice judgment (i.e., value 3).⁷

Table 3:

Logistic Regression Analyses for Procedural Justice on Recidivism (n = 1,175)

	Reconviction
	Exp(B)	SE
Procedural justice during imprisonment	0.806*	0.107
Age at arrest	0.952***	0.011
Non-Dutch background	0.750	0.150
Educational level at arrest (Reference = low)
Middle	0.908	0.146
High	0.471	0.399
Employed at arrest	0.975	0.142
Partner at arrest	0.642**	0.136
Heavy drinker at arrest	1.234	0.140
Frequent drug user at arrest	1.297	0.152
Number of people in criminal network at arrest	0.971	0.060
Type of offense (Reference = property offense)
Violent offense	0.408***	0.160
Drug offense	0.380***	0.243
Other offense	0.465**	0.226
Length of imprisonment	0.999	0.001
Age at first arrest	0.993	0.017
Number of prior convictions	1.088***	0.022
Number of prior incarcerations	1.013	0.032

Note. Nagelkerke R² = .284

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Furthermore, some of the control variables are significantly related to reoffending. Older prisoners (OR = 0.952, p < .001), prisoners with a partner (OR = 0.642, p < .01), and prisoners with fewer prior convictions (OR = 1.088, p < .001) are less likely to get reconvicted. In addition, prisoners who were prosecuted or convicted for a violent offense (OR = 0.408, p < .001), drug offense (OR = 0.380, p < .001), or other offense (OR = 0.465, p < .01) are less likely to get reconvicted than those who were prosecuted or convicted for a property offense.

The Mediating Role of Legitimacy in the Relation between Procedural Justice and Reoffending

As described above, prisoners’ perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system mediates the procedural justice–reconviction relationship when four conditions are met. Table 3 showed that the first condition is met: procedural justice affects reconviction (OR = 0.806, p < .05). To examine whether the other conditions are met, for each legitimacy measure two analyses were conducted: a linear regression analysis examining the effect of procedural justice on legitimacy, and a logistic regression analysis examining the effect of legitimacy on reconviction while controlling for procedural justice.

Support for Criminal Justice Authorities

Table 4 presents the results of support for criminal justice authorities. The first analysis shows that prisoners who feel treated fairly and respectfully during imprisonment indeed report more support for criminal justice authorities (B = 0.323, p < .001), indicating that the second condition is met. However, the second analysis shows no significant effect of support for criminal justice authorities on recidivism (OR = 0.938, p > .05). Prisoners with a higher level of support for criminal justice authorities are not less likely to be reconvicted after release. When we conduct the analysis without the control variables (not shown in Table 4), the result is the same: Support for criminal justice authorities is not related to reconviction. Therefore, no evidence was found for the mediating role of support for criminal justice authorities.

Table 4:

Linear and Logistic Regression Analyses for the Mediating Role of Support for Criminal Justice Authorities (i.e., Legitimacy) in the Procedural Justice–Recidivism Relationship (n = 1,141)

	Legitimacy: Support for Criminal Justice Authorities		Reconviction
	B	SE	Exp(B)	SE
Procedural justice during imprisonment	0.323***	0.030	0.831	0.114
Legitimacy: Support for criminal justice authorities			0.938	0.106
Age at arrest	0.004	0.003	0.951***	0.011
Non-Dutch background	0.042	0.044	0.753	0.152
Educational level at arrest (Reference = low)
Middle	0.020	0.042	0.878	0.148
High	0.079	0.094	0.458	0.400
Employed at arrest	−0.006	0.041	1.005	0.144
Partner at arrest	−0.062	0.038	0.639**	0.138
Heavy drinker at arrest	0.010	0.040	1.266	0.142
Frequent drug user at arrest	−0.056	0.044	1.252	0.155
Number of people in criminal network at arrest	−0.028	0.017	0.975	0.061
Type of offense (Reference = property offense)
Violent offense	−0.027	0.047	0.407***	0.163
Drug offense	−0.057	0.068	0.384***	0.248
Other offense	−0.132*	0.064	0.452**	0.229
Length of imprisonment	0.001*	0.000	0.999	0.001
Age at first arrest	0.007	0.004	0.995	0.018
Number of prior convictions	0.002	0.006	1.090***	0.022
Number of prior incarcerations	−0.006	0.008	1.010	0.033

Note. Legitimacy model R² = .132; Reconviction model Nagelkerke R² = .284.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Obligation to Obey the Law

Table 5 shows the results of the second legitimacy measure: obligation to obey the law. The first analysis shows that prisoners who experience their treatment during imprisonment as more procedurally just, also feel more obligated to obey the law (B = 0.104, p < .001). The second analysis, however, shows no effect of prisoners’ perceived obligation to obey the law on their reoffending behavior (OR = 0.918, p > .05). When conducting the analysis without the control variables (not shown in Table 5), there is, however, a significant effect of obligation to obey the law on recidivism (OR = 0.604, p < .001). At the same time, procedural justice is no longer a significant predictor of recidivism. Nevertheless, this mediating effect disappears when the control variables are entered into the model.

Table 5:

Linear and Logistic Regression Analyses for the Mediating Role of Obligation to Obey the Law (i.e., Legitimacy) in the Procedural Justice–Recidivism Relationship (n = 1,150)

	Legitimacy: Obligation to Obey the Law		Reconviction
	B	SE	Exp(B)	SE
Procedural justice during imprisonment	0.104***	0.028	0.820	0.108
Legitimacy: Obligation to obey the law			0.918	0.111
Age at arrest	0.001	0.003	0.955***	0.011
Non-Dutch background	0.130**	0.041	0.766	0.152
Educational level at arrest (Reference = low)
Middle	0.035	0.040	0.910	0.148
High	−0.038	0.089	0.468	0.400
Employed at arrest	0.079*	0.038	1.018	0.143
Partner at arrest	0.100**	0.036	0.647**	0.137
Heavy drinker at arrest	−0.073	0.037	1.210	0.141
Frequent drug user at arrest	−0.185***	0.042	1.261	0.155
Number of people in criminal network at arrest	−0.090***	0.016	0.962	0.061
Type of offense (Reference = property offense)
Violent offense	0.131**	0.044	0.425***	0.162
Drug offense	−0.011	0.064	0.383***	0.246
Other offense	0.059	0.061	0.466**	0.227
Length of imprisonment	0.000	0.000	0.999	0.001
Age at first arrest	0.009*	0.004	0.989	0.018
Number of prior convictions	−0.007	0.005	1.079***	0.022
Number of prior incarcerations	0.001	0.008	1.021	0.032

Note. Legitimacy model R² = .165; Reconviction model Nagelkerke R² = .280.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

This study attempted to increase knowledge on how certain aspects of prison life may affect postrelease recidivism by examining (a) whether prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice during imprisonment influence their postrelease offending behavior, and (b) whether the procedural justice–recidivism relationship is mediated by prisoners’ perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Longitudinal survey and registered conviction data of 1,241 male Dutch prisoners from a nationwide panel study were used to examine this.

The current study showed that procedural justice is related to postrelease offending. Although the effect was small, prisoners who felt treated fairly and respectfully by correctional authorities during imprisonment were less likely to get reconvicted in the 18 months following release. In addition, no mediating effect of legitimacy in the procedural justice and recidivism relationship was observed. In line with the literature, legitimacy was operationalized in the following two ways: prisoners’ perceived support for criminal justice authorities and prisoners’ perceived obligation to obey the law. Procedural justice was related to both measures of legitimacy, but neither measure of legitimacy had a significant effect on whether or not a prisoner was reconvicted after release. When the analyses were performed without any control variables, a significant mediating effect of obligation to obey the law on recidivism was observed.

The finding that procedural justice perceptions affected prisoners’ reoffending behavior supports procedural justice theories (e.g., Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990) and aligns with prior research showing that citizens are more likely to cooperate with criminal justice authorities and to comply with the law when they feel treated in a procedurally just way by these authorities (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). The finding is also in line with the few prior studies among offenders that demonstrated a link between a procedurally just treatment by the police or judge and offenders’ reoffending behavior (e.g., McGrath, 2009; Paternoster et al., 1997), and between a procedurally just treatment by correctional authorities and prisoners’ misconduct during imprisonment (e.g., Beijersbergen et al., 2015; Reisig & Mesko, 2009).

The observed effect of procedural justice is, however, relatively small. Several factors may explain this relatively small effect. First, the present study was conducted within the Dutch correctional setting. The Netherlands is still known for having relatively liberal and humane prison conditions (Dervan, 2011; Kruttschnitt & Dirkzwager, 2011). In line with this, our sample, on average, expressed neutral feelings about their treatment within the correctional facility, and the variation was small. More variation and more extreme low and high levels of experienced procedural justice would possibly result in a larger effect. Second, the current study focused on a procedurally just treatment by correctional authorities, and, therefore, ignored the treatment by other criminal justice actors, like the police, public prosecutor, and judge. Although existing procedural justice research generally also focuses on only one criminal justice actor, it is likely that the treatment by all these actors will affect reoffending. Finally, the outcome—recidivism—was measured quite some time after the imprisonment itself and after the potential procedurally unjust treatment by correctional authorities had ended. Outside the correctional facility, it is possible that other more recent factors may be of more importance to recidivism than the manner in which someone was treated by authorities a while ago, especially when this treatment was not extremely positive or negative. In a previous study using the same data, we indeed found a larger effect of prisoners’ perceived procedural justice by correctional authorities on misconduct during imprisonment (Beijersbergen et al., 2015).

The results regarding the mediating role of legitimacy were only partly in line with Tyler’s (2003) process-based model. The present study did find a relationship between procedural justice judgments and perceived legitimacy. However, contrary to Tyler’s model and most existing research (e.g., Mazerolle et al., 2013; Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler et al., 2007), no evidence was found that perceived legitimacy influenced reoffending behavior after release and, therefore, mediated the procedural justice–recidivism relationship.

A possible explanation could be that the current study controlled for several variables that prior research did not. When the control variables were not included in the model, we did observe a significant effect of obligation to obey the law on reconviction while concomitantly procedural justice was no longer a significant predictor of reconviction. This suggests that these control variables explain the mediating effect of obligation to obey the law. We did not see a similar pattern for the other legitimacy measure, support for criminal justice authorities. However, this is in line with Tyler’s (1990) view that obligation to obey is the most direct way to measure legitimacy, and with Tyler and Jackson’s (2014) finding that obligation to obey the law is more important for compliance than support for authorities.

Before discussing the implications of our study, some limitations need to be addressed. A first concern relates to the study design. Although the study design was longitudinal, both procedural justice and legitimacy were measured at the same time and, therefore, the analyses examining the mediating effect of legitimacy were partly cross-sectional in nature. Even though we observed that procedural justice and legitimacy were related, we cannot be sure that the procedural justice judgments preceded the legitimacy perceptions. Future research should ideally include three waves and measure the three key constructs at three different time points.

A second concern refers to the external validity of our results. The present study examined male prisoners held in Dutch correctional facilities. As mentioned above, the circumstances in these facilities are generally considered to be relatively humane and mild (Dervan, 2011; Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012; Kruttschnitt & Dirkzwager, 2011). Therefore, the level of experienced procedural justice is likely to be higher than in many other countries, and the results may not be generalizable to countries with harsher prison conditions. In addition, prisoners in the present study were imprisoned for a relatively short time (maximum of 9 months). Although, more than 80% of all prisoners released in the Netherlands are confined for a maximum of 6 months (Linckens & De Looff, 2013), in other countries the length of imprisonment is often longer. The length of imprisonment may affect both procedural justice perceptions and the risk of reoffending. Future studies replicating the current study are necessary to test whether our findings are generalizable to other correctional populations and countries.

A third concern pertains to the operationalization of some of the measures in the current study. First, with regard to procedural justice, the current study was limited to a procedurally just treatment by correctional authorities. Clearly, prisoners have experiences with other criminal justice authorities as well. As mentioned above, it is likely that the treatment by these actors may also affect prisoners’ reoffending behavior. Future research could, therefore, benefit from including a more comprehensive procedural justice measure when investigating prisoners’ reoffending rates. Second, the procedural justice measure was directed at the treatment by correctional authorities, whereas the support for criminal justice authorities measure (i.e., legitimacy) focused on police and court actors and did not include correctional authorities. Although this study nevertheless observed an association between procedural justice and support for authorities, it is desirable that future research uses a measure for support for authorities that includes correctional staff as well. Third, with respect to recidivism, the present study used reconviction data to examine prisoners’ reoffending behavior. As a result, solely delinquent acts that were discovered by criminal justice authorities were included in the study. Future research including both self-reported and registered recidivism is preferable.

Despite these concerns, the present study is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to examine whether and how a procedurally just treatment of prisoners in correctional facilities may affect their postrelease reoffending behavior. Because of its focus on the correctional setting and on an offender population, it adds important knowledge to current procedural justice literature. In addition, the present study thoroughly examined the construct validity of both procedural justice and legitimacy, and observed that the procedural justice and the two legitimacy measures should be treated as distinct constructs. Prior procedural justice research often failed to devote sufficient attention to the measurement properties of the key constructs and, as a result, frequently included both support for authorities and obligation to obey into one overall legitimacy measure (Henderson et al., 2010; Reisig et al., 2007). Another strength of this study is the fact that it used two independent data sources, namely, self-reported and registered data. Prior procedural justice studies have generally relied solely on self-reported data which may result in single source bias (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Finally, this study underscores the potential importance of in-prison experiences for understanding successful prisoner reentry. In line with prior research (e.g., Chen & Shapiro, 2007; Drago, Galbiati, & Vertova, 2011; Windzio, 2006), this study shows that what happens inside prison affects prisoners’ criminal behavior after release.

The results of our study are relevant for correctional policy and practice. Given the high reoffending rates among ex-prisoners after release, knowledge on its determinants is important. As it is difficult to change prisoners’ preexisting characteristics, a more beneficial approach seems to focus on in-prison experiences, like the manner in which prisoners are treated by correctional staff. Especially since this is directly under the control of policy makers and correctional administrations. The findings of the present study suggest that correctional authorities can contribute to lower reoffending rates by treating prisoners fairly and respectfully during imprisonment.

Footnotes

This study is part of the Prison Project, which is financially supported by Leiden University, The Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (VICI Grant Number 453-08-005), and Utrecht University.

Notes

Karin A. Beijersbergen, PhD, works as a researcher at the Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology of Leiden University in the Netherlands. Her research interests include the effects of criminal justice interventions, and especially issues regarding imprisonment and procedural justice.

Anja J. E. Dirkzwager, PhD, works as a senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. Her research interests include the physical and psychosocial well-being of prisoners and their family members, prisoners’ perceptions of the conditions of confinement, and the effects of imprisonment on the further life course.

Paul Nieuwbeerta, PhD, is a professor at the Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology of Leiden University in the Netherlands. His research interests include criminal behavior over the life course, homicide, and the determinants and consequences of imprisonment.

References

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Eichelsheim

V. I.

Van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 196-218.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. In Tonry

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 26, pp. 205-281). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bottoms

A. E.

Tankebe

(2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119-170.

Canada

K. E.

Hiday

V. A.

(2014). Procedural justice in mental health court: An investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25, 321-340.

Casper

J. D.

Tyler

T. R.

Fisher

(1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22, 483-507.

Chen

M. K.

Shapiro

J. M.

(2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. American Law and Economic Review, 9, 1-29.

Dervan

L. E.

(2011). American prison culture in an international context: An examination of prisons in America, The Netherlands, and Israel. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22, 413-428.

Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. (2013). Masterplan DJI 2013-2018. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Author.

10.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Kruttschnitt

(2012). Prisoners’ perceptions of correctional officers’ behavior in English and Dutch prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 404-412.

11.

Downes

(1988). Contrasts in tolerance: Post-war penal policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

12.

Downes

Van Swaaningen

(2007). The road to dystopia? Changes in the penal climate of the Netherlands. In Tonry

Bijleveld

C. C. J. H.

(Eds.), Crime and justice in the Netherlands (Vol. 35, pp. 31-71). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Drago

Galbiati

Vertova

(2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 13, 103-130. doi:10.1093/aler/ahq024

14.

Durose

M. R.

Cooper

A. D.

Snyder

H. N.

(2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.

15.

Gendreau

Grant

B. A.

Leipciger

Collins

(1979). Norms and recidivism rates for the MMPI and selected experimental scales on a Canadian delinquent sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 11, 21-31.

16.

Gottfredson

D. C.

Kearley

B. W.

Najaka

S. S.

Rocha

C. M.

(2007). How drug treatment courts work. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 44(1), 3-35.

17.

Henderson

Wells

Maguire

E. R.

Gray

(2010). Evaluating the measurement properties of procedural justice in a correctional setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 384-399.

18.

Hinds

Murphy

(2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27-42.

19.

Jackson

Tyler

T. R.

Bradford

Taylor

Shiner

(2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4-10.

20.

Kruttschnitt

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

(2011). Are there still contrasts in tolerance? Imprisonment in the Netherlands and England 20 years later. Punishment & Society, 13, 283-306.

21.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen

(Ed.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

22.

Liebling

(2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

23.

Linckens

De Looff

(2013). Gevangeniswezen in getal 2008-2012. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen.

24.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.

25.

Mazerolle

Antrobus

Bennett

Tyler

T. R.

(2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51, 33-64.

26.

McGrath

(2009). Offenders’ perceptions of the sentencing process: A study of deterrence and stigmatisation in the New South Wales children’s court. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 24-46.

27.

Ministry of Justice. (2015). Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin: April 2012 to March 2013. London, England: Author.

28.

Murphy

Tyler

T. R.

Curtis

(2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law. Regulation & Governance, 3, 1-26.

29.

Nilsson

(2003). Living conditions, social exclusion and recidivism among prison inmates. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 4, 57-83.

30.

Paternoster

Brame

Bachman

Sherman

L. W.

(1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31, 163-204.

31.

Redlich

A. D.

Han

(2014). Examining the links between therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health court completion. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 109-118.

32.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

M. G.

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005-1028.

33.

Reisig

M. D.

Mesko

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41-59.

34.

Simourd

D. J.

Olver

M. E.

(2002). The future of criminal attitudes research and practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 427-446.

35.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 45-62.

36.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-547.

37.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-135.

38.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

40.

Tyler

T. R.

(1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.

41.

Tyler

T. R.

(2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 215-235.

42.

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30. pp. 431-505). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

43.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.

44.

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 307-359.

45.

Tyler

T. R.

Fagan

(2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231-275.

46.

Tyler

T. R.

Jackson

(2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 78-95.

47.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

48.

Tyler

T. R.

Sherman

Strang

Barnes

G. C.

Woods

(2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41, 553-586.

49.

Van der Laan

A. M.

Eichelsheim

V. I.

(2013). Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment: Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 10, 424-443.

50.

Walmsley

(2011). World prison population list (9th ed.). London, England: International Centre for Prison Studies.

51.

Wartna

B. S. J.

Blom

Tollenaar

(2011). The Dutch Recidivism Monitor. The Hague, The Netherlands: Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Security and Justice.

52.

Wartna

B. S. J.

Tollenaar

Blom

Alma

S. M.

Bregman

I. M.

Essers

A. A. M.

Van Straalen

E. K.

(2011). Recidivism report 2002-2008: Trends in the reconviction rate of Dutch offenders. The Hague, The Netherlands: Research and Documentation Centre of Ministry of Security and Justice.

53.

Windzio

(2006). Is there a deterrent effect of pains of imprisonment? The impact of social costs of first incarceration on the hazard rate of recidivism. Punishment & Society, 8, 341-364.