Procedural Justice,Perceived Legitimacy,and Reoffending Behavior: In Police and Court Setting

Abstract

Despite the increasing body of procedural justice research studying individuals involved in the criminal justice system, this strand of literature has used different approaches to measure procedural justice and legitimacy. The present study assesses the different theoretical assumptions of these approaches across two criminal justice settings, namely, policing and courts. In addition, we examine how procedural justice stemming from interactions with police officers and judges is related to legitimacy and reoffending behavior postrelease. Using data on adult detainees who entered Dutch pretrial detention centers, our findings support the theoretical assumptions regarding procedural justice and felt obligation to obey the law in both criminal justice settings. Furthermore, path analyses show that perceptions of procedural justice arising from encounters with police officers and judges are related to a higher sense of obligation to obey the law, which in turn is associated with a lower risk of reoffending.

Keywords

procedural justice legitimacy recidivism police courts criminal justice system

In societies, criminal justice systems aim to reduce crime among those who already committed crime (i.e., aim of specific crime prevention; Von Hirsch et al., 2009). Despite all efforts to prevent formerly detained individuals from crime, worldwide reoffending rates after release are high (Fazel & Wolf, 2015; Yukhnenko et al., 2020). One factor that is supposed to play a role in increasing compliance with laws is the way in which individuals feel treated by criminal justice authorities. The underlying premise of procedural justice theory (Tyler, 1990/2006), also referred to as the process-based model of regulation, is that individuals are more likely to comply with the law when they believe that the law and its representing authorities are legitimate and behave in ways that are perceived as fair and just.

Prior empirical research conducted among criminal justice–involved populations has largely provided support for the hypothesized relationships among procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance with laws and rules (see e.g., Baker & Gau, 2018; Kaiser & Reisig, 2019; Maguire et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2016, van Hall et al., 2022b). However, when examining this literature more precisely, a variety of approaches to operationalizing procedural justice and legitimacy and the relationships between them can be distinguished (see also Table 1). Moreover, much of the relevant existing research examining the assumptions of and the relationships within procedural justice theory has been conducted in one single criminal justice setting, whereby individuals are asked to think of recent encounters with police officers or judges or correctional staff. Yet, no study has explored the different theoretical assumptions and hypotheses of the procedural justice model across distinct criminal justice settings within one and the same study. To address this issue, the present study aims to assess the different theoretical assumptions of procedural justice and legitimacy and to examine the extent to which these key constructs are related to reoffending behavior after release, both in police and in court setting.

Table 1:

Identified Approaches Reflecting Procedural Justice Theory in Previous Research Among Criminal Justice-Involved Individuals

Model	Examples of prior studies	Theoretical assumptions
1	Burdziej et al. (2019), Murphy et al. (2016) and Penner et al. (2014)	Convergent validity within legitimacy (TR & OB as one factor); and discriminant validity between PJ and legitimacy
2	Beijersbergen et al. (2016) and Nuño & Morrow (2020)	A lack of convergent validity within legitimacy (TR & OB as separate factors); and discriminant validity between PJ and both subconstructs of legitimacy
3	Augustyn (2015), Fine et al. (2021) and Thompson & Pickett (2021)	Discriminant validity between PJ and TR
4	Baker and Gau (2018), Maguire et al. (2021) and White et al. (2016)	Discriminant validity between PJ and OB

Note. PJ = procedural justice; TR = trust in authorities; OB = obligation to obey; CO = criminal offending.

Theory & Prior Research

Determinants of Compliance With the Law: Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Procedural justice theory states that individuals are more likely to comply with authorities’ laws and rules when criminal justice authorities treat them in a procedurally just manner (Tyler, 1990/2006). Authorities’ actions are considered to be procedurally fair if the following elements are applied during contacts with individuals. First, authorities enforce laws and rules in a neutral and unbiased manner (“neutrality”). Second, authorities allow individuals to participate in the process and express their views before decisions are made (“participation”). Third, authorities show that they honestly care about people (“trustworthiness”). Fourth, authorities treat people fairly and politely (‘respect’; Jackson et al., 2010; Tyler, 1990/2006).

According to procedural justice theory, legitimacy serves as a mediator between perceptions of procedural justice and behavior outcomes, such as cooperation with authorities or compliance with laws and rules (Tyler, 1990/2006, 2003). Legitimacy can be generally defined as beliefs that authorities’ power to govern is justified and therefore authorities possess the position to enforce laws (Jackson, 2018; Jackson et al., 2022; Oliveira et al., 2021; Pósch et al., 2021; Tyler, 1990/2006). Applied to criminal justice settings, legitimacy involves evaluations of individuals whether they accept implicit or explicit claims that criminal justice authorities have power that is appropriate, just and normatively justified and, thus, entitled to determine appropriate behavior (Hamm et al., 2017; Jackson, 2018; Jackson & Gau, 2016).

In recent years, there has been a considerable debate in literature about how to conceptualize and operationalize legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Gau, 2011; Jackson & Gau, 2016; Johnson et al., 2014; Reisig et al., 2007; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler & Jackson, 2013). In his original works, Tyler (1990/2006, 2003) operationalized legitimacy as an overarching construct consisting of two subconstructs: trust in authorities and perceived obligation to obey. Trust in authorities taps into the belief that criminal justice authorities can be trusted to make decisions that are right for community. The perceived or felt obligation to obey authorities’ laws and decisions refers to internalized beliefs that it is wrong to challenge the law or officers’ directives. Accordingly, a first line of research often used one subconstruct (either a scale of trust or a scale of obligation) or both subconstructs (either a combined measure or two distinct measures) to measure legitimacy (see, for example, Reisig et al., 2007; Wolfe et al., 2016).

Critique on the initial conceptualization and operationalization of legitimacy consisted of two central points. First, a growing body of empirical (Gau, 2011, 2014; Hamm et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2014; Reisig et al., 2007) and theoretical (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Jackson & Gau, 2016) research challenged whether trust in authorities and felt obligation to obey sufficiently converge to be combined in a single measure of legitimacy, indicating “that at least obligation to obey is too distinct from trust to be a component of the same construct” (Hamm et al., 2017, p. 1190). From a theoretical point of view, legitimacy is more concerned with the present appropriate wielding of power by criminal justice authorities, whereas trust refers to expectations about how authorities will fulfill their function in the future (Hamm et al., 2017; Jackson & Gau, 2016; Tyler & Jackson, 2013).

Second, scholarship considered feelings of obligation to obey as a “wider concept” than legitimacy, as those feelings could be pushed by several factors (e.g., instrumental factors). According to this view, obligation is seen as a consequence of legitimacy, rather than a component of legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Tankebe, 2013).¹ Scholars expanded the measurement of legitimacy and also argued that true evaluations of legitimacy may reflect the extent to which authorities share the same moral values and goals as citizens (i.e., moral alignment; for example, Jackson et al., 2012; Tyler & Jackson, 2013). Consequently, a second strand of research typically operationalized legitimacy using two measures: moral alignment and obligation to obey (see, for example, Hamm et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2012; Jackson et al., 2022).

Different Assumptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Prior Research

Our review of existing research among criminal justice–involved individuals showed that scholarship generally used four different approaches when operationalizing procedural justice and legitimacy (see Table 1). Notably, these identified approaches of measuring legitimacy were also discussed in a review of Jackson (2018) summarizing international evidence about the sources and consequences of citizens’ legitimacy evaluations. Given that our study’s purpose is to evaluate theoretical assumptions emerging from previous research among criminal justice populations, we focused on the most commonly used measures of legitimacy: trust and obligation.² Below, for each model in Table 1, we will shortly describe research in accordance with that approach and summarize the extent to which procedural justice and legitimacy are related to criminal offending or compliance.

The first approach combines both subconstructs—namely, trust in authorities and obligation to obey—into a single measure of legitimacy (e.g., Burdziej et al., 2019; Campbell et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2016; Penner et al., 2014). Burdziej et al. (2019) is an example of this approach. They combined measures of trust in courts and obligation to obey into a single measure of legitimacy to explore how procedural justice relates to legitimacy among criminal defendants in Poland. Regarding the assumed relationships depicted in Table 1, all cited studies found procedural justice as the primary predictor of legitimacy. Only two studies examined the relationship with actual compliant behavior (Murphy et al., 2016; Penner et al., 2014), but their findings differed regarding legitimacy and compliance. Murphy et al. (2016) found that persons committed tax offenses who felt treated fairly, viewed the tax office more legitimate and, subsequently, reported higher levels of compliance with the law. In their study among youths on probation, Penner et al. (2014) found that procedural justice was related to self-reported offending behavior but did not find an association between perceived legitimacy and offending behavior.

Two studies, one in the United States (Nuño & Morrow, 2020) and one in the Netherlands (Beijersbergen et al., 2016), are illustrations of the second approach that measured legitimacy along two dimensions: trust in authorities and obligation to obey. Both studies adopted factor analytic techniques and found that legitimacy loaded on two separate factors, while both factors were positively correlated with each other (for similar findings among general population samples, see Reisig et al., 2007; Wolfe et al., 2016). In line with the assumed relationships in procedural justice theory (see Table 1), procedural justice emerged as a strong predictor of—both dimensions of—legitimacy (Beijersbergen et al., 2016; Nuño & Morrow, 2020), suggesting that individuals based their legitimacy beliefs in part on whether they feel treated with dignity and respect. Beijersbergen et al. (2016) also examined actual reoffending behavior. They found that incarcerated adults who experienced their treatment by prison staff as more procedurally just reoffended less in the 18 months after release, but both dimensions of legitimacy (i.e., trust and felt obligation) were not significantly related to reoffending behavior.

The third approach measures legitimacy only as individuals’ trust in authorities. Most studies following this approach used data from the Pathways to Desistance Study (e.g., Augustyn, 2015; Fine et al., 2021; Kaiser & Reisig, 2019; Pina-Sánchez & Brunton-Smith, 2020; Thompson & Pickett, 2021), a longitudinal study following adolescents involved in the criminal justice system who committed serious crimes. Other work among youths involved in the criminal justice system (Shook et al., 2021; Sprott & Greene, 2010) and incarcerated adults (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015) also used statements about trust in authorities to measure legitimacy. In accordance with the assumed relationships as depicted in Table 1, all studies showed significant relationships between procedural justice and trust in authorities. Some studies also examined the indirect effect of procedural justice on offending behavior via trust in authorities. Youths involved in the criminal justice system who felt treated procedurally just reported higher scores on trust in authorities and, subsequently, trust was related to their self-reported offending behavior (Fine et al., 2021; Kaiser & Reisig, 2019; Thompson & Pickett, 2021).

The fourth and final approach uses only a scale of individuals’ feelings of obligation to obey directives or laws to measure legitimacy (Baker, 2017; Baker & Gau, 2018; Maguire et al., 2021; Reisig & Meško, 2009; Tyler et al., 2007; Van Hall et al., 2023; White et al., 2016). Interestingly, White et al. (2016) found that trust in authorities did not discriminate well enough from procedural justice and, therefore, they dropped the trust measure and continued with obligation to obey as an indicator of legitimacy. Supporting the assumed interrelationships (see Table 1), research showed that procedural justice consistently predicts individuals’ feelings about their obligation to obey laws or authorities’ directives. Two studies examined associations with actual behavioral outcomes but showed contrasting findings. Reisig and Meško’s study (2009) found a direct relationship between incarcerated adults’ perceived treatment by correctional officers and misconduct, but this was not mediated by obligation to obey. On the contrary, Maguire and colleagues (2021) showed that incarcerated adults’ felt obligation to obey mediated the association between their procedural justice perceptions and their compliance with institutional rules.

Current Study

Building off procedural justice literature, the aims of the current study are twofold: (a) to assess the different theoretical assumptions of procedural justice and legitimacy across two criminal justice settings (i.e., police and court setting), and (b) to examine to what extent perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy beliefs are related to reoffending behavior after their release among formerly detained individuals. Two hypotheses are tested based on procedural justice theory (Tyler, 1990/2006) and prior research. First, individuals who perceive their treatment as procedurally just are less likely to reoffend after release. Second, individuals who perceive their treatment as procedurally just are more likely to feel they should obey the law, and, in turn, they are less likely to reoffend after release.

In doing so, this study extends previous research in, at least, four respects. While research among criminal justice–involved individuals used a variety of approaches to study procedural justice and legitimacy in separate studies (see Table 1), our study empirically examines the underlying assumptions of each single approach within one study and assesses all approaches both in policing and in courts. Relatedly, while the procedural justice framework (depicted in Table 1) is often tested in one single criminal justice setting—for instance, in a correctional setting (Maguire et al., 2021)—this study broadens existing knowledge by examining the effects of procedural justice experienced in encounters with police officers as well as judges. In addition, we examine actual reoffending behavior after release among adults involved in the criminal justice system, while this measure has been scarcely available in prior procedural justice studies (for an exception, see Beijersbergen et al., 2016). Furthermore, prior procedural justice studies primarily focused on serious adolescents involved in the criminal justice system in the United States (e.g., the Pathways to Desistance Study & Crossroads Study), but our study used data about detained adults in Europe (i.e., the Netherlands). Therefore, this study extends prior empirical work and examines whether similar conclusions will be reached in a different context. Finally, this study adds several potential factors, such as subjectively sanction severity, to adjust for other criminological theories when assessing the impact of procedural justice and legitimacy on formerly detained individuals’ reoffending behavior postrelease.

Method

Data and Sample

The current study used data from the Prison Project, a large-scale longitudinal study on the intended and unintended effects of detention in the Netherlands (Dirkzwager et al., 2018). In this project, a representative sample of 1,904 people detained in correctional facilities was followed for several years, both during and after detention. The target population consisted of all persons who entered one of the 30 pretrial detention centers in the Netherlands between October 2010 and April 2011, and who met the following criteria: men, aged between 18 and 65 years, and born in the Netherlands. For the current study, two waves of data were used: the baseline measurement shortly after arrival in pretrial detention (T1) and the first postrelease measurement (T2).

The baseline wave occurred approximately 3 weeks after individuals’ arrival in pretrial detention (T1). At the time of the study, 3,981 detainees matched the inclusion criteria; of them, 2,837 detainees were approached and informed about the study. The majority of individuals who could not be approached had already been released. Employees of the Prison Project contacted detainees and asked them to participate in a computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) and to complete a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Interviews were conducted in private rooms and questionnaires were filled out by participants themselves in their cells. Participation was voluntary; those who participated were requested to sign an informed consent declaration (Dirkzwager et al., 2018). Of those who could be approached, 1,904 (67%) participated in the interview and 1,748 of them (62%) completed the questionnaire as well. Registered data of the Dutch Prison Service revealed no significant differences regarding background characteristics such as age, marital status, and employment status between those who participated and who refused to participate, while participants slightly differed on other characteristics (Dirkzwager et al., 2018).

The postrelease wave occurred approximately 6 months after release (T2). Each respondent who was released and could be contacted was requested to participate in an interview, which was conducted in their home, in a public space (e.g., a restaurant) or at institutions where respondents were housed (e.g., a clinic or detention center again). Of the total sample (N = 1,904), 1,407 ex-detainees could be contacted, and 946 of them agreed to participate in an interview. To encourage participation, a gift voucher of €10 was offered. Registration data revealed that participants of the postrelease wave were quite similar to nonparticipants with respect to their background characteristics (Dirkzwager et al., 2018).

Because police and judge procedural justice were measured at different waves, the analyses were conducted for two different samples (i.e., those participating at T1, and those participating at T2). In total, 1,428 respondents answered questions about police procedural justice, trust in authorities, felt obligation to obey the law, and all control variables at T1. At T2, 6 months postrelease, 700 respondents also answered questions about judge procedural justice, trust in authorities, and their felt obligation to obey the law.³

Measures

Procedural Justice

Respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice referred to their specific interactions with the police (“the last time they were arrested”) and the judge (“who handled their criminal case or made a decision”). Procedural justice was measured using 11 items (for all individual items, see Supplemental Table S1, available in the online version of this article) that were commonly used in prior procedural justice studies (Beijersbergen et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2010; Van Hall et al., 2022a). Respondents rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to what extent they agreed with the 11 statements. Items were coded so that higher scores reflected higher levels of procedural justice. The internal consistency of both scales was excellent with Cronbach’s alphas of .94 (police procedural justice) and .91 (judge procedural justice).⁴

Legitimacy

At both waves, respondents were asked about their perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system. In our study, perceived legitimacy was measured using two subconstruct: trust in criminal justice authorities and felt obligation to obey the law. Each subconstruct was measured with six items covering trust and six items covering perceived obligation (for all individual items, see Supplemental Table S1). Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), indicating that higher scores reflected higher levels of legitimacy. The internal consistency of the legitimacy scales ranged from good to excellent for trust in authorities (T1 = .83, T2 = 84), felt obligation to obey the law (T1 = .77, T2 = .74), and a combined legitimacy scale (T1 = .80, T2 = 81).⁵ Descriptive statistics for procedural justice and legitimacy are reported in Table 2.

Table 2:

Descriptive Statistics of Both Samples

Variables	For analyses on police procedural justice(N = 1,428)				For analyses on judge procedural justice(N = 700)
Variables	N	%	M	SE	N	%	M	SE
Procedural justice^a			2.32	0.88			3.43	0.69
Legitimacy^a			2.86	0.54			2.90	0.56
Trust in authorities^a			2.53	0.67			2.69	0.71
Obligation to obey the law^a			3.20	0.67			3.11	0.65
Reoffending within 6 months after release
No	1,140	79.8			549	78.4
Yes	288	20.2			151	21.6
Age at arrest			30.27	10.61			30.83	11.13
Ethnicity
Dutch background	885	62.0			471	67.3
Non-Dutch background	543	38.0			229	32.7
Educational level at arrest
Low	906	63.4			439	62.7
Middle/high	522	36.6			261	37.3
Employed at arrest
No	559	39.1			267	38.1
Yes	869	60.9			433	61.9
Partner at arrest
No	701	49.1			382	54.6
Yes	727	50.9			318	45.4
Length of detention (in days)			232.29	254.41			251.16	260.16
Age at first arrest			18.76	7.32			19.30	7.83
No. of prior convictions			8.58	10.19			8.80	11.41
No. of prior detention spells			3.33	6.28			2.55	7.26
Type of offense
Violent offense	441	30.9			217	31.0
Property offense	634	44.4			337	48.1
Drug offense	183	12.8			70	10.0
Other offense	170	11.9			76	10.9
Low self-control			2.82	0.59			2.90	0.61
Subjectively sanction severity			3.47	0.91			3.42	0.92

Summative scores on each construct (i.e., felt obligation to obey and procedural justice) are presented.

Reoffending Behavior

Reoffending behavior was a measure of respondents’ offending across a wide variety of offenses within 6 months following their release. This measure was based on registered data from the nationwide Judicial Documentation System (JDS) of the Research and Documentation Center (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. This database comprised information on all registered crimes and convictions. Acquittals, dismissals because of the unlikelihood of conviction, minor offenses (in most cases traffic offenses), and cases that had not yet been settled were excluded (Wartna et al., 2011). Because most respondents were reconvicted once in the follow-up period, reoffending behavior was a dichotomous measure (0 = no reconviction, 1 = at least one reconviction). Descriptive statistics for reoffending behavior are presented in Table 2.⁶

Control Variables

Following prior research (e.g., Augustyn, 2015; Baker & Gau, 2018; Beijersbergen et al., 2016; Penner et al., 2014), we controlled for several background characteristics that have been found to be correlated with legitimacy or reoffending behavior. We accounted for the following sociodemographic characteristics: age upon arrival in pretrial detention, migration background (0 = Dutch background, 1 = non-Dutch background, with one or both parents born outside the Netherlands), educational level (0 = low, 1 = middle or high), employment at arrest (0 = no, 1 = yes), and having a partner at arrest (0 = no, 1 = yes). In addition, we controlled for crime-related background characteristics. These variables were based on data from the Dutch Prison Service and JDS of the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC). Variables included length of detention (in days), respondents’ ages when they were arrested for the first time, the number of prior convictions, the number of prior detention spells, and type of offense (i.e., property, violence, drug, and other offenses). Finally, we controlled for low self-control and sanction severity. Low self-control was measured by using the Dutch adaptation of the Tangney’s Brief Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004). Items about self-control included, for instance, “Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong.” The self-control scale was computed by taking the mean of the 13 items (α = .84). A low score indicated high levels of self-control, while a high score indicated low levels of self-control. Sanction severity was measured by using three items (e.g., “My stay in detention is severe”). The sanction severity scale was computed by taking the mean of the three items (α = .79). High scores reflected high levels of sanction severity. Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 2.

Analytic Approach

The analysis proceeded in two stages. First, we examined the theoretical assumptions of the four approaches, as presented in Table 1, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) separately for police and court setting. An advantage of confirmatory factor analysis is the ability to decide a priori which item should load on a particular factor and, subsequently, to test for the correctness of that assumption (Kline, 2016). We conducted a weighted least squares-mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation method, as we used ordinal indicators. In Mplus, the factor loading of the first item in a latent construct is constrained: Factor loading is 1.00 with a standard error of 0.00 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Measurement models allowed latent variables to be correlated. We evaluated all four approaches according to model fit indicators and factor loadings.

To assess model fit, we used the chi-square (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The CFI and TLI ranges from 0 to 1. Values equal to or greater than .95 are considered as quite good and values between .900 and .949 are considered as potentially adequate depending on the values of other fit indicators. The RMSEA and SRMR display measures of error and should be close to zero for a good fit. RMSEA values should be equal to or lower than .05 for good models or between .06 and .10 for adequate models. The SRMR should be equal to or lower than .06 (Byrne, 2012; Kline, 2016). To assess which approach fit our data best, we preferred a model that showed most satisfactory indicators.⁷

Second, for the model(s) with a good fit, we used path analysis in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) to estimate each of the assumed relationships (see Table 1) among procedural justice, legitimacy, and reoffending behavior simultaneously. As with the CFAs, we estimated path analysis separately for the police and the judge. In these analyses, procedural justice and legitimacy were entered as endogenous variables (i.e., latent constructs), and all other background characteristics were added as exogenous variables. Given our dichotomous measure of reoffending, we used the maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors (MLR) which allows for a logit estimation. Logistic models in Mplus do not produce the model fit statistics discussed above for the CFA. Therefore, we presented the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC).

Results

Assessing the Different Assumptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

The results of the confirmatory factor analyses are displayed in Table 3. Although we tested the theoretical assumptions of the four approaches separately for police procedural justice (T1) and judge procedural justice (T2), the results are discussed simultaneously because a similar pattern emerged. The first approach, consisting of two unidimensional factors representing procedural justice and legitimacy, showed poor fit indicators and low factor loadings. Not surprisingly, all low factor loadings were particularly observed among the items measuring felt obligation to obey (for example, for police model: .422, .379, .395, .266, .324, .287) that suggested that trust should not be combined with felt obligation to obey the law.

Table 3:

Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Model	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR	Loading range	Between-factor correlation(s)
Police (T1; N = 1,428)
1.	6,826.716	229	.877	.864	.139	.094	.266–.885	.52
2.	2,762.422	227	.953	.95	.086	.065	.493–.885	.13; .30; .55
3.	2,795.847	118	.942	.934	.123	.062	.686–.885	.55
4.	847.119	118	.984	.981	.064	.036	.505–.887	.13
Judge (T2; N = 700)
1.	3,173.550	229	.870	.857	.128	.087	.284–.908	.52
2.	1,810.958	227	.930	.922	.094	.063	.329–.845	.20; .36;.55
3.	1,698.794	118	.920	.908	.131	.066	.602–.858	.55
4.	610.960	118	.981	.976	.063	.040	.509–.857	.12

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Moreover, the second and third approach did not fit our data well enough either. The second approach included procedural justice and two separate indicators of legitimacy: trust in authorities and felt obligation to obey. When assessing model fit, some indicators showed adequate or good fit—see CFI (.953 & .930) and TLI (.954 & .922)–—while the RMSEA (.086 & .094) and SRMR (.065 & .063) seemed to indicate poorer model fit. Factor loadings for the second approach were significant (p < .001) but did not meet the preferred cutoff value of 0.5, particularly not in court setting. In addition, the third approach that used procedural justice and trust in authorities showed poor fit indices (see RMSEA & SRMR), even though the items loaded quite well on factors. Procedural justice showed a high correlation with trust in authorities (.55 for police; .56 for judge), which may indicate poor discriminant validity between procedural justice and trust in authorities.⁸

The fourth approach, however, appeared to be the model that best fitted our data. This approach consisted of two constructs representing procedural justice and felt obligation to obey the law. Fit indicators for this model fell above the desired minimum threshold of .95, see CFI (.984 & .981) and TLI (.981 & .976), and fell (nearly) below the upper thresholds for RMSEA (.064 & .063) and for SRMR (.036 & .040). In addition, all items exceeded the minimum threshold (0.5) and showed factor loadings of .5 or higher (see Supplemental Tables S2 and S3, available in the online version of this article).⁹

Studying the Relationships Between Procedural Justice, Felt Obligation to Obey and Reoffending Behavior

Next, we examined the extent to which procedural justice and felt obligation to obey the law (fourth approach) are related to registered reoffending behavior 6 months postrelease. Results of these path analyses are displayed in Table 4. Regarding the direct relationship, experienced procedural justice was not directly associated with postrelease reoffending behavior. This applied to police procedural justice as well as judge procedural justice.¹⁰

Table 4:

Results of Structural Equation Modeling for Procedural Justice Predicting Obligation to Obey Laws and Registered Reoffending

Variables	Police (N = 1,428)				Judge (N = 700)
	Obligation to obey		Reoffending behavior		Obligation to obey		Reoffending behavior
	b	SE	OR	SE	b	SE	OR	SE
Procedural justice	.146**	.028	1.017	.094	.247***	.052	0.894	.136
Felt obligation to obey the law			0.722*	.097			0.592**	.124
Age at arrest	.004	.003	0.996*	.012	.006	.005	0.975	.018
Migration background (ref. = Dutch background)	.050	.049	0.864	.145	.057	.066	1.613	.403
Educational level (ref. = low)	.046	.044	0.973	.153	.068	.063	0.836	.200
Employed (ref. = no)	.085*	.045	0.910	.139	.111	.063	0.765	.172
Partner at arrest (ref. = no)	.040	.042	0.771	.115	−.039	.061	0.788	.181
Length of detention (in days)	.000	.000	0.998	.000	.000	.000	0.996	.001
Age at first arrest	.013	.004	0.983	.019	.017**	.006	0.987	.030
No. of prior convictions	−.003	.006	1.055**	.021	−.005	.010	1.079*	.037
No. of prior detention spells	.000	.009	1.018	.029	.002	.013	0.996	.045
Type of offense (ref. = violent offense)
Property offense	−.048	.052	1.948*	.326	−.101	.075	1.486	.374
Drug offense	−.173**	.061	0.937	.256	−.078	.100	0.935	.418
Other offense	.007	.002	0.961	.048	−.069	.089	0.729	.317
Low self-control	−.433***	.045	1.140	.163	−.314***	.056	1.422*	.263
Subjectively sanction severity	.213***	.026	1.043	.087	.076*	.035	1.130	.143

Note. For police procedural justice, model statistics: AIC = 60,856.680, BIC = 61,293.536. For judge procedural justice, model statistics: AIC = 29,020.283, BIC = 29,398.023. b = unstandardized coefficient; OR = odds ratio; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

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

Besides this direct effect, procedural justice research also assumes an indirect relationship between perceived procedural justice and postrelease reoffending behavior via felt obligation to obey the law. As expected, procedural justice was positively associated with a felt obligation to obey the law. The more individuals felt that police officers (b = .146, p < .01) and judges (b = .247, p < .001) treated them with respect, made fair decisions, and listened to them, the more they felt they should obey laws. Subsequently, there was also an association between felt obligation to obey the law and registered reoffending behavior in police setting (odds ratio [OR] = 0.722, p < .05) and in court setting (OR = 0.592, p < .01). While controlling for several characteristics, formerly detained individuals who reported higher levels of felt obligation to obey laws were less likely to reoffend after their release. In other words, if an individual’s score on felt obligation to obey the law increased with one unit (e.g., from value 2 to 3), the odds of reoffending decreased with 28% (see analyses for police procedural justice) or with 41% (see judge procedural justice). In addition to the distinct paths, the indirect effect of procedural justice on registered reoffending behavior via felt obligation to obey the law turned out to be statistically significant, both for police procedural justice (OR = 0.954, p < .05, confidence interval [CI] = [0.915, 0.993]) and for judge procedural justice (OR = 0.880, p < .05, CI = [0.786, 0.974]).

Additional Analyses

To examine the robustness of our findings based on registered reoffending within 6 months after release, we conducted several additional analyses. First, we reran our analyses based on self-reported reoffending behavior within 6 months postrelease.¹¹ These results showed similar findings, indicating an indirect relationship between police procedural justice (OR = 0.951, p < .05, CI = [0.908, 0.994])—and judge procedural justice (OR = 0.862, p < .05, CI = [0.766, 0.958])—and self-reported reoffending behavior via felt obligation to obey laws (see Supplemental Table S4, available in the online version of this article).

Second, we repeated our analyses with a longer follow-up period of registered reoffending (i.e., 18 months). Judge procedural justice was indirectly—via felt obligation to obey laws—related to registered reoffending behavior within 18 months after release (OR = 0.901, p < .05, CI = [0.818, 0.984]). We found no indirect relationship for police procedural justice in the longer run, suggesting that perceptions of police procedural justice became less important over time (see Supplemental Table S5, available in the online version of this article).¹²

Finally, inspired by prior research (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2018), we explored whether the type of reoffending behavior—violent reoffending versus non-violent reoffending—matters for the hypothesized relationships between procedural justice, felt obligation to obey laws, and registered reoffending behavior within 6 months after release (dichotomously measured; e.g., 0 = no reconviction; 1 = at least one violent reconviction). We found that respondents who felt treated more procedurally just by police officers (OR = 0.945, p < .05, CI = [0.902, 0.987]) or judges (OR = 0.872, p < .05, CI = [0.773, 0.971]) also held stronger views about their felt obligation to obey laws, and, subsequently, were less likely to be reconvicted for nonviolent offenses, but procedural justice did not directly—or indirectly via felt obligation to obey laws—affect the likelihood of being reconvicted for a violent offense (see Supplemental Tables S6 and S7, available in the online version of this article, for police procedural justice and for judge procedural justice, respectively). These findings were in line with Steiner and Wooldredge’s (2018) study on rule-breaking behavior of inmates.

Discussion

In this study, we identified four different approaches of procedural justice and legitimacy often used in procedural justice research among individuals involved in the justice system, and we assessed the tenability of the theoretical assumptions of these different approaches in police and court setting. We also examined the interrelationships between procedural justice stemming from interactions with police officers and judges, legitimacy, and reoffending behavior after release.

Our findings indicated support for a two-factor operationalization consisting of procedural justice and felt obligation to obey the law. When examining all four approaches that operationalize procedural justice and legitimacy, the factor analyses seemed to challenge two key assumptions regarding the three other approaches. First, our results showed that trust in authorities and felt obligation to obey the law do not converge sufficiently to form a single composite measure of legitimacy (i.e., lack of convergent validity), implying that both subconstructs are not tapping into the same underlying construct. On a more theoretical level, it suggests that trust in authorities (i.e., evaluations of authorities’ future intentions) and felt obligation to obey the law (i.e., beliefs that it is wrong to challenge laws or directives) should be seen as distinct concepts (Hamm et al., 2017; Jackson & Gau, 2016). Second, the results showed a partial overlap between procedural justice and trust in authorities (i.e., lack of discriminant validity). It may be difficult for criminal justice–involved individuals to distinguish between procedural justice experienced during specific interactions with police officers or judges and more general judgments about trust in criminal justice authorities. Nevertheless, the preferred approach—including procedural justice and felt obligation to obey the law—has also been used before in studies among individuals involved in criminal justice (e.g., Baker, 2017; Baker & Gau, 2018; Maguire et al., 2021; White et al., 2016).

The current study contributes to the ongoing scholarly debate on what procedural justice and legitimacy entail and how they should be operationalized. Several scholars mainly using general population samples have raised serious questions about the one dimensionality of (police) legitimacy and highlighted problems with the independence of police procedural justice and trust in the police (see, for example, Gau, 2011; Johnson et al., 2014; Reisig et al., 2007). Our findings confirmed these findings among individuals who most frequently interact with criminal justice authorities (i.e., adult detainees). Moreover, knowledge on the theoretical assumptions of procedural justice and legitimacy across multiple criminal justice settings is lacking in literature so far. Interestingly, our findings show similar patterns regarding the different approaches in police and court setting. In that regard, issues with the operationalization of procedural justice and legitimacy extend to court setting, suggesting that those issues continue to be a matter of concern across different criminal justice contexts.

When exploring the interrelationships in procedural justice theory (Tyler, 1990/2006), our findings support the assumption that procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliant behavior are linked. In line with procedural justice theory and prior literature, procedural justice perceptions arising from interactions with police officers or judges are related to individuals’ felt obligation to obey (see, for example, Baker, 2017; Baker & Gau, 2018; White et al., 2016), which in turn is linked to their reoffending behavior (e.g., Murphy et al., 2016; Tyler et al., 2007). Stated differently, our findings support the indirect pathway from procedural justice to reoffending behavior via the felt obligation to obey laws. In particular, support for this indirect pathway was found for reoffending behavior shortly after release (i.e., 6 months) and for nonviolent reoffending. Nevertheless, even among formerly detained individuals who broke the law and had an experience with criminal justice authorities that resulted in a negative outcome (i.e., period in pretrial detention), procedural justice still enhances beliefs about the perceived duty to obey the law, and these beliefs are associated with lower risks of reoffending behavior after release.

In contrast with procedural justice theory (Tyler, 1990/2006) and prior research (Beijersbergen et al., 2016; Penner et al., 2014), our findings provide no support for a direct relationship between a procedurally just treatment and reoffending after release. Apparently, this suggests that, at least in police and court context, the perceived fairness in interactions with criminal justice authorities (i.e., police officers and judges) does not directly encourage compliant behavior. One explanation may be that the impact of how individuals feel treated by criminal justice authorities fades over time, and that other—more recent and frequent—encounters with authorities (e.g., prison staff, probation officer) or that particular life circumstances after release may affect formerly detained individuals’ (reoffending) behavior more.

The current study adds unique insights to the examination of the procedural justice framework by not only studying actual reoffending behavior among detained adults but also by examining the proposed pathways in procedural justice theory both in police and in court setting. Our findings suggest that—while accounting for other potential mechanisms that might affect reoffending behavior (i.e., low self-control)—police officers and judges may indirectly, via felt obligation to obey, help to reduce reoffending behavior by treating detained adults in a procedurally just way. This broadens current knowledge on effects of procedural justice from police setting to other settings as well (i.e., courts), highlighting the importance of a fair and respectful treatment in relation to reoffending behavior throughout the criminal justice system.

Notwithstanding these encouraging findings, some limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting our results. A core concern for the present study was the current measure of obligation to obey, as this measure targeted individuals’ perceived duty to obey laws. However, one may challenge whether the items represent a content-free internalized feeling to obey which is at the heart of procedural justice theory’s stand on legitimacy (Jackson et al., 2022; Tyler, 1990/2006). In addition, our measure of obligation to obey did not include the felt obligation to obey authorities’ directives, as has been done in other studies (see, for example, Maguire et al., 2021; White et al., 2016). We encourage future research to include items about the perceived right to power and about the normative obligation to obey directives of criminal justice authorities when measuring legitimacy beliefs (see for instance Oliveira et al., 2021; Pósch et al., 2021).

Another concern for this study relates to our study design. For police procedural justice, the relationship between procedural justice and obligation to obey was measured at the same wave, and estimated pathways for judge procedural justice were all cross-sectional in nature. Consequently, most analyses were cross-sectional, and we were unable to disentangle temporal relationships between these constructs. Future research should ideally measure the key constructs (i.e., procedural justice, legitimacy, and reoffending) at three different points in time.

A final concern refers to the generalizability of our findings. The current study examined male adults who were held in pretrial detention centers in the Netherlands. Circumstances in Dutch detention centers are generally seen as relatively humane and mild (Dervan, 2011; Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012), and prison sentences are often short compared with other countries (Downes & Van Swaaningen, 2007). It is very well possible that such characteristics of the Dutch correctional system may have influenced individuals’ perceptions of procedural justice and their legitimacy beliefs and, ultimately, their reoffending behavior.

Conclusion

While the number of studies assessing the procedural justice framework among individuals involved in the justice system develops rapidly, the current study emphasizes the importance of paying sufficient attention to the assumptions of the procedural justice and legitimacy constructs. We encourage researchers not to take the operationalization of key components of procedural justice theory for granted. Developing a more refined—and eventually standardized—measurement may provide a solid base for future research to properly assess interrelationships among procedural justice, legitimacy, and reoffending behavior.

The findings of the current study are also relevant for policy and practice. Reducing reoffending rates is of paramount interest for criminal justice systems and, therefore, knowledge on its determinants is essential. Our study suggests that the way in which authorities treat individuals matters for encouraging their felt obligation to obey the law, and subsequently for lowering their recidivism risks. This emphasizes the importance of integrating key elements of procedural justice in the treatment of individuals by professionals in the entire criminal justice system. Officers representing criminal justice authorities who apply the principles of procedural justice may not only encourage feelings of obligation to obey but may ultimately contribute to the process of desistance from crime of formerly detained individuals.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548231206833 – Supplemental material for Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Reoffending Behavior: In Police and Court Setting

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548231206833 for Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Reoffending Behavior: In Police and Court Setting by Matthias van Hall, Anja J. E. Dirkzwager, Peter H. Van der Laan and Paul Nieuwbeerta in Criminal Justice and Behavior

Footnotes

AUTHORS’ NOTE:

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was funded by an Open Competition grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NOW; grant number: 406.18.RB.011).

ORCID iD

Matthias van Hall

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Tables S1–S7 are available in the online version of this article at .

Notes

Matthias van Hall, MSc, works as a PhD candidate at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. His research interests include criminal justice–involved individuals’ procedural justice perceptions experienced in encounters with different authorities, and the consequences of those perceptions on legitimacy and reoffending behavior.

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 effects of imprisonment on further life course, the mental and physical health of criminal justice–involved individuals, and the determinants and consequences of a procedural just treatment by criminal justice agencies.

Peter H. van der Laan, PhD, is a professor at the department of Criminal Law and Criminology of Free University Amsterdam and senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. His research interests include the impact of (semi)criminal justice interventions and issues regarding justice-involved youth, individuals on probation, and people convicted for homicide.

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

Augustyn

M. B.

(2015). The (ir)relevance of procedural justice in the pathways to crime. Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000122

Baker

(2017). Exploring the relationship of shared race/ethnicity with court actors, perceptions of court procedural justice, and obligation to obey among male offenders. Race and Justice, 7(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716650728

Baker

Gau

J. M.

(2018). Female offenders’ perceptions of police procedural justice and their obligation to obey the law. Crime & Delinquency, 64(6), 758–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717719418

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Nieuwbeerta

(2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643

Bottoms

Tankebe

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

Brunton-Smith

McCarthy

D. J.

(2016). Prison legitimacy and procedural fairness: A multilevel examination of prisoners in England and Wales. Justice Quarterly, 33(6), 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1023215

Burdziej

Guzik

Pilitowski

(2019). Fairness at trial: The impact of procedural justice and other experiential factors on criminal defendants’ perceptions of court legitimacy in Poland. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(2), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12358

Byrne

B. M.

(2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

Campbell

C. M.

Labrecque

R. M.

Schaefer

R. L.

Harvis

Rose Zavita

Reddy

Labranche

(2020). Do perceptions of legitimacy and fairness matter in prison? Examining how procedural and distributive justice relate to misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1630–1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820916901

10.

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(2), 413–428.

11.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Kruttschnitt

(2012). Prisoners’ perceptions of correctional officers’ behavior in English and Dutch prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.004

12.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Nieuwbeerta

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Bosma

A. Q.

de Cuyper

Doekhie

Eichelsheim

de Goede

van der Laan

P. H.

Lamet

Palmen

Raaijmakers

Ramakers

Reef

van der Stelt

Wensveen

Wermink

(2018). Cohort profile: The prison project—A study of criminal behavior and life circumstances before, during, and after imprisonment in the Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-course Criminology, 4(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0077-2

13.

Downes

Van Swaaningen

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

Bijleveld

C. C. J. H.

(Eds.), Crime and justice in the Netherlands (pp. 31–71). University of Chicago Press.

14.

Fazel

Wolf

(2015). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: Current difficulties and recommendations for best practice. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0130390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130390

15.

Fine

A. D.

Beardslee

Mays

Frick

P. J.

Steinberg

Cauffman

(2021). Measuring youths’ perceptions of police: Evidence from the crossroads study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000328

16.

Gau

J. M.

(2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(6), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.004

17.

Gau

J. M.

(2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9220-8

18.

Hamm

J. A.

Trinkner

Carr

J. D.

(2017). Fair process, trust, and cooperation: Moving toward an integrated framework of police legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1183–1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817710058

19.

Henderson

Wells

Maguire

E. R.

Gray

(2010). Evaluating the measurement properties of procedural justice in a correctional setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809360193

20.

Jackson

(2018). Norms, normativity, and the legitimacy of justice institutions: International perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113734

21.

Jackson

Bradford

Hough

Myhill

Quinton

Tyler

T. R.

(2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs032

22.

Jackson

Gau

J. M.

(2016). Carving up concepts? Differentiating between trust and legitimacy in public attitudes towards legal authority. In Shockley

Neal

T. M. S.

PytlikZillig

Bornstein

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust: Towards theoretical and methodological integration (pp. 49–69). Springer.

23.

Jackson

Oliveira

T. R.

Bradford

Mendes

S. M.

Lima Natal

Zanetic

(2022). Fear and legitimacy in São Paulo, Brazil: Police-citizen relations in a high violence, high fear city. Law & Society Review, 56(1), 122–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12589

24.

Jackson

Tyler

T. R.

Bradford

Taylor

Shiner

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

25.

Johnson

Maguire

E. R.

Kuhns

J. B.

(2014). Public perceptions of the legitimacy of the law and legal authorities: Evidence from the Caribbean. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 947–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12102

26.

Kaiser

Reisig

M. D.

(2019). Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: The role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9375-4

27.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

28.

Maguire

E. R.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Wells

(2021). The effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance among inmates in a work release program. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1634753

29.

Murphy

Bradford

Jackson

(2016). Motivating compliance behavior among offenders: Procedural justice or deterrence? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815611166

30.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus users’ guide (8th ed.).

31.

Nuño

L. E.

Morrow

W. J.

(2020). Assessing the process-based model of regulation within a jail setting: Arrestees’ perceptions of procedural justice, trust and obligation to obey. Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(5), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1722727

32.

Oliveira

T. R.

Jackson

Murphy

Bradford

(2021). Are trustworthiness and legitimacy “hard to win, easy to lose?” A longitudinal test of the asymmetry thesis of police-citizen contact. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37, 1003–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09478-2

33.

Penner

E. K.

Viljoen

J. L.

Douglas

K. S.

Roesch

(2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000055

34.

Pina-Sánchez

Brunton-Smith

(2020). Reassessing the relationship between procedural justice and police legitimacy. Law and Human Behavior, 44(5), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000424

35.

Pósch

Jackson

Bradford

Macqueen

(2021). “Truly free consent?” Clarifying the nature of police legitimacy using causal mediation analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17, 563–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09426-x

36.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

M. G.

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301275

37.

Reisig

M. D.

Meško

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802089768

38.

Shook

J. J.

Goodkind

Kolivoski

K. M.

Ballentine

K. L.

(2021). Procedural justice and legal socialization among juvenile offenders: The role of defense attorneys. Journal of Social Issues, 77(2), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12445

39.

Sprott

J. B.

Greene

(2010). Trust and confidence in the courts: Does the quality of treatment young offenders receive affect their views of the courts? Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308176

40.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2015). Examining the sources of correctional officer legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(3), 679–704.

41.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2018). Prison officer legitimacy, their exercise of power, and inmate rule breaking. Criminology, 56(4), 750–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12191

42.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Luzio-Boone

(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

43.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00291.x

44.

Tankebe

Reisig

M. D.

Wang

(2016). A multidimensional model of police legitimacy: A cross-cultural assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000153

45.

Thompson

A. J.

Pickett

J. T.

(2021). Asymmetry in process-based model relationships: A longitudinal study of adjudicated adolescents. Criminology, 59(4), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12279

46.

Tyler

T. R.

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

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 431–505). University of Chicago Press.

47.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1990)

48.

Tyler

T. R.

Jackson

(2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In Tankebe

Liebling

A. E.

(Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83–104). Oxford University Press.

49.

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(3), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00314.x

50.

Van Hall

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

. (2022a). Detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice: An examination throughout the criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221132229

51.

Van Hall

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

. (2022b). Procedural justice and legitimacy of the law in the criminal justice system: A longitudinal study among Dutch detainees. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2065274

52.

Van Hall

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

. (2023). Differential effects of procedural justice? Examining heterogeneity in the perceptions and effects of procedural justice across first-time and recurrent detainees. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231155924

53.

Von Hirsch

Ashworth

Roberts

J. V

. (2009). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Hart Publishing.

54.

Wartna

B. S. J.

Blom

Tollenaar

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

55.

White

M. D.

Mulvey

Dario

L. M.

(2016). Arrestees’ perceptions of the police: Exploring procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police across offender types. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815602501

56.

Wolfe

S. E.

Nix

Kaminski

Rojek

(2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9263-8

57.

Yukhnenko

Sridhar

Fazel

(2020). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update (version 3). Wellcome Open Research, 4(28), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14970.3

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB