On the Portability of Procedural Justice Theory: A
On the Portability of Procedural Justice Theory: A Longitudinal and Cross-national Comparative Analysis of Cooperation with Legal Authorities and Compliance with the Law Jonathan Jackson, London School of Economics Universidad Diego Portales April 2015 Two parts to the talk 1. Longitudinal study of procedural jus6ce and legi6macy A test of the media-ng role of social iden-fica-on in a na-onally representa-ve Australian sample 2. Cross-‐na6onal test of procedural jus6ce theory in the context of coopera3on with legal authori3es and compliance with the law Linking contact with the police to various outcomes using European Social Survey and US data ‘…people‘s reac3ons to law and legal authori3es are heavily influenced by their assessments of the fairness of legal procedures’ (Tyler, 2008) People are sensi3ve to whether authority is exercised in a fair, transparent, and unbiased manner. 4 aspects of procedural jus3ce: (i) voice, (ii) neutrality, (iii) treatment with respect and dignity, and (iv) displaying trustworthy mo3ves. Legi3macy As a psychological state, empirical legi3macy is the extent to which ci3zens believe that the power held by jus3ce ins3tu3ons is: (a) right, proper and appropriate; and is therefore, (b) en3tled to be obeyed. Current debate in criminology about how to measure (a) (i.e. moral appropriateness) and whether legi3macy is uni-‐dimensional Legitimacy and procedural justice Claim Legi3macy tames power Legi3macy as dialogue Recep3on Legi3macy reduces tension between power-‐holders and subordinates Procedural justice is key to ‘audience’ legitimacy: 1. wielding authority in fair, neutral and accountable ways generates a belief among subordinates that power-‐holders act morally and lawfully 2. procedural justice communicates status, value and inclusion within the larger group, and people are motivated to legitimate authorities of groups they feel connected to *** note: a brazen amalgam of Tyler, Bottoms/Tankebe & Coicaud… 5 ‘Officers as mirrors’ (Bradford et al. 2014) Panel study of Australian citizens (representative sample); two waves, n=1,023 (35% attrition) Social iden3fica3on Procedural jus3ce Legi3macy Via social identification: procedural justice encourages people to feel part of the group via a sense of value and status. We are motivated to legitimize authorities of groups we feel part of; we adopt roles and duties of citizenship that are connected to group membership. Directly: procedural justice activates legitimacy directly because officers are respecting normative standards of conduct. 6 European Social Survey Compara3ve study of 27 countries (in Round 5 of the European Social Survey): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croa3a, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine Replicated the module on ‘trust in jus3ce’ using na3onal probability samples in US, South Africa, Japan, Albania. Replicated a shorter version of the module in major urban centres in Chile, Argen3na, Perú, Bolivia, El Salvador, Costa Rica, México, Uruguay and Colombia For today’s talk I will add only the US to the ESS Two ideal-‐type models of compliance, regula3on and governance 1. The first is a deterrence model based on demonstra3ng effec3veness and credible sanc3on: – Compliance and coopera3on is secured by the presence and effec3veness of formal policing that involves the threat of sanc3ons for wrong-‐doers; – If offenders are responsive primarily to the risk of punishment and the ability of the police to control crime and risk, then agents of criminal jus3ce must send out signals of strength, effec3veness, force, detec3on and jus3ce Two ideal-‐type models of compliance, regula3on and governance 2. The second is a norma3ve model of crime-‐control policy based on procedural jus3ce and legi3macy: – Ins3tu3ons can secure compliance and coopera3on by developing policies based on procedural jus3ce, which generates legi3macy, compliance and coopera3on; – Based on a norma3ve account of human mo3va3on based around values, iden3ty and ci3zenship – It tries to keep aggressive and divisive policing tac3cs to the minimum (e.g. stop-‐and-‐frisk, use of force) So … tes3ng procedural jus3ce theory in a cross-‐na3onal context… In diverse social, poli3cal and legal contexts, we can address the psychology of social influence: how can ins3tu3ons influence ci3zen behaviour? By tes3ng instrumental vs norma3ve models of law-‐related behaviour, we can draw implica3ons for crime-‐control policy Offending behaviour False insurance claims: only 2% of the sample Buying stolen goods: 6% of the sample Traffic offences: highest in Scandinavian countries! Obligation to obey Normative alignment with the police Correlations between duty to obey and normative alignment range from .40 to .65 Fitted probabilities UK: fiied probabili3es of 'buying stolen goods' 0.10 0.09 norma3ve alignment 0.08 morality of the act likelihood of gekng caught Fiied probability 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Fixed levels of predictors 3 3.5 4 4.5 Summary – Morality of buying stolen goods consistently big predictor – In 17 out of the 28 countries, at least one aspect of legitimacy was a predictor of compliance – In 7 countries, legitimacy was a not a predictor and perceived risk of sanction was (Finland, Norway, Slovenia, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Slovakia) As we shall see with cooperation, instrumental factors were also bigger predictors of an another law-related behaviour in Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Lithuania Normative motivations to cooperate Instrumental motivations to cooperate Findings Relatively consistent evidence for pj theory for cooperation Evidence is less consistent for compliance with the law (perhaps because it is more difficult to measure) We need more work … …. but normative motivations do seem to be more important than instrumental motivations in many countries One way forward for social psychology …? Legitimacy as two dimensions: – People assess the moral basis of power possession and exercision – People assess whether they have a duty to obey external authority These judgements may be strongly correlated but nevertheless distinct Opens up the idea that legitimacy motivates not just via a ‘surrender of judgement’ (i.e. deference) but also via moral appropriateness and endorsement (creating shared values and interests?) Applied to the law, legal legitimacy may motivate through deference and through the idea that the law assists a ‘mutually beneficial and just scheme of social cooperation’ (Rawls, 1964: 9) All work in progress… Thanks! j.p.jackson@lse.ac.uk For information on the ESS module on ‘trust in justice’, see: http://www.lse.ac.uk/methodology/whosWho/Jackson/jackson_ESS.aspx For information on the ESRC project entitled ‘legal norms and crime control’, see: http://www.lse.ac.uk/methodology/whosWho/Jackson/jackson_ESRC.aspx
© Copyright 2024