Recent scholarship suggests disciplinary protocols and incarcerated individuals’ perceptions of procedural justice toward correctional officers may be important in influencing one’s behavior and prison order. This study provides an examination of procedural and distributive justice in prison. We surveyed a stratified random sample of 144 respondents incarcerated in Maine state prisons about their perceptions toward the disciplinary process and corrections officers to assess the relationship between such views and patterns of institutional misconduct. Findings provide partial support for the procedural justice perspective in prison. Normative perceptions (e.g., legitimacy) are positively associated with voluntary deference measures while instrumental perceptions of officer effectiveness in controlling behavior are positively associated with respondent perceived risk. These results supply insight into theory development related to voluntary deference. Similarly, these findings can inform which relationships between officers and respondents may hold the potential to promote rule compliance and prison order.
BeijersbergenK.DirkzwagerA.EichelsheimV.Van der LaanP.NieuwbeertaP. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 42, 196–218.
2.
BeijersbergenK.DirkzwagerA.Van der LaanP.NieuwbeertaP. (2016). A social building? Prison architecture and staff–prisoner relationships. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 843–874.
3.
BenefielR. C. (2019). Positive administrative control: Using social exchange to assess managerial impacts on inmate misconduct. Justice Quarterly, 36, 682–717.
4.
BierieD. M. (2013). Procedural justice and prison violence: Examining complaints among federal inmates (2000–2007). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 15–29.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
7.
BottomsA. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205–281.
8.
BrosensD. (2019). Prisoners’ participation and involvement in prison life: Examining the possibilities and boundaries. European Journal of Criminology, 16, 466–485.
9.
ButlerH. D.SteinerB. (2017). Examining the use of disciplinary segregation within and across prisons. Justice Quarterly, 34, 248–271.
10.
CaltonJ.CattaneoL. B. (2014). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on intimate partner violence victims’ mental health and likelihood of future help-seeking. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 329–340.
11.
CampbellC.MooreJ.MaierW.GaffneyM. (2015). Unnoticed, untapped, and underappreciated: Clients’ perceptions of their public defenders. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 33, 751–770.
12.
CochranJ. C.MearsD. P.BalesW. D.StewartE. A. (2014). Does inmate behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly, 31, 1044–1073.
13.
ColquittJ.ConlonD.WessonM.PorterC.NgK. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
14.
CrawfordA.HucklesbyA. (Eds.). (2013). Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice. Routledge.
15.
De AngelisJ.KupchikA. (2007), Citizen oversight, procedural justice, and officer perceptions of the complaint investigation process, Policing. An International Journal, 30, 651–671.
16.
DiIulioJ. J. (1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. Free Press.
17.
EdgarK.JacobsonJ.BiggarK. (2011). Time well spent: A practical guide to active citizenship and volunteering in prison. Prison Reform Trust.
18.
FrankeD.BierieD.MackenzieD. L. (2010). Legitimacy in corrections: A randomized experiment comparing a boot camp with a prison. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 89–117.
19.
GendreauP.ListwanS.KuhnsJ.ExumM. (2014). Making prisoners accountable: Are contingency management programs the answer?Criminal Justice & Behavior, 41, 1079–1102.
20.
GrahamJ. W.OlchowskiA. E.GilreathT. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 8, 206–213.
21.
GreenbergJ. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In CropanzanoR. (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
HacinR.MeškoG. (2018). Prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of the prison staff: A qualitative study in Slovene prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 4332–4350.
23.
InderbitzinM.CainJ.WalravenT. (2016). Learning and practicing citizenship and democracy behind bars. In AbramsL. S.HughesE.InderbitzinM.MeekR. (Eds.), The Voluntary sector in prisons: Encouraging personal and institutional change (pp. 55–83). Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
IrwinJ.OwenB. (2004). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class. Oxford University Press.
25.
JiangS.Fisher-GiorlandoM. (2002). Inmate misconduct: A test of the deprivation, importation, and situational models. The Prison Journal, 82, 335–358.
26.
KigerlA.HamiltonZ. (2016). The impact of transfers between prisons on inmate misconduct testing importation, deprivation, and transfer theory models. The Prison Journal, 96, 232–257.
27.
LindE.TylerT. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum.
28.
LittleR. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.
29.
LittleR. J. (2008). Weighting and prediction in sample surveys. Calcutta Statistical Association Bulletin, 60, 145–167.
30.
PolizziD. (2014). Developing trust with court-ordered clients: In PolizziD.BraswellM.DraperM. (Eds.). Transforming corrections: Humanistic approaches to corrections and offender treatment 2nd (pp. 285–301). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
31.
RandolB. M.CampbellC. M. (2017). Macro-correlates of inmate violence: The importance of programming in prison order. The Prison Journal, 97, 451–474.
32.
ReisigM. D.MeškoG. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 41–59.
33.
RubinD. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 473–489.
34.
SteinerB.ButlerH. D.EllisonJ. M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 462–470.
35.
SteinerB.WooldredgeJ. (2018). Prison officer legitimacy, their exercise of power, and inmate rule breaking. Criminology, 56, 750–779.
36.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.
37.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy. Law & Society Review, 37, 513–548.
38.
ThornellR. (2017). Adult data report. Maine Department of Corrections.
39.
TylerT. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103–136.
40.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
41.
TylerT. R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 307–359.
42.
TylerT. R. (2010). Legitimacy in corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 127–134.
43.
TylerT. R.CallahanP. E.FrostJ. (2007). Armed, and dangerous (?): Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41, 457–492.
44.
TylerT. R. (Ed.). (2007). Legitimacy and criminal justice. Russell Sage Foundation.
45.
TylerT. R.FaganJ. (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.
WeberM. (1958). The three types of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions, 4, 1–11.
47.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838.
48.
WooldredgeJ.SteinerB. (2016). The exercise of power in prison organizations and implications for legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106, 125–165.
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.
