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.
AugustynM. 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
2.
BakerT. (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
3.
BakerT.GauJ. 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
4.
BeijersbergenK. A.DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP. (2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643
5.
BottomsA.TankebeJ. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.
6.
Brunton-SmithI.McCarthyD. 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
7.
BurdziejS.GuzikK.PilitowskiB. (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
8.
ByrneB. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
9.
CampbellC. M.LabrecqueR. M.SchaeferR. L.HarvisM.Rose ZavitaK.ReddyL.LabrancheK. (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.
DervanL. 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.
DirkzwagerA. J. E.KruttschnittC. (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.
DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP.BeijersbergenK. A.BosmaA. Q.de CuyperR.DoekhieJ.EichelsheimV.de GoedeS.van der LaanP. H.LametW.PalmenH.RaaijmakersE.RamakersA.ReefJ.van der SteltS.WensveenM.WerminkH. (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.
DownesD.Van SwaaningenR. (2007). The road to dystopia? Changes in penal climate of the Netherlands. In TonryM.BijleveldC. C. J. H. (Eds.), Crime and justice in the Netherlands (pp. 31–71). University of Chicago Press.
14.
FazelS.WolfA. (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.
FineA. D.BeardsleeJ.MaysR.FrickP. J.SteinbergL.CauffmanE. (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.
GauJ. 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.
GauJ. 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.
HammJ. A.TrinknerR.CarrJ. 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.
HendersonH.WellsW.MaguireE. R.GrayJ. (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.
JacksonJ. (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.
JacksonJ.BradfordB.HoughM.MyhillA.QuintonP.TylerT. 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.
JacksonJ.GauJ. M. (2016). Carving up concepts? Differentiating between trust and legitimacy in public attitudes towards legal authority. In ShockleyE.NealT. M. S.PytlikZilligL.BornsteinB. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust: Towards theoretical and methodological integration (pp. 49–69). Springer.
23.
JacksonJ.OliveiraT. R.BradfordB.MendesS. M.Lima NatalA.ZaneticA. (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.
JacksonJ.TylerT. R.BradfordB.TaylorD.ShinerM. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10.
25.
JohnsonD.MaguireE. R.KuhnsJ. 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.
KaiserK.ReisigM. 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.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
28.
MaguireE. R.Atkin-PlunkC. A.WellsW. (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.
MurphyK.BradfordB.JacksonJ. (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.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus users’ guide (8th ed.).
31.
NuñoL. E.MorrowW. 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.
OliveiraT. R.JacksonJ.MurphyK.BradfordB. (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.
PennerE. K.ViljoenJ. L.DouglasK. S.RoeschR. (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-SánchezJ.Brunton-SmithI. (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.
PóschK.JacksonJ.BradfordB.MacqueenS. (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.
ReisigM. D.BrattonJ.GertzM. 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
ShookJ. J.GoodkindS.KolivoskiK. M.BallentineK. 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.
SprottJ. B.GreeneC. (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.
SteinerB.WooldredgeJ. (2015). Examining the sources of correctional officer legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(3), 679–704.
41.
SteinerB.WooldredgeJ. (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.
TangneyJ. P.BaumeisterR. F.Luzio-BooneA. (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
TankebeJ.ReisigM. D.WangX. (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.
ThompsonA. J.PickettJ. 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.
TylerT. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 431–505). University of Chicago Press.
47.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1990)
48.
TylerT. R.JacksonJ. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In TankebeJ.LieblingA. E. (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83–104). Oxford University Press.
49.
TylerT. R.ShermanL.StrangH.BarnesG. C.WoodsD. (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 HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (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 HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (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 HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (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 HirschA.AshworthA.RobertsJ. V. (2009). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Hart Publishing.
54.
WartnaB. S. J.BlomM.TollenaarN. (2011). The Dutch Recidivism Monitor. Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Security and Justice.
55.
WhiteM. D.MulveyP.DarioL. 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.
WolfeS. E.NixJ.KaminskiR.RojekJ. (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.
YukhnenkoD.SridharS.FazelS. (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.
