The importance of procedural justice for reducing offending behavior has been demonstrated in numerous contexts and among various criminal justice authorities. However, to date, few studies have evaluated the importance of procedural justice in the probation officer–client relationship. Understanding how to reduce offending and prevent recidivism among people on probation is important as this group represents people among the most likely to engage in future offending. Using longitudinal data from the Prison Project, this study examines the association between perceptions of probation officer procedural justice, felt obligation to obey the law, and recidivism during a 12-month follow-up period. Results indicate that procedural justice is associated with a greater felt obligation to obey the law and lower odds of recidivism. Like other criminal justice authorities, how probation officers interact with their clients may impact their clients’ offending behavior.
AlwardL. (2022). Assessing the relative influence of interpersonal relationship factors on probationer rule compliance. University of Central Florida.
2.
AnsemsL.Van den BosK.MakE. (2020). Speaking of justice: A qualitative interview study on perceived procedural justice among defendants in Dutch criminal cases. Law & Society Review, 54(3), 643–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12499
3.
BakerT. (2018). Shared race/ethnicity with police and male offenders’ self-regulating beliefs: Exploring the salience of instrumental and normative factors for securing obedience. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(12), 1918–1935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818794228
4.
BakerT.AbderhaldenF. P.AlwardL. M.BedardL. E. (2021). Exploring the association between procedural justice in jails and incarcerated people’s commitment to institutional rules. Corrections, 6(3), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1618224
5.
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
6.
BakerT.PickettJ. T.AminD. M.GoldenK.DhunganaK.GertzM.BedardL. (2015). Shared race/ethnicity, court procedural justice, and self-regulating beliefs: A study of female offenders. Law & Society Review, 49(2), 433–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12137
7.
BarkworthJ. M.MurphyK. (2021). Procedural justice, posturing and defiant action: Exploring prisoner reactions to prison authority. Justice Quarterly, 38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666905
8.
BeckerG. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
9.
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
10.
BlaskoB. L.TaxmanF. S. (2018). Are supervision practices procedurally fair? Development and predictive utility of a procedural justice measure for use in community corrections settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817749255
11.
BontaJ.LawM.HansonK. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.123
12.
BooneM. (2016). Community punishment in the Netherlands: A history of crises and incidents. In RobinsonG.McNeillF. (Eds.), Community punishment, European perspectives (pp. 95–113). Routledge.
13.
ChalfinA.McCraryJ. (2017). Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20141147
14.
De JongsteW. M. (2022). Het Nederlandse rechtssysteem [The Dutch criminal justice system]. In MeijerR. F.MolenaarD. E. G.ChoenniR.Van den BraakS. W. (Eds.), Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2021: Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen (pp. 15–46). Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Datacentrum.
15.
De KogelC. H.NagtegaalM. H. (2008). Supervision programs for offenders and forensic psychiatric patients: Effectiveness and mechanisms that are assumed to be effective. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Datacentrum.
16.
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
17.
FarrallS. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders: Probation, social context and desistance from crime. Willian.
18.
FazelS.WolfA. (2015). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: Current difficulties and recommendations for best practice. PLOS ONE, 10(6), pe0130390.
19.
GendreauP.GrantB. A.LeipcigerM.CollinsC. (1979). Norms and recidivism rates for the MMPI and selected experimental scales on a Canadian delinquent sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 11(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081569
GladfelterA. S.LantzB.RubackR. B. (2018). Beyond ability to pay: Procedural justice and offender compliance with restitution orders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13), 4314–4331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18759195
22.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
23.
HendersonH.WellsWMaguireE. 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
24.
JannettaJ.ReginalT.LawrenceD. S.FloodC.LaGrattaE. G. (2021). Applying procedural justice in community supervision: Assessment of pilot testing in the Georgia Department of Community Supervision. Urban Institute.
25.
LametW.DirkzwagerA. J. E.DenkersA.Van der LaanP. H. (2013). Social bonds under supervision: Associating social bonds of probationers with supervision failure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 784–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812471659
26.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum.
27.
LochnerL.MorettiE. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review, 94(1), 155–189. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282804322970751
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.
MengerA. (2018). De werkalliantie in het gedwongen kader [Working alliance with mandated clients]. Eburon.
30.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus users’ guide (8th ed.).
31.
NaginD. S.TelepC. W. (2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance: A revisionist perspective. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12499
32.
PaternosterR.BrameR.BachmanR.ShermanL. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31, 163–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054098
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.
PetersiliaJ. (1997). Probation in the United States. In TonryM. (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 149–200). University of Chicago Press.
35.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
36.
Peterson-BadaliM.CareS.BroekingJ. (2007). Young people’s perceptions and experiences of the lawyer–client relationship. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(3), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.49.3.375
37.
PiqueroA. R.JenningsW. G.DiamondB.ReingleJ. M. (2015). A systematic review of age, sex, ethnicity, and race as predictors of violent recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13514733
38.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
39.
RadburnM.StottC. (2019). The social psychological processes of “procedural justice”: Concepts, critiques and opportunities. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(4), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818780200
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
42.
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
43.
SteinerB.WooldredgeJ. (2015). Examining the sources of correctional officer legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(3), 679–704.
44.
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
45.
SweetenG.PiqueroA. R.SteinbergL. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(6), 921–938.
46.
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
47.
ThibautJ. W.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
TravisJ.WesternB.RedburnF. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.
49.
TrotterC. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don’t know from four decades of research. Federal Probation, 77(2), 43–48.
50.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
51.
TylerT. R. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: A rush to judgment?Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 29–53.
52.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
53.
van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2022). 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
54.
van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2023a). 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
55.
van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2023b). Exploring the linkage between changes in detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice and changes in misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2207019
56.
van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2023c). Procedural justice, perceived legitimacy, and reoffending behavior: In police and court setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(12), 1874–1892. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206833
57.
van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2024). Procedural justice and legitimacy of the law in the criminal justice system: A longitudinal study among Dutch detainees. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2065274
58.
van KalmthoutA. M.TiggesL. (2008). The Netherlands. In van KalmthoutA. M.DurnescuI. (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 677–725). Wolf Legal Publishers.
59.
WartnaB. S. J.BlomM.TollenaarN. (2011). The Dutch recidivism monitor. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Datacentrum.
60.
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.
61.
Yasrebi-De KomF. M.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van Der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2022). The effect of sanction severity and its interaction with procedural justice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211038358
62.
YukhnenkoD.SridharS.FazelS. (2020). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update [Version 3]. Wellcome Open Research, 4, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14970.3
63.
ZuiderwijkA. M. G.CramerB.LeertouwerE. C.TemürhanM.BuskerA. L. J. (2012). Doorlooptijden in de strafrechtsketen [Lead times in the criminal justice system]. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Datacentrum.
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.
