A growing body of research suggests that fairness within the criminal justice processes can be effective in reducing crime and recidivism. Procedural justice, sometimes called procedural fairness, refers to perceived fairness within criminal justice processes, even when outcomes are not viewed as favorable. It accomplishes law abidance by fostering a “buy-in” to laws and directives that enhances cooperation and consent. The significance of procedural justice lies particularly in its ability to promote voluntary, long-term compliance. Drawing on the Pathways to Desistance dataset, this longitudinal research study used negative binomial regression to examine the impact of procedural justice and legitimacy on frequency of offending counts among adolescents who self-reported serious offenses. Study results indicated that overall, procedural justice predicted decreases in offending among participants. The impacts of race, sex, and exposure to peer delinquency are also addressed alongside implications for research and practical applications.
AkersRL (1996) Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory?. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal34(2): 229–247.
2.
AllisonPD (2001) Missing Data: Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
3.
AndrewsDABontaJ (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th edn.Scotch Plains, NJ: Anderson Publishing Company.
4.
BlevinsJLLeeJJMcCabeEE, et al. (2019) Tweeting for social justice in Ferguson: Affective discourse in Twitter hashtags. New Media & Society21(7): 1636–1653.
5.
ChavisK (2016) Foreword: A new frontier in criminal justice reform. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy6(2): 349–356.
6.
ConradSMPlacellaNTolou-ShamsM, et al. (2014) Gender differences in recidivism rates for juvenile justice youth: The impact of sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior38(4): 305–314.
7.
DuffeeDEMaguireER (eds) (2007) Criminal Justice Theory: Explaining the Nature and Behavior of Criminal Justice. New York: Routledge.
8.
EngelsJMDiehrP (2003) Imputation of missing longitudinal data: A comparison of methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology56(10): 968–976.
9.
EschmannRThompsonJGToraifN (2023) Tweeting toward transformation: Prison abolition and criminal justice reform in 140 characters. Sociological Inquiry93: 496–537.
10.
FarabeeDShenHHserY-I, et al. (2001) The effect of drug treatment on criminal behavior among adolescents in DATOS-A. Journal of Adolescent Research16(6): 679–696.
GauJM (2015) Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and legal cynicism: A test for mediation effects. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal16(5): 402–415.
13.
HigginsGEMarcumCDRickettsML, et al. (2013) Impulsivity and offending from childhood to young adulthood in the United States: A developmental trajectory analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences8(2): 182–197.
14.
HintonEHendersonLReedC (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice1(1): 1–20.
15.
HirschiT (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley. CA: University of California Press.
16.
HuizingaDEsbensenFAWeiherAW (1991) Are there multiple paths to delinquency? Denver youth survey. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology82: 83–118.
17.
KaiserKReisigMD (2019) Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: The role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology35(1): 135–154.
18.
KoveraMB (2019) Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: Prevalence, causes, and a search for solutions. The Journal of Social Issues75(4): 1139–1164.
19.
LairdNM (1988) Missing data in longitudinal studies. Statistics in Medicine7(1–2): 305–315.
LongazelJGParkerLSSunIY (2011) Experiencing court, experiencing race: Perceived procedural injustice among court users. Race and Justice1(2): 202–227.
22.
ManeiroLZitiYvan GeelM, et al. (2022) The role of deviant siblings in delinquency: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior67: 101780.
23.
MulveyEP (2016) Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000–2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor].
24.
MulveyEPSteinbergLFaganJ, et al. (2004) Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice2(3): 213.
25.
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (2019) Housing not handcuffs 2019: Ending the criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities. Available at: https://homelesslaw.org/housing-not-handcuffs-2019 (accessed 6 August 2024).
26.
OuelletteJAWoodW (1998) Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin124(1): 54–74.
27.
OwensEWeisburdDAlpertG, et al. (2016) Promoting officer integrity through early engagements and procedural justice in the Seattle Police Department. Final Report, Police Found, Washington, DC.
28.
PizaEL (2012) Using Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models to Measure the Influence of Risk on Crime Incident Counts. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Center on Public Security.
29.
PrattTCCullenFTSellersCS, et al. (2010) The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly27(6): 765–802.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
32.
ReisigMDWolfeSEHoltfreterK (2011) Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: The nonconfounding effect of low self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior38(12): 1265–1279.
RitchieAJ (2018) Invisible No More: Police Violence against Black Women and Women of Color. Holland, OH: Dreamscape Publishing.
35.
SaratA (1977) Studying American legal culture: An assessment of survey evidence. Law & Society Review11(3): 427–488.
36.
SchubertCAMulveyEPSteinbergL, et al. (2004) Operational lessons from the Pathways to Desistance project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice2(3): 237.
37.
SprattMCarpenterJSterneJA, et al. (2010) Strategies for multiple imputation in longitudinal studies. American Journal of Epidemiology172(4): 478–487.
38.
SunshineJTylerT (2003a) Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and the importance of procedural justice: The police as prototypical representatives of a group’s moral values. Social Psychology Quarterly66(2): 153–255.
39.
SunshineJTylerTR (2003b) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review37(3): 513–548.
40.
SurowiecVP (2010) Does past criminal behavior predict future criminal behavior?Journal of Nursing Regulation1(3): 33–37.
41.
ThibautJWalkerLLaTourS, et al. (1974) Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review26(6): 1271–1289.
42.
ThibautJWWalkerL (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43.
ThornberryTPLizotteAJKrohnMD, et al. (1994) Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology; an Interdisciplinary Journal32(1): 47–83.
TylerTR (1990) Justice, self-interest, and the legitimacy of legal and political authority. In: MansbridgeJJ (ed.) Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 171–179.
46.
TylerTR (1997) Procedural fairness and compliance with the law. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics133(2/2): 219–240.
47.
TylerTR (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice30: 283–357.
48.
TylerTR (2006a) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology57: 375–400.
49.
TylerTR (2006b) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
TylerTR (2007) Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review44(1/2): 26–31.
51.
TylerTR (2009) Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law7: 307–346.
52.
TylerTRHuoHJ (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Manhattan, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
53.
TylerTRJacksonJ (2014) Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law20(1): 78–95.
VazsonyiATClevelandHHWiebeRP (2006) Does the effect of impulsivity on delinquency vary by level of neighborhood disadvantage?Criminal Justice and Behavior33(4): 511–541.
56.
WalkerS (2014) Sense and Nonsense about Crime, Drugs, and Communities (8th edition). Florence, AL: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
57.
WaltersGDBolgerPC (2019) Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology15(3): 341–372.
58.
WeinbergerDASchwartzGE (1990) Distress and restraint as superordinate dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of Personality58(2): 381–417.
59.
WheelockDStroshineMSO’HearM (2018) Disentangling the relationship between race and attitudes toward the police: Police contact, perceptions of safety, and procedural justice. Crime & Delinquency65(7): 941–968.
