Police Procedural Justice, Lawyer Procedural Justice, Judge Procedural Justice, and Satisfaction With the Criminal Justice System: Findings From a Neglected Region of the World

AuthorGeorge Wilson,Daniel K. Pryce
Published date01 December 2020
Date01 December 2020
DOI10.1177/0887403419900230
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17sUppB2ZFvp1x/input 900230CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419900230Criminal Justice Policy ReviewPryce and Wilson
research-article2020
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
2020, Vol. 31(9) 1286 –1311
Police Procedural Justice,
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Lawyer Procedural Justice,
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419900230
DOI: 10.1177/0887403419900230
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp
Judge Procedural Justice,
and Satisfaction With the
Criminal Justice System:
Findings From a Neglected
Region of the World
Daniel K. Pryce1 and George Wilson2
Abstract
Although the impact of procedural justice on citizens’ satisfaction with the police and
other branches of the criminal justice system has been tested in several geopolitical
contexts, this is the first study to examine the relative impacts of police procedural
justice, lawyer procedural justice, and judge procedural justice on satisfaction with a
country’s criminal justice system. To assess the universal applicability of procedural
justice, scholars must carry out research in all geopolitical regions. However, sub-
Saharan Africa appears to be a region that scholars have neglected for far too
long. As a result, the current study assesses the relative impacts of three strands
of procedural justice—police, lawyer, and judge—on satisfaction with the criminal
justice system in Kenya. Using a sample of 523 students from a prominent Kenyan
university, we found that all three strands of procedural justice predicted satisfaction
with Kenya’s criminal justice system under the country’s new Constitution, although
judge procedural justice exerted the strongest influence on satisfaction. Also, less
highly educated students (first-year students, compared to sophomores, juniors, and
seniors) and male students were more satisfied with Kenya’s criminal justice system.
The study’s implications for policy and future research are discussed.
1Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
2North Carolina Central University, Durham, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daniel K. Pryce, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA.
Email: dpryce@odu.edu

Pryce and Wilson
1287
Keywords
police procedural justice, judge procedural justice, lawyer procedural justice,
satisfaction with the criminal justice system, policing in Kenya, policing in sub-Saharan
Africa, courts in sub-Saharan Africa
Introduction
This article adds to the extant literature by examining the relative effects of police
procedural justice, judge procedural justice, and lawyer procedural justice on satisfac-
tion with the criminal justice system in Kenya. The effect of procedural justice on
satisfaction and cooperation with police and other components of the criminal justice
system has been tested around the globe, but many of these studies did not disaggre-
gate procedural justice into its various strands, such as police procedural justice, judge
procedural justice, and lawyer procedural justice. Based on our review of the litera-
ture, we believe that this is the first study to evaluate the relative effects of police
procedural justice, judge procedural justice, and lawyer procedural justice on satisfac-
tion with a country’s criminal justice system. Apart from the fact that carrying out
procedural justice studies in different geopolitical contexts would provide a solid foot-
ing for procedural justice as a dominant theory for cultivating government–public rela-
tions (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Pryce, 2018; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), understanding
the relative effects of the different strands of procedural justice would also add to
knowledge about how procedural justice specifically operates through justice actors
such as the police, lawyers, and judges.
Procedural justice theory suggests that positive police–public interactions are
dependent on the fairness of the procedures deployed by the police (Murphy, 2015;
Solomon, 2019; Tyler et al., 2010; Wolfe et al., 2016; Woo et al., 2018). Indeed, the
process-based model of policing focuses more on the process of the interactions
between the police and the public than on the outcomes of those same interactions
(Grant & Pryce, 2019; Nix, 2017; Tyler & Huo, 2002). If the police apply fair proce-
dures in their encounters with community members, the latter are more likely to
respond favorably to the police (Johnson et al., 2014; Maguire et al., 2016; Sunshine
& Tyler, 2003). Distinguishing between procedural justice considerations for youths
and adults in an Australian study, Murphy (2015) observed that procedural justice mat-
tered more for youths than for adults in eliciting cooperation with police. This is an
important finding because, in the Kenyan context, much of the post-election violence,
discussed later in this article, involved young people who felt marginalized by the
country’s leaders (Klopp & Kamungi, 2008; Roberts, 2009). Thus, procedural justice
from legal actors—including the courts and the police—may prevent future post-
election unrest and violence in Kenya and other parts of the African continent. As
Murphy (2015) explicated, “. . .procedural justice may be particularly important to
those who feel marginalised by society” (p. 69).
General deterrence and specific deterrence continue to be important concepts
underpinning law enforcement strategies (Harcourt, 2001). However, after many
decades of research on the process-based models of policing and the courtroom

1288
Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(9)
experience, social scientists have argued that the process-based models would lead to
greater citizen satisfaction and cooperation with law enforcement and court actors.
The ability to invoke an internalized sense of obligation to cooperate and comply with
legal authorities (e.g., the police and judges) may be more effective than eliciting
cooperation and compliance through fear of punishment. Indeed, the process-based
models of policing and courtroom experience have gained wide acceptance because
multiple studies have confirmed their usefulness in improving law and order in local
communities in many regions of the world (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Murphy, 2015;
Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2007). For the process-based model to gain an even
wider acceptance, it must be studied in different geopolitical contexts, and this article
adds to the few studies that have taken place in sub-Saharan Africa (Akinlabi, 2017;
Boateng, 2016; Pryce et al., 2018). More importantly, this article is the first to delin-
eate and assess the relative effects of different strands of procedural justice on satisfac-
tion with a country’s criminal justice system.
Background
In addressing the relative impacts of police procedural justice, lawyer procedural jus-
tice, and judge procedural justice on satisfaction with Kenya’s criminal justice system,
it is apt to address post-election conflict in Kenya. Indubitably, Kenya’s 2007 post-
election violence was an example of a perilous intra-national conflict that almost con-
sumed the country. The post-election disputes were eventually resolved, but not before
hundreds lost their lives and thousands were internally displaced. Court procedural
justice would have been an important avenue for resolving the 2007 post-election
disputes in Kenya, but with the executive branch “towering over” the legislative and
judicial branches of the government (Calas, 2008; Mutua, 2008), as is the case in many
sub-Saharan African countries, the weakened judicial branch was not given the chance
to bring the disputants to the negotiating table. In fact, it took external interventions to
pressure the political parties to allow peace to prevail.
Thus, the courts can become important avenues for resolving major disputes in sub-
Saharan Africa, such as when presidential election results are rejected by one or more
contestants. Research has shown, for example, that when contestants believe that the
adjudication process was fair, they were more likely to accept the arbiter’s decision
immediately (Kitzman & Emery, 1993; Lind et al., 1993, 1998) and over time (Pruitt
et al., 1990, 1993).
Similar to police services, court services provided by judges and lawyers are impor-
tant to the peace and security of a nation (Boateng & Makin, 2016). A primary role of
the courts is to adjudicate the cases brought before them and to render judgment in
accordance with law. As Tyler (2007) has argued, the courts exist to address and resolve
disputes. The courts also provide an avenue through which community members “can
obtain justice as it is defined by the framework of the law. This is the traditional concern
of judges, and the goal emphasized in legal education—the correct application of the
law to particular legal disputes” (Tyler, 2007, p. 26). The work of judges and other court
actors is particularly important in democratic societies, where the rule of law is

Pryce and Wilson
1289
respected. If the courts were no longer able to authoritatively, but fairly, issue their deci-
sions, then their relevance in any society would be lost. It is for this reason that this
article addresses Kenyan citizens’ views of court procedural justice in the aftermath of
the ratification of the country’s newest constitutional amendment, which occurred in
2010. Like most sub-Saharan African countries, Kenya has been on a slow, but steady,
path toward democratizing its society and institutions, with the eventual goal of
strengthening the judicial branch and giving it the autonomy that it deserves. Indeed,
the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT