Procedural justice and legal compliance

• Date: 01 August 2020
• Author: Daniel S. Nagin,Cody W. Telep
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12499

Received: 20 May 2019 Revised: 25 March 2020 Accepted: 4 April 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12499

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH IN POLICE POLICY AND PRACTICE

Procedural justice and legal compliance

A revisionist perspective

Daniel S. Nagin1Cody W. Telep2

1Carnegie Mellon University

2Arizona State University

Correspondence

DanielS. Nagin, Carnegie Mellon University,

Pittsburgh,PA 15213-3815.

Email:dn03@andrew.cmu.edu.

Wethank John Hagan, Peter Hall, Jens Ludwig,

Lorraine Mazerolle, PeterNeyroud, Robert

Sampson,Justice Tankebe, Michael Tonry,

DavidWeisburd, and the anonymous reviewers

forhelpful comments. The authors have no

conflictsof interest to declare.

Research Summary: In 2017, we published an essay

(Nagin & Telep, 2017) that challengedthe widely held view

that research had plausibly demonstrated that procedurally

just treatment of citizens by police increased the citizen’s

willingness to comply with the law and thereby reduced

crime rates. This article updates Nagin and Telep (2017)

with new evidence that has appeared since its publication,

while exploring in more depth our critiques of the exist-

ing procedural justice evidence base. Overall, we reach a

similar conclusion concerning the impact of procedurally

just treatment on crime but with the qualification that the

rapid growth in the literature offers some encouraging evi-

dence on the effectiveness of procedural justice training in

affecting officer’sattitudes and the effectiveness of commu-

nity policing infused with elements of procedural justice in

improving citizen perceptions of police. Research on body-

worn cameras also provides indirect support that respectful

police–citizen interactions have salutary impacts. We also

set out a revisionist perspective on procedural justice that

emphasizes the social value of procedural justice in its own

right but also makes more modest predictions about impacts

on legal compliance.

Policy Implications: Our critical assessment of the evi-

dence on the crime prevention efficacy of procedurally just

treatment, and even more fundamentally our skepticism

about whether procedurally just treatment will reduce mala

Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19:761–786. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2020 American Society of Criminology 761

762 NAGIN AND TELEP

in se crimes against person and property, does not, however,

mean that procedural justice should be relegated to a sec-

ondary status in policy discussion about effective policing.

To the contrary, as we have argued and continue to argue,

procedurally just treatment of citizens has social value inde-

pendent of its impact on crime. Yet those benefits are still

to be demonstrated. Police executives should, therefore, be

cognizant that the effectiveness of this approach to policing

should be closely monitored.

1INTRODUCTION

The work of Tom Tyler and colleagues (Tyler, 1988, 1990, 2003, 2006; Tyler & Huo, 2002) on pro-

cedural justice (PJ) has received prominent standing in proposals for reforming the manner in which

police interact with citizens. The foundational premise of Tyler’s (1990, p. 4) seminal book, Why Peo-

ple Obey the Law? Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance is as follows:“[I]f [citizens] regard

legal authorities as more legitimate, they are less likely to break any laws, for they believe that they

ought to follow them, regardless of potential for punishment.” This premise is echoed in the report of

the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015, p. 5): “People are more likely to obey the

law when they believet hose who are enforcingit have the right—the legitimate authority—to tell them

what to do.” Procedural justice has also been argued to be the key antecedent to legitimacy perceptions.

The Task Force report goes on to state: “Research demonstrates that [the] principles [of procedural jus-

tice] lead to relationships in which the community trusts that officers are honest, unbiased, benevolent,

and lawful. The community therefore feelsobligated to follow the law” (emphasis added, p. 10). There

are many operational definitions of procedurally just treatment (see Lind & Tyler, 1988), but all share

the common characteristics of authority figures treating subordinates to their authority with respect,

being neutral decision makers, and affording them the opportunity to explain themselves.

In 2017, we published an essay (Nagin & Telep, 2017) that challenged the view that research had

plausibly demonstrated that procedurally just treatment of citizens by agents of the criminal justice

system (CJS), usually the police, increased the citizen willingness to comply with the law and thereby

reduced crime rates. Since that publication, several studies have provided new evidence on the PJ and

compliance relationship. We summarize these studies in the next section but still see a lack of evidence

that these associations reflect a causal connection, whereby policies that are successful in increasing

procedurally just treatment of citizens alter their perceptions of legitimacy, which in turn increases

compliance with the law.

Some have interpreted our conclusion as a methodological critique that no randomized experiment

has demonstrated the crime reduction effectiveness of procedurally just treatment by the police (Tyler,

2017). It is not. Rather, our critique rests on a far more fundamental substantive observation: Per-

ceptions of procedurally just treatment and of legitimacy are the product of a lifetime accumulation

of historical, cultural, community, and familial influences, not just one or more interactions with the

police or other representatives of the CJS. We detail this argument following our review of research.

Concerning our revisionist perspective on PJ, our skepticism that procedurally just treatment of cit-

izens will reduce their propensity to engage in predatory crimes against person and property is based

on the observation that legal prohibitions of these acts have an enduring legitimacy across time and