Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Prisons: A Review of Extant Empirical Literature

• Date: 01 February 2022
• Published date: 01 February 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211053367
• Author: Cathal Ryan,Michael Bergin
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 2, February 2022, 143 –163.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211053367

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

143

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY IN

PRISONS

A Review of Extant Empirical Literature

CATHAL RYAN

MICHAEL BERGIN

Waterford Institute of Technology

Significant in the management of a safe and secure custodial environment is the compliance of incarcerated persons with the

prison rules and the directives of prison officers. In recent years, there has been increased research focus on the role of norma-

tive compliance in the prison environment, which is postulated to derive from the perceptions of legitimacy and procedural

justice of those who are incarcerated. This article presents the findings of a scoping review of the empirical literature as it

relates to procedural justice and legitimacy in prison settings. This literature is charted and then analyzed across two primary

themes, namely “Shaping Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy” and “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and

Compliance.” The presence of normative compliance in prisons and the contribution of procedurally just treatment to percep-

tions of legitimacy held by persons who are incarcerated are discussed.

Keywords: procedural justice; prisons; legitimacy; corrections; correctional officers

INTRODUCTION—COMPLIANCE IN PRISON ENVIRONMENTS

Prison environments comprise unique closed “societies” in which the provision of safe

and secure custodial care is dependent on the compliance of persons who are incarcerated

with prison officers and with the prison regime more generally (Liebling & Price, 2003).

Such compliance can be attained in different ways. Constraint-based approaches, for exam-

ple, derive from the physical and structural limitations placed on those who are incarcerated

(Irwin Rogers, 2015), while instrumental approaches tend to be rewarding or coercive in

nature and are rooted in the authoritative power structures of the prison (Ferdik & Smith,

2016). That is, instrumental compliance assumes that those who are incarcerated are moti-

vated to increase personal gains and limit losses, and will accordingly assess the opportuni-

ties and risks associated with compliance or otherwise.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: There are no conflicts of interest to declare. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Cathal Ryan, Department of Law and Criminal Justice Studies, School of Humanities,

Waterford Institute of Technology, College Street Campus, Room C102, College Street, Waterford X91 Y074,

Ireland; e-mail: cryan@wit.ie.

1053367CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211053367Criminal Justice and BehaviorRyan, Bergin / Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Prisons

research-article2021

144 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Normative compliance differs from these as it is based upon acquiesce and cooperation.

This is a form of compliance postulated to derive from the perceptions of the legitimacy of

prison officers and the prison regime that are held by persons who are incarcerated (Jackson

et al., 2010). From a social-psychological perspective, legitimacy is broadly referred to as a

belief or perception of authorities as appropriate, proper, and just (Sparks, 1994), though it

has also been conceptualized as a perceived obligation to comply with the directives of

authority figures; the degree of support, trust, or confidence one holds in those in charge

(Tyler & Bies, 1990), and as a quality held by an authority that encourages compliance

(Tyler, 2003).

LEGITIMACY AND THE PRISON OFFICER

Specific to the prison environment, Hepburn (1985), drawing on French et al. (1959),

identified legitimate or positional power as a type of social power base held by prison offi-

cers based on their position of authority within the prison. As such, it is dependent on per-

ceptions of the legitimacy of prison officer authority, which should be employed in a fair

and lawful manner (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). This is consistent with the assertion of

Tyler (1990), who argued that perceptions of legitimacy, attained via shared expectations

and the use of authority in a procedurally fair manner, are a significant determinant of the

compliance of citizens with the law. Separately, Beetham (1991) distinguished between

three criteria of legitimate power, namely conformity to rules, the justifiability of rules in

terms of shared beliefs, and expressed consent, which refers to the reciprocal recognition of

the rights held by both parties and which can encourage feelings of obligation to comply

(Hacin, 2018).

Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) advance a dialogic, relative understanding of legitimacy

involving continuous claims by power-holders and responses by audiences. They differenti-

ate between audience legitimacy (i.e., the acceptance of those in authority as legitimate) and

self-legitimacy, which relates to the extent to which the authority holder views their posi-

tion of power as right and proper. Based on this work, Hacin and Fields (2016) present a

dual model of legitimacy in prisons which incorporates both perspectives. Consistent with

the views of Costa (2016) and Symkovych (2018), they argue that legitimacy is not fixed in

nature, but develops through ever-evolving interpersonal relationships and dialogue. This

necessitates that those in custody and prison staff are studied simultaneously. Legitimacy

can also refer to the extent to which the rules or structure of a prison at an organizational

level are perceived as fair (Franke et al., 2010). Indeed, this is congruent with Liebling’s

(2004) articulation of the moral performance or climate of the prison, which encompasses

the culture of the organization and the prison, and how aspects such as quality of life and

dignity are managed.

Perceptions of legitimacy may therefore be important for maintaining a safe and secure

prison environment. When those who are incarcerated view their relationships with officers

as legitimate, they may be more likely to believe that such officers are entitled to make deci-

sions and exercise power to uphold rules and maintain order (Crewe, 2011). They may also

feel a greater obligation to comply with the directives of these officers, and with the rule of

the prison regime more generally (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Similarly, prison officers

who assert their authority or respond to challenges in an inappropriate manner (e.g., through

harsh treatment or excessive use of force) may ultimately undermine their legitimacy, in