Procedural Justice, Perceived Legitimacy, and Reoffending Behavior: In Police and Court Setting

• Published date: 01 December 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206833
• Author: Matthias van Hall,Anja J. E. Dirkzwager,Peter H. Van der Laan,Paul Nieuwbeerta
• Date: 01 December 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 12, December 2023, 1874 –1892.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206833

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1874

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, PERCEIVED

LEGITIMACY, AND REOFFENDING BEHAVIOR

In Police and Court Setting

MATTHIAS VAN HALL

ANJA J. E. DIRKZWAGER

PETER H. VAN DER LAAN

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)

PAUL NIEUWBEERTA

Leiden University

Despite the increasing body of procedural justice research studying individuals involved in the criminal justice system, this

strand of literature has used different approaches to measure procedural justice and legitimacy. The present study assesses the

different theoretical assumptions of these approaches across two criminal justice settings, namely, policing and courts. In addi-

tion, we examine how procedural justice stemming from interactions with police officers and judges is related to legitimacy and

reoffending behavior postrelease. Using data on adult detainees who entered Dutch pretrial detention centers, our findings sup-

port the theoretical assumptions regarding procedural justice and felt obligation to obey the law in both criminal justice settings.

Furthermore, path analyses show that perceptions of procedural justice arising from encounters with police officers and judges

are related to a higher sense of obligation to obey the law, which in turn is associated with a lower risk of reoffending.

Keywords: procedural justice; legitimacy; recidivism; police; courts; criminal justice system

In societies, criminal justice systems aim to reduce crime among those who already com-

mitted crime (i.e., aim of specific crime prevention; Von Hirsch et al., 2009). Despite all

efforts to prevent formerly detained individuals from crime, worldwide reoffending rates

after release are high (Fazel & Wolf, 2015; Yukhnenko et al., 2020). One factor that is sup-

posed to play a role in increasing compliance with laws is the way in which individuals feel

treated by criminal justice authorities. The underlying premise of procedural justice theory

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article. This study was funded by an Open Competition grant of the Netherlands

Organization for Scientific Research (NOW; grant number: 406.18.RB.011). Correspondence concerning this

article should be addressed to Matthias van Hall, Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law

Enforcement (NSCR), P.O. Box 71304, 1008 BH Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e-mail: mhall@nscr.nl.

1206833CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231206833Criminal Justice and Behaviorvan Hall et al. / Procedural Justice and Reoffending Behavior

research-article2023

van Hall et al. / PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND REOFFENDING BEHAVIOR 1875

(Tyler, 1990/2006), also referred to as the process-based model of regulation, is that indi-

viduals are more likely to comply with the law when they believe that the law and its repre-

senting authorities are legitimate and behave in ways that are perceived as fair and just.

Prior empirical research conducted among criminal justice–involved populations has

largely provided support for the hypothesized relationships among procedural justice, legit-

imacy, and compliance with laws and rules (see e.g., Baker & Gau, 2018; Kaiser & Reisig,

2019; Maguire et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2016, van Hall et al., 2022b). However, when

examining this literature more precisely, a variety of approaches to operationalizing proce-

dural justice and legitimacy and the relationships between them can be distinguished (see

also Table 1). Moreover, much of the relevant existing research examining the assumptions

of and the relationships within procedural justice theory has been conducted in one single

criminal justice setting, whereby individuals are asked to think of recent encounters with

police officers or judges or correctional staff. Yet, no study has explored the different theo-

retical assumptions and hypotheses of the procedural justice model across distinct criminal

justice settings within one and the same study. To address this issue, the present study aims

to assess the different theoretical assumptions of procedural justice and legitimacy and to

examine the extent to which these key constructs are related to reoffending behavior after

release, both in police and in court setting.

THEORY & PRIOR RESEARCH

DETERMINANTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

Procedural justice theory states that individuals are more likely to comply with author-

ities’ laws and rules when criminal justice authorities treat them in a procedurally just

manner (Tyler, 1990/2006). Authorities’ actions are considered to be procedurally fair if

the following elements are applied during contacts with individuals. First, authorities

enforce laws and rules in a neutral and unbiased manner (“neutrality”). Second, authori-

ties allow individuals to participate in the process and express their views before deci-

sions are made (“participation”). Third, authorities show that they honestly care about

people (“trustworthiness”). Fourth, authorities treat people fairly and politely (‘respect’;

Jackson et al., 2010; Tyler, 1990/2006).

According to procedural justice theory, legitimacy serves as a mediator between percep-

tions of procedural justice and behavior outcomes, such as cooperation with authorities or

compliance with laws and rules (Tyler, 1990/2006, 2003). Legitimacy can be generally

defined as beliefs that authorities’ power to govern is justified and therefore authorities pos-

sess the position to enforce laws (Jackson, 2018; Jackson et al., 2022; Oliveira et al., 2021;

Pósch et al., 2021; Tyler, 1990/2006). Applied to criminal justice settings, legitimacy

involves evaluations of individuals whether they accept implicit or explicit claims that

criminal justice authorities have power that is appropriate, just and normatively justified

and, thus, entitled to determine appropriate behavior (Hamm et al., 2017; Jackson, 2018;

Jackson & Gau, 2016).

In recent years, there has been a considerable debate in literature about how to conceptu-

alize and operationalize legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Gau, 2011; Jackson & Gau,

2016; Johnson et al., 2014; Reisig et al., 2007; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler & Jackson, 2013). In

his original works, Tyler (1990/2006, 2003) operationalized legitimacy as an overarching

construct consisting of two subconstructs: trust in authorities and perceived obligation to