The Effect of Sanction Severity and Its Interaction With Procedural Justice

• Author: Peter H. Van Der Laan,Franziska M. Yasrebi-De Kom,Anja J. E. Dirkzwager,Paul Nieuwbeerta
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211038358
• Published date: 01 February 2022
• Date: 01 February 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 2, February 2022, 200 –219.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211038358

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

200

THE EFFECT OF SANCTION SEVERITY AND ITS

INTERACTION WITH PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

FRANZISKA M. YASREBI-DE KOM

ANJA J. E. DIRKZWAGER

PETER H. VAN DER LAAN

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement

PAUL NIEUWBEERTA

Leiden University

Recent scholarship suggests that detention may have differential effects depending on situational factors. This longitudinal

study tests an integrative theoretical framework with the aim to identify conditions under which detention deters from sub-

sequent rule-violating behavior. We examined whether effects of experienced sanction severity on subsequent misconduct

and reoffending behavior are dependent on procedural justice perceptions among Dutch adults in detention (n = 763 and

n = 765, respectively). The deterrent effect of sanction severity on misconduct was dependent on procedural justice.

Increased sanction severity only deterred from subsequent misconduct when treatment was perceived as procedurally neutral

to just. For individuals who were detained for the first time, a similar interaction effect was observed for reoffending behavior.

The results support the added value of integrating deterrence theory with situational characteristics (i.e., procedural justice)

to explain sanctioning effects and suggest that correctional staffs’ relationships with individuals in detention can contribute

to order in prison and beyond.

Keywords: deterrence; recidivism; procedural justice; longitudinal; prison

INTRODUCTION

Crime results in considerable economic and social costs for individuals and society at

large (Cullen et al., 2011; Gifford, 2019). One way that society tries to reduce these negative

consequences of crime is by depriving people who committed a crime of their freedom

(Scott, 2007). One of the rationales behind this sanction is that detention is intended to

reduce future criminal behavior (Chalfin & McCrary, 2017). An undesired by-product of

detention is misconduct within correctional facilities, which interferes with the safety in

prisons (Jackson et al., 2010) and can result in health problems and decreased well-being

of both detained individuals (e.g., Baidawi et al., 2016) and correctional officers (e.g.,

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest. This project was funded by an

Open Competition grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO: 406.18.RB.011).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Franziska M. Yasrebi-de Kom, Netherlands

Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 71304, 1008 BH Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

e-mail: fyasrebi@nscr.nl.

1038358CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211038358Criminal Justice and BehaviorYasrebi-de Kom et al. / Sanction Severity and Procedural Justice

research-article2021

Yasrebi-de Kom et al. / SANCTION SEVERITY AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE 201

Cheeseman et al., 2011; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Misconduct has also been linked to

higher postrelease reoffending rates (Cochran & Mears, 2017). At present, both postrelease

recidivism and in-prison misconduct are relatively common (Abbiati et al., 2019; Yukhnenko

et al., 2019), which suggests that more information is needed on how these behaviors can

be successfully reduced. This study focuses on the effects of the perceived severity of deten-

tion on subsequent misconduct by individuals during detention and their postrelease reoff-

ending. The findings of the study will be valuable for the development of effective policies

to reduce these costly and unwanted behaviors (Gifford, 2019).

The idea that sanctions will reduce crime and other rule violations originates from the

deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764/1819; Bentham, 1970/1982), which assumes that severe

sanctions such as detention will lower the probability of reengaging in criminal behavior

because it increases the costs associated with committing crimes (Chalfin & McCrary,

2017). Empirical research on the effects of (the experienced severity of) detention, how-

ever, shows mixed results, ranging from an overall null effect (e.g., Cullen et al., 2011;

Nagin & Snodgrass, 2013; Raaijmakers et al., 2017), or at best a weak deterrent effect on

reoffending (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Meade et al., 2013), to a mild criminogenic effect

(e.g., Cullen et al., 2011; Wermink et al., 2010). In sum, prior findings indicated that deten-

tion, or the experienced severity of detention, on its own does not consistently reduce sub-

sequent criminal behavior.

Partly due to these mixed results, the question of whether sanctions deter shifted toward

the question “. . . under what conditions or for which kind of persons they [deter] . . .”

(Piquero et al., 2011, p. 336). Following this line of reasoning, deterrent and criminogenic

effects of detention may not be mutually exclusive but rather detention may have differen-

tial effects on detained individuals, depending on their individual and/or situational charac-

teristics (Cullen et al., 2011; Sherman, 1993; Tomlinson, 2016). One situational characteristic

that may influence the effect of (the experienced severity of) detention on subsequent mis-

conduct and reoffending is how people feel treated by law enforcement authorities and,

more specifically, to what extent they feel treated in a procedurally just way. Recent empiri-

cal findings indicated that the deterrent effect of severe sanctions may indeed be dependent

on procedural justice (Augustyn & Ward, 2015; Verboon & van Dijke, 2011, 2012).

Sanctioning was found to be associated with higher rates of offending when treatment was

experienced as unjust, but not when treatment was experienced as just (Augustyn & Ward,

2015). Therefore, sanctioning combined with a fair treatment may contribute to the safety

both inside and outside correctional facilities. However, to the best of our knowledge,

Augustyn and Ward’s (2015) study is the only study that examined the interaction effect of

sanctioning and procedural justice among justice-involved individuals (i.e., youth). This

shows that, while the concept of sanction severity is influential in forming the criminal

justice system and its decision-making (Paternoster, 2010), many questions about its effects

and especially about its interaction effect with procedural justice remain unanswered for

populations that are responsible for the most severe crime (i.e., detained individuals).

This longitudinal study aims to fill this gap in knowledge by examining the effect of the

perceived severity of detention (sanction severity) and its dependency on procedural justice

on subsequent rule-violating behavior (i.e., misconduct and reoffending) within a sample of

Dutch males in detention. Analyses were based on longitudinal data from the Prison Project,

which included detailed information on measures of subjective severity of detention (SSD)

and perceived procedural justice (PPJ; 3 weeks after arrival in detention), self-reported