Differential Effects of Procedural Justice? Examining Heterogeneity in the Perceptions and Effects of Procedural Justice Across First-Time and Recurrent Detainees

Abstract

Several scholars have suggested that perceptions of procedural justice matter less for legitimacy beliefs and compliant behavior among serious offenders, but it remains unknown to what extent this also holds true for male detainees interacting with multiple criminal justice authorities. Using longitudinal data from the Prison Project on adult detainees entering Dutch pre-trial detention centers, the current study examines whether effects of procedural justice—arising from encounters with police officers, prison staff, and judges—on felt obligation to obey and recidivism operate in a different manner for first-time detainees and recurrent detainees. Our findings support the idea that procedural justice exerts differential effects on beneficial outcomes depending on detainees’ prior detention experience.

Perceptions of Probation Officer Procedural Justice and Recidivism: A Longitudinal Study in the Netherlands

“…In line with the first hypothesis, we found that probation clients who perceived that their probation officer was more procedurally just also reported a greater obligation to obey the law. This finding supported the procedural justice framework (Tyler, 2006) and aligned with prior studies regarding justice-involved individuals' interactions with other criminal justice authorities such as police (e.g., Baker & gau, 2018;van Hall et al, 2024;white et al, 2016), court actors (e.g., Baker et al, 2015;Shook et al, 2021), institutional corrections personnel (e.g., Steiner & wooldredge, 2015;van Hall et al, 2023a), and probation officers (Alward, 2022;Penner et al, 2014). Finding a consistent relationship for probation clients' perceptions of probation officers reinforces the importance of procedural justice in every encounter individuals have with the criminal justice system.…”

“…Although perceived severity was associated with the obligation to obey, it did not have a direct effect on recidivism. Similar to previous research (Baker, 2018; van Hall et al, 2023a; Yasrebi-De Kom et al, 2022), this suggests that normative factors like procedural justice perceptions may be more likely to reduce recidivism than instrumental or deterrence-based solutions.…”

“…There is a substantial number of empirical studies employing the procedural justice framework among people who are justice-involved. These studies have mainly examined the consequences of procedurally just treatment by police officers (e.g., Baker & gau, 2018;Paternoster et al, 1997;white et al, 2016), judges (e.g., Baker et al, 2015;Shook et al, 2021;Sprott & greene, 2010;van Hall et al, 2023a), lawyers (Peterson-Badali et al, 2007;Sprott & greene, 2010), and correctional staff in prison and jails (e.g., Baker et al, 2021;Barkworth & Murphy, 2021;Beijersbergen et al, 2016;Steiner & wooldredge, 2015Steiner & wooldredge, , 2018van Hall et al, 2023b). In general, this strand of procedural justice literature suggests that fair and respectful treatment by criminal justice authorities results in higher legitimacy beliefs (e.g., Baker & gau, 2018;van Hall et al, 2024), lower levels of misconduct in detention (e.g., Maguire et al, 2021;Reisig & Meško, 2009), and a lower likelihood to be reconvicted after release (Beijersbergen et al, 2016;van Hall et al, 2023avan Hall et al, , 2023c.…”

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

“…The fourth and final approach uses only a scale of individuals’ feelings of obligation to obey directives or laws to measure legitimacy (Baker, 2017; Baker & Gau, 2018; Maguire et al, 2021; Reisig & Meško, 2009; Tyler et al, 2007; Van Hall et al, 2023; White et al, 2016). Interestingly, White et al (2016) found that trust in authorities did not discriminate well enough from procedural justice and, therefore, they dropped the trust measure and continued with obligation to obey as an indicator of legitimacy.…”