Exploring the Association between Procedural Justice in Jails and Incarcerated People’s Commitment to Institutional Rules

Procedural justice, legal orientations, and gang membership: Testing an alternative explanation to understand the gang–misconduct link

“…A handful of studies have examined the relevance of procedural justice in prisons. These studies focused on the association between perceptions of staff procedural justice and 1) obligation to obey, a perceptual measure (Alward et al., 2021; Baker et al., 2021; Maguire et al., 2021), as well as 2) prisoner rule breaking, a behavioral measure (Barkworth & Murphy, 2021; Beijersbergen et al., 2015; Bierie, 2013; Campbell et al., 2020; Reisig & Mesko, 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2018). Although studies that examine perceptual and behavioral compliance vary in geographical location and the conceptualization of procedural justice, they generally find that prisoner perceptions of correctional officers as procedurally just are related to compliance (for exception, see Campbell et al., 2020).…”

“…Quantitative evidence lends support to this contention as gang affiliates report poorer perceptions of correctional authorities compared with nongang affiliates (Alward et al., 2021; Pyrooz & Decker, 2019). One consequence of procedural injustice and illegitimacy is attenuated obligation to obey the law and its agents (Alward et al., 2021; Baker et al., 2021; Nuño & Morrow, 2020; Tyler, 1990; Walters & Bolger, 2019; White et al., 2016), which in turn should elevate misconduct in prison (e.g., Maguire et al., 2021). Criminologists have been unable to fully account for the gang–offending link on the street or in prison (see Melde & Esbensen, 2014); therefore, factors outside the direct purview of the gang may be at least partly responsible for this relationship.…”

The Keepers: Returning Citizens’ Experiences With Prison Staff Misconduct

“…When individuals feel representatives of the criminal justice system are illegitimate, they are more likely to be defiant (Sherman, 1993; Tyler, 1990), have antisocial or criminogenic beliefs (Moule et al, 2019), and perpetrate crime (Fagan & Piquero, 2007) and violence (Colvin, 1992). Relatedly, they are less likely to cooperate with law enforcement (Brunson & Wade, 2019; Tankebe, 2013), report criminal behavior (Kirk & Matsuda, 2011), and follow laws (Tyler, 2009) and institutional rules (Baker et al, 2019). Based on accounts offered by our respondents, it is likely that incarcerated persons who witness staff misconduct may be less likely to perceive staff as respectful or fair representatives of the criminal justice system—especially when they are harmed by staff misbehavior.…”

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

“…Stronger support for the model was reported in two recent studies with persons incarcerated in U.S. county jails. Baker et al (2021) found that outside of demographic factors, prior misconduct, and a set release date, procedural justice was the strongest predictor of selfregulation in jails among their sample of 290 persons who were incarcerated. Similarly, Nuño and Morrow (2020), analyzing data from their sample of 443 persons who were incarcerated, reported a positive significant relationship between perceptions of procedural justice, trust, and obligation to comply with prison officers.…”

“…Similarly, Dane (2012) and Hacin (2018) assessed procedural justice as perceptions of the fairness of decisions made by prison staff, while Campbell et al (2020) conceptualized the antecedents of legitimacy in prison as including procedural fairness, fairness in decision-making, and perceptions of the quality of treatment. Nuño and Morrow (2020) and Baker et al (2021) assessed procedural justice as perceptions of prison officer fairness informed by the process-based model of regulation. One study (Del Vecchio, 2019) assessed the perceptions of fairness and respect in the processes and regulations of the prison environment held by both officers and persons who were incarcerated, while two studies employed independent measures of procedural justice.…”