Procedural justice and legitimacy of the law in the criminal justice system: a longitudinal study among Dutch detainees

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.…”

“…analysis Before the hypotheses were tested, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out. Previous empirical work on the procedural justice framework among justice-involved individuals has examined the discriminant validity of the key concepts underlying the framework (Baker & gau, 2018;van Hall et al, 2023cvan Hall et al, , 2024white et al, 2016). Following this strand of research, we explored the discriminant validity of procedural justice and felt the obligation to obey by conducting confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on two measurement models.…”

“…Procedural justice includes, for example, giving people the opportunity to tell their side of the story, applying rules in a neutral and consistent manner, and treating individuals with respect and dignity (e.g., Ansems et al, 2020; Henderson et al, 2010). Legitimacy is often operationalized by using two subconstructs: (a) trust in authorities (i.e., belief that criminal justice authorities can be trusted to make decisions that are right for the community; see e.g., Shook et al, 2021; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015) or (b) felt an obligation to obey (i.e., internalized beliefs that one should obey the law or officers’ directives; see e.g., Baker & Gau, 2018; van Hall et al, 2024) in prior studies among justice-involved individuals.…”

“…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, 2015, 2018; van 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, 2023a, 2023c).…”

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

“…Prior empirical research conducted among criminal justice–involved populations has largely provided support for the hypothesized relationships among procedural justice, legitimacy, 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 procedural justice and legitimacy and the relationships between them can be distinguished (see also Table 1).…”