Detainees’ Perceptions, Case managers’ Perceptions, and Observed Assessments of Procedural Justice: An Exploratory Observational Study

ABSTRACT

Most studies examining the role of procedural justice in encouraging legitimacy and compliance are based on how individuals feel treated by criminal justice agents. The aim of this exploratory study is to integrate different perspectives on procedural justice: (i) individuals’ perceptions of procedural justice, (ii) an observational assessment of actual behavior, and (iii) criminal justice agents’ perceptions on how procedurally (un-)just they treated individuals. Data were used from 47 interactions between detainees and case managers––working as re-integration professionals––in Dutch prisons, which included a systematic social observation protocol and questionnaires administered to detainees and case managers. The findings showed that detainees, case managers, and an observer generally reported high levels of procedural justice. However, case managers’ perceptions and observed assessments of procedural justice only partially related to how detainees perceived procedural justice. This exploratory study offers a new approach to examine perceived procedural justice by including other perspectives.

KEYWORDS:

• Procedural justice
• detainees
• criminal justice practice
• systematic social observation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Participants of this study did not consent to have their data shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.

Notes

1. To identify studies (published after 2000) that investigated relationships between perceived procedural justice, enacted procedural justice and SSOs of procedural justice, we performed a literature search. Different electronic databases (i.e., Criminal Justice Abstracts, Google Scholar & APA PsycINFO) were search with relevant keywords (e.g., procedural justice, actual behavior, police officers, judges, perceptions, observations, observed behavior) and reference lists were screened to collect relevant studies. Based on this search, we identified four relevant studies. We excluded studies that did not link two data sources (i.e., should be considered as independent samples), such as observations and surveys among individuals (McIvor, 2009) or surveys among criminal justice agents and individuals (e.g., Crewe et al., 2015; Hunold et al., 2016).

2. For privacy reasons, we do not disclose the specific prisons that participated in this study. Therefore, we have not included specific numbers.

3. One detainee refused to indicate the type of crime he was suspected of (1%).

4. Due to the sample size and the (highly) skewed data, we were reluctant to estimate correlational analysis. A nonparametric correlation test (i.e., Spearman’s rho) indicated that none of the scales (i.e., perceived, enacted, and observed procedural justice) were significantly correlated with one another (Observed PJ &detainee PJ = −.103; Case manager PJ & detainee PJ = .141; Observed PJ & case manager PJ = −.135).

5. The exact scores for perceived procedural justice categories: “low” (score of 3.45 to 4.09), “middle” (score of 4.27 to 4.64), “high” (score of 4.65 to 5). Enacted procedural justice categories: “low” (score of 3.82 to 4.18), “middle” (score of 4.27 to 4.82), “high” (score of 4.85 to 5). Observed procedural justice categories: “low” (score of 7 to 11), “middle” (score of 12 to 16), “high” (score of 17).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by an Open Competition grant of the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO) (grand number: 406.18.RB.011).