ebook img

Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice: European Perspectives PDF

301 Pages·2015·4.348 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice: European Perspectives

Gorazd Meško · Justice Tankebe Editors Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice European Perspectives Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice ThiSisaFMBlankPage Gorazd Mesˇko • Justice Tankebe Editors Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice European Perspectives Editors GorazdMesˇko JusticeTankebe FacultyofCriminalJusticeandSecurity InstituteofCriminology UniversityofMaribor UniversityofCambridge Maribor,Ljubljana Cambridge Slovenia UnitedKingdom ISBN978-3-319-09812-8 ISBN978-3-319-09813-5(eBook) DOI10.1007/978-3-319-09813-5 SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2014954232 ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerpts inconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeing enteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.Duplication ofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightLawofthe Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter. ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedherein. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) Preface Criminal Justice in Europe: A Study of Aspects of Trust and Legitimacy Legitimacyandtrustarenotnewconceptstocriminology.Forexample,inCauses of Delinquency, Hirschi (1969: 127) hypothesized and tested the influence of legitimacyondelinquency:“Ifapersonfeelsnoemotionalattachmenttoaperson orinstitution,the rulesof thatpersonor institution tend tobe denied legitimacy.” However,itwasTyler’sworkthathassparkedtheexplosioninresearchontrustand legitimacy over the last two decades. Tyler’s Why People Obey the Law (Tyler, 2006) offered an analysis and interpretation of results of a telephone survey of residents in Chicago. A major strength of the book was the methodological and theoreticalinsightsthatwouldguidefutureempiricalanalysisoftheseconcepts,in particular legitimacy. What emerges from Tyler’s analysis is the centrality of procedural justice in people’s judgments about the legitimacy of criminal justice institutions. Trustandlegitimacyhavefeaturedprominentlyinthevariousstudiesthathave followed the initial work by Tyler. Although closely related, legitimacy and trust are conceptually distinct. The former describes “power that is acknowledged as rightfulbyrelevantagents,whoincludepowerholdersandtheirstaff,thosesubject to the power and third parties whose support or recognition may help confirm it” (Beetham, 2013: 19). In addition to its emphasis on the normative character of legitimacy, Beetham’s (ibid.) definition has the additional merit of drawing our attention to a need to conceptualize and investigate legitimacy from the perspec- tivesofallrelevantpartiesinapowerrelationship.Alsoimplicitinthisdefinitionis legitimacy’sfocusonjudgementsaboutthepresent;inotherwords,itisconcerned withrecognitionofclaimstoexercisepowerhereandnow,ratherthaninthefuture (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Trust, on the other hand, is future oriented: it is a “positivefeelingofexpectationregardinganother’sfutureactions”(Barbalet,2009: 375). v vi Preface There is now a large body of evidence to show that legitimacy is a key mechanism fostering social order in different settings. Specifically, legal compli- ance andsupport forcriminal justice institutionshave been linked tothe levelsof trust and legitimacy these institutions command among their various audiences. Over the two decades of legitimacy research, various extensions and innovations have occurred. Some studies have sought to examine the extent to which the legitimacy-compliance and legitimacy-cooperation relationships are replicable in sociopoliticalcontextsbeyondNorthAmerica.Othershavefocusedonimproving methodological and theoretical issues within the field (e.g., Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007). The papers collected in this book represent an attempt to extent further our knowledge in what is still a relatively nascent field. The papers present in this volumeaddressinvaryingcombinationsthemeaningoftrustandlegitimacyacross differentcontexts,acrosstime,amongdifferentdemographicgroups.Itisnotsolely fromthestandpointofpoweraudiencesbutalsopowerholders. The book is organized into two major parts. In the opening chapter, Susanne Karstedt focuses on legitimacy in transitional democracies in order to address variousimportantquestions:firstitexploreshowtheprocessesoftransitionshape thelegitimacyofcriminaljusticeinstitutions.Second,itdiscusseswhyinstitutions losemoralrecognitionandtheprocessesinvolvedinrepairingorrecoveringfrom illegitimacy.Finally,Karstedtinvestigatesthekindsofinstitutionalchangeswithin thebroadersocietythatmostlyimpingeonthelegitimacyofcriminaljustice. In Chap. 2, Julian Roberts and Mojca M. Plesnicˇar explore the relationship between the nature of a sentencing regime and public perceptions of penal legiti- macy,orwhatwerefertoas“empiricallegitimacy,”intermsofpublicattitudesto sentencing and the reasons why the public in many countries may perceive their sentencingsystemsaslackinglegitimacy,ontheonehand,andwaysofenhancing public perceptions of sentencing legitimacy, on the other, outlining a “high-legit- imacy”sentencingregime’sfeatures. The chapter by Jan van Dijk focuses on victims and their perceptions of legitimacy, and how these perceptions predict the willingness of former victims tosubsequentlyreporttheirvictimization,revisingtheresultsofolderroundsofthe InternationalCrimeVictimsSurveys(ICVS)fromaproceduraljusticeperspective tofinallyarriveattheconclusionthatproceduraljusticeforvictimsshouldbeatthe center of programs aimed at strengthening legitimacy of police forces in the EuropeanUnion. Witold Klaus, Konrad Buczkowski, and Paulina Wiktorska discuss victim empowerment from a victimological perspective and on three levels: legislative issues (selected Polish statutes aimed at giving greater protection to victims of crime);verificationsofhowtheselegislativeassumptionsactuallyworkinpractice (i.e.,towhatextentthejusticesystemactuallysupportsandprotectstheinterestsof victims of crime, preventing their secondary victimization); and a relevant dis- courseanalysis.Theseandotherissuesraisedallowforanevaluationofwhetheror Preface vii not the rights of victims have been incorporated into the real aims of the Polish justicesystem,orwhetherornottheyremainnomorethanapipedream. Paul Ponsaers in a chapter discusses the issue of whether or not the police themselves can manage the problem of legitimacy, for inneed of public trust and confidence, they cannot but increase their effectiveness. Contrary to this position, Ponsaers argues that the police are not active agents in building their legitimacy, drawing on the classic Weberian sociological meaning of legitimacy by invoking thedistinctionbetweennormativeandempiricallegitimacy.Trustseemstobetied to variations in social mechanisms beyond the reach of the police, and a vicious circle is established: while police legitimacy is not police property, it is political decision makers who influence public confidence, institutional trust, and, ulti- mately,policelegitimacy. Benjamin Flander and Alesˇ Bucˇar Rucˇman focus on legitimacy of criminal- justice systems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in transition. Legitimacy issues are addressed through critical assessment of crime trends, crime policy, criminallawreforms,imprisonment,andtrustinlegalandcriminaljusticeinstitu- tions.Withvastpolitical,economic,andsocialchangesstartingwiththe1980sand resultingindisturbingchangesinsocialandvaluesystemsinducinggrowingpublic fear of crime and criminal justice policies yielding to the populist neoliberal and neoconservative law-and-order solutions implementing ever-harsher penalties, lower standards of substantive/procedural rights, and wider powers of the formal social control agencies, criminal-justice systems of CEE countries seem to have experiencedatransformationfromillegitimatecommunistcriminal-justicesystems intodemocraticmodelsofcriminaljusticepesteredbythecrisisoflegitimacy. PartIIbeginswithachapterbyJonathanJackson,MikeHough,BenBradford, andJouniKuha.Theyexaminethepropositionthatlegitimacyjudgmentsinvolve twointerconnectedbeliefs:onerelatedtotheconceptsofconsentandauthorization (Do people believe that an entity of authority has the right to dictate appropriate behavior?), and the other to moral validity (Do people believe that this authority exercisesitspowersinthewaysconsistentwiththeprevailingnormsofappropriate conduct?).MarshalingdatafromRound5oftheEuropeanSocialSurvey,theyfirst assess the scaling propertiesofmeasuresofpolice legitimacy usingthe data from the UK and then examine usefulness of three different ways of representing legitimacywithinalargermodelofpubliccooperationwiththepolice. Inthiscontribution,JernejaSˇifrer,GorazdMesˇko,andMatevzˇ Brensummarize the findings of previous legitimacy studies and claim that legitimacy is a strong predictorofcompliancewiththelawandpublictrustinfairnessofjusticeofficials, substantiating their claims on four surveys conducted in Slovenia using structural equation modeling (SEM): trust in the justice module of the European Social Survey(Round5);testofTyler’smodelon“whypeopleobeythelaw”inSlovenia; adult high school student survey—Slovenia; and the study on law students about legitimacyinSlovenia.Despitedifferentformulationsoflegitimacyandadifferent focus of its prediction in different studies, their message is one and the same: relationshipsbetweendimensionsofpublictrustandfairnessofjusticeofficialsand viii Preface dimensionsoflegitimacyareclearandstrong,buttrustin(fairnessof)thepoliceis paramount. BrankoLobnikar,AndrejSotlar,andMajaModicinachapterontrustinplural policing begin their reflection with the statement that there exist many studies of public confidence in authorities in Western Europe and the USA, but not in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as these governments and police forces lack awareness of the level of their performance being based not only on their effective investigation of criminal offenses and maintenance of public order, but alsoontheadoption,support,andtrustthatcitizensshowthepoliceandtheplural police community. They analyze the existing research findings on public confi- denceinpolicingbodiesfromthecountriesofCentralandEasternEuropeanddraw attentiontothegapsexistinginthisfieldofstudy. Nathalie Guzy and Helmut Hirtenlehner believe that according toTom Tyler’s proceduraljusticetheory,publictrustinorperceivedlegitimacyofthepoliceplays acentralroleinenhancingcitizens’cooperationwiththisinstitution.Asreportinga crime to the police marks an important form of public cooperation, the authors examine the interrelationships between personal experiences with the police, var- ious dimensions of trust in the police, and victims’ reporting behaviors through means of a large-scale victimization survey carried out in Germany. The results support, in part, the hypothesized relationships and reveal dangerous pitfalls in approachingthisissuewiththedatacollectedinstandardvictimizationsurveys. GorazdMesˇkoandKatjaEmanpresentfindingsfromacross-nationalsurveyof lawstudentsrelatingtolegitimacyofpolicingandcriminaljusticeinsevenCentral and Eastern European countries, implying a certain degree of significance of legitimacy and trust in police and criminal justice, and of similar findings on the effectofproceduraljustice,policeeffectiveness,andauthorityonlegitimacy.The resultsimplythatlegitimacyandtrustinthepolicearerelatedtoparticularlevelsof democratization. Nevertheless, they also show differences among the studied countriesandanegativeattitudetowardsthepolice.Improvementsinthissegment areneeded,astheserespondentsarefuturelegalprofessionals. The standard empirical focus of legitimacy is on what Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) call audience legitimacy. That is to say the recognition of the rightness of power from the standpoint of those who are subject to power (e.g., suspects, offenders, and victims). What still remains largely unexplored is power-holder legitimacy or self-legitimacy. This refers to power holders’ own belief in their entitlement to power. This latter dimension of legitimacy is the subject of Justice Tankebe andGorazd Mesˇko’s chapter. Using surveydata froma sample ofpolice officersinSlovenia,theauthorsexaminethecorrelatesofpower-holderlegitimacy, and explore the influence of power-holder legitimacy on police decision choices, includingthedecisiontouseforceandself-reportedpro-organizationalbehavior. Preface ix As this volume is a result of a fruitful scientific cooperation of the leading Europeancriminologistsstudyingdifferentaspectsoflegitimacyofcriminaljustice in contemporary Europe, we believe that it will deserve attention by social scien- tists, especially criminologists, policy makers, criminal justice practitioners, and studentsofcriminology,criminaljustice,andpolicestudies. Ljubljana,Slovenia GorazdMesˇko Cambridge,UK JusticeTankebe References Barbalet,J.(2009).Acharacterizationoftrust,anditsconsequences.TheoryandSociety,38(4), 367–382. Beetham,D.(2013).RevisitingLegitimacy,TwentyYearsOn.InJ.Tankebe&A.Liebling(eds.), Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bottoms, E. A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacyincriminaljustice.JournalofCriminalLawandCriminology,102(1),119–170. Hirschi,T.(1969).Causesofdelinquency.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Jackson,J.,Bradford,B.,Stanko,E.A.,&Hohl,K.(2012).Justauthority?Trustinthepolicein EnglandandWales.Oxford:Routledge. Reisig,M.D.,Bratton,J.,&Gertz,M.G.(2007).Theconstructvalidityandrefinementofprocess- basedpolicingmeasures.CriminalJusticeandBehaviour,34(8),1005–1028. Tyler,T.R.(2006).Whypeopleobeythelaw.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.