Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice: European Perspectives

301 Pages·2015·4.348 MB·English

by  Gorazd Meško, Justice Tankebe (eds.)

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.