1

Procedural Justice in Society and its Legitimacy among Law Enforcement.

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor’s Name

Date
 2

Literature Review

A philosophy of legitimacy and fairness in decision-making, procedural justice.

It posits that people have a need for fair procedures, even if the outcomes of those

procedures are unfavorable. Researchers are paying a growing amount of attention to

the issue of procedural fairness and police credibility. The existing research will be

compiled and synthesized in this review of the literature.

The evolution of procedural justice across time and its history

Procedural justice is a field of inquiry that has its origins in philosophy and law.

The subject of procedural justice only started to take off in the 1970s (Baker, 2016). It

looks at how individuals perceive and react to the decision-making processes. How

individuals view the impartiality of procedures and whether they would accept the

results reached via those procedures are the main study questions in procedural

justice.

Early research on procedural justice centered on how individuals responded to

various sorts of processes and whether they thought the procedures were fair. This

study found that individuals are more inclined to accept decisions reached through fair

procedures and are more likely to employ fair approaches. It is concerned the

impartiality of the processes followed while making decisions that can be

consequential on people's lives. The development of procedural justice has its roots in

the work of the philosopher Aristotle, who argued that the process of making

decisions is as important as the outcome. Ancient Greece's legal system was founded

on procedural justice ideas, and Roman jurist Ulpian wrote extensively on the subject

(Baker, 2016).

During the medieval period, procedural justice was overshadowed by natural law

theory, which held that there is a higher law that governs all human activity. This
 3

theory was elaborated by Thomas Aquinas and other theologians (Tyler, 2017). In the

modern era, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the

procedures used by the state to make decisions should be based on the general will of

the people. Procedural justice was a major point of contention during the American

Revolution, and the country's founding fathers made justice and due process pillars of

the legal system.

There has been a resurgence of interest in procedural justice in recent decades,

both in the academy and in the general public. The work of the philosopher John

Rawls on justice as fairness has been influential in this regard. In the legal realm, the

U.S. The idea of procedural justice has been broadened by a number of Supreme

Court rulings (Tyler, 2017). For instance, the Court has decided that the death

sentence is unconstitutional if it is applied in an unfair manner (Murray et al., 2020).

More recent work has expanded the scope of procedural justice to include a

wider range of decision-making contexts. This work has shown that procedural

fairness is important not only in legal contexts, but also in a variety of other settings

such as organizational decision-making, conflict resolution, and allocation of scarce

resources. The same experiment has also demonstrated that procedural justice is a

multifaceted concept with various elements (such as voice, neutrality, and respect)

that can individually have an impact on the reliability of judgments.

The rising amount of investigation into procedural justice has significant

practical ramifications. It recommends that decision-makers pay special attention to

the methods they deploy to ensure that they are considered fair (Murray et al., 2020).

Additionally, this research can help to identify the specific components of procedural

justice that are most important in different contexts, which can guide the design of

procedures to maximize fairness. According to the research currently available,

 4

procedural justice is crucial for preserving social legitimacy and stability (Tyler,

2017). It has also been demonstrated that procedural fairness may have a favorable

effect on the well-being and economic consequences of individuals.

Theoretical Perspectives

There has been considerable discussion over the idea of procedural justice in the

literary works, with a number of alternative theoretical stances arising (Tyler, 2017).

The two most well-known of these viewpoints are procedural fairness theory, which

stresses the process of processes, and distributive justice theory, which emphasizes

the results of procedures.

Distributive justice theory holds that procedural justice is a matter of ensuring

that procedures produce outcomes that are fair and equitable (Baker, 2016). This

perspective is concerned with ensuring that everyone receives what they are entitled

to, and that outcomes are not unfairly skewed in favor of one group or individual.

Procedural fairness theory, nevertheless, stresses the procedure of procedures and

claims that ensuring that procedures be carried out in a fair and impartial manner

constitutes procedural justice (Murphy et al., 2018).

This perspective is concerned with ensuring that everyone has an equal

opportunity to participate in and be heard during procedures, and that procedures are

conducted in a transparent and accountable manner. Both perspectives on procedural

justice are important, and there is considerable debate in the literature about which

perspective is more important (Murphy et al., 2018). However, both perspectives

share a concern for ensuring that procedures are conducted in a way that is fair and

just, and that everyone has an opportunity to participate in and be heard during

procedures (Tyler, 2017).

Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Procedural Justice

 5

According to research on procedural justice, a number of outcomes, including as

adherence to the law, satisfaction with the judiciary, and perceptions of legitimacy,

are strongly predicted by procedural justice (Murray et al., 2020). Additionally, the

data points to psychological factors like trust and regard for the law as mediators of

procedural justice's impacts (Baker, 2016). Because preserving the confidence of the

court system depends on procedural justice, this study's findings have substantial

implications for the legal establishment.

According to several studies, procedural justice is linked to higher levels of legal

compliance (Faizal et al., 2019). For instance, it has been demonstrated that

procedural justice increases conformity to the current tax legislation. When taxpayers

believe that the tax authorities have treated them fairly, tax compliance increases

(Faizal et al., 2019). On the other hand, no such association is found in other

investigations (Ansems et al., 2020). This contradictory evidence is likely due to the

context-dependence of procedural justice's effectiveness. Procedural justice may be

more successful than other systems, such as the criminal justice system, in cases when

persons believe they have been treated unfairly (Ansems et al., 2020). In contrast,

procedural justice may be less effective when people believe they have been handled

fairly, as in the civil court system.

Procedural justice's effect on public opinion of the criminal judicial system

According to research on procedural justice, there is a significant correlation

between the public's perception of the system of crime control fairness and that

perception (Tyler, 2017). The study also indicated that if the public perceives a lack of

due process, they are more likely to have a negative impression of the system. The

concept of due process is among procedural justice's most crucial components. The

legal precept that states must give everyone a fair and unbiased hearing is known as
 6

due process (Ansems et al., 2020). The rights to a counsel, a fair and unbiased jury,

and a fair and unbiased judge are all part of the concept of due process (Baker, 2016).

The research also found that people have a negative impression of the system if

they believe they were denied their right to a fair trial. Equal protection under the law

is a fundamental premise of procedural justice. Equal treatment under the law refers to

the concept of equal legal treatment for all individuals (Baker, 2016).

Equal treatment under the law significantly influences public perceptions of the

criminal justice system, according to procedural justice studies. Additionally, past

research has shown that if the public perceives the system to be unjust, they are more

likely to have a negative impression of it (Murphy et al., 2015).Existing research on

procedural justice has significant consequences for the criminal control system.

According to the research, the public is more likely to have a negative opinion of the

system if they believe it is unfair or that due process is not being followed (Ansems et

al., 2020). Individuals are more likely to have a negative impression of the system if

they consider it to be unfair, according to the study.

The implications of procedural justice for law enforcement policy and

practice

One area where the notion of procedural fairness has been used is law

enforcement. In the perspective of law enforcement, the fairness of police techniques,

such as stop-and-frisk guidelines, use-of-force guidelines, and investigation

procedures, is a problem (Saarikkomäki et al., 2020). In order to maintain legitimacy

and compliance, procedural justice in law enforcement aims to ensure that the public

perceives these processes as fair (Murphy, 2014). Research on how procedural

fairness affects law enforcement strategy and practice is expanding (Murphy, 2014).

According to the findings, procedural fairness is associated with many important

 7

outcomes for law enforcement, such as public support for the police, legal

compliance, and the sense of the legitimacy of the police. (Murphy, 2014).

There is evidence that procedural fairness can boost social support for law

enforcement on the one hand. When police agencies integrated procedural justice-

based stop-and-frisk tactics, for instance, there was an increase in people's readiness

to cooperate with police demands in general and more individuals were eager to

disclose information to the police (Murphy, 2014). There is also evidence that

procedural fairness can promote social legal compliance. When police agencies

implemented use-of-force guidelines based on procedural due process, community

resistance to police use of force and officer use of force decreased, according to a

study. Murphy (2014) .

The implications of procedural justice for perceptions Fof police legitimacy.

The degree of public confidence in the police is essential to the force's capacity

to sustain public support and cooperation. (Tyler, 2017 Procedure justice, or the

fairness of the decision-making process, is essential for preserving community faith in

the police because it determines how people perceive their impartiality and fairness

(Saarikkomaki et al., 2020).

There is evidence that fair processes can enhance the public's opinion of the

police's reliability.For instance, a study found that when police agencies used stop-

and-frisk practices based on procedural justice, the public's faith in the police rose

(Trinkner et al., 2019). It is clear how procedural fairness affects police departments.

The public's opinion of the police, general law enforcement, and public collaboration

with the police may all be improved via procedural justice. Murphy et al(2015). A

further research by Trinkner et al. (2019) indicated that people were more inclined to

trust the police when they were treated with respect and given the opportunity to
 8

express their side of the story. In a different study, Trinkner et al. (2019) found that

people were more likely to cooperate with law enforcement and follow the rules if

they thought the police were acting fairly. So while creating policies and procedures,

it is crucial that law enforcement authorities take procedural justice into account.

Therefore, a wide range of ramifications of these results for police agencies are

indicated by the existing literature. Priority number one for police departments should

be ensuring that their personnel adhere to procedural fairness. Individuals must be

treated fairly and with respect, provided with accurate information, and given the

chance to participate in choices that may impact them. (Murray et al., 2020). The

second thing that police agencies should do is make sure that their personnel are

trained in procedural justice and are aware of how important it is. Finally, police

agencies should keep an eye on how the general public views the procedural justice of

their officers and utilize this data to adjust their practices as necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, procedural justice is an integral component of an efficient criminal

justice system. Existing research indicates that procedural justice has a favorable

impact on public perceptions of the criminal justice system and the legitimacy of law

enforcement, even though much remains to be known about its optimal application in

law enforcement. In order to earn the respect and support of the communities they

police, law enforcement organizations must prioritize procedural fairness in all that

they do, from policy formulation to everyday operations.

Despite the volume and diversity of the procedural justice literature, a few major

themes come to light throughout the study. First, the beginnings of procedural justice

and how it has evolved through time demonstrate that the concept is not new but has

been evolving. Second, although diverse theoretical viewpoints on procedural justice

 9

provide various interpretations of the idea, they all seem to point to the principle's

foundation in the idea that the general public is entitled to participate in governmental

decision-making. Thirdly, research that is based on empirical evidence suggests that

the concept of procedural fairness may contribute to a rise in public trust in the

criminal justice system.

More research is needed, but preliminary findings suggest that procedural justice

may improve these attitudes. Last but not least, the implications of procedural justice

for law enforcement policy and practice indicate that the concept may be used to

increase the legitimacy of law enforcement; however, more research is required to

determine the most effective method for implementing procedural justice in policing.

References

Ansems, L. F., van den Bos, K., & Mak, E. (2020). Speaking of justice: A qualitative

interview study on perceived procedural justice among defendants in Dutch

 10

criminal cases. Law & Society Review, 54(3), 643–679.

https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12499

Baker, T. (2016). Exploring the relationship of shared race/ethnicity with court actors,

perceptions of court procedural justice, and obligation to obey among male

offenders. Race and Justice, 7(1), 87–102.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716650728

Faizal, S., Palil, M., Maelah, R., & Ramili, R. (2019). The mediating effect of power

and trust in the relationship between procedural justice and tax compliance.

Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 11, 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.17576/ajag-2019-11-01

Murphy, K. (2014). Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice:

Understanding reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational

posturing. Regulation & Governance, 10(1), 93–109.

https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12073

Murphy, K., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2015). Motivating compliance behavior

among offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 102–118.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815611166

Murphy, K., Madon, N. S., & Cherney, A. (2018). Reporting threats of terrorism:

Stigmatisation, Procedural Justice and policing Muslims in Australia. Policing

and Society, 30(4), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2018.1551393

Murray, K., McVie, S., Farren, D., Herlitz, L., Hough, M., & Norris, P. (2020).

Procedural Justice, compliance with the law and police stop-and-search: A study
 11

of young people in England and Scotland. Policing and Society, 31(3), 263–282.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1711756

Saarikkomäki, E., Birk Haller, M., Solhjell, R., Alvesalo-Kuusi, A., Kolind, T., Hunt,

G., & Burcar Alm, V. (2020). Suspected or protected? perceptions of procedural

justice in ethnic minority youth's descriptions of police relations. Policing and

Society, 31(4), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1747462

Trinkner, R., Kerrison, E. M., & Goff, P. A. (2019). The force of fear: Police

stereotype threat, self-legitimacy, and support for excessive force. Law and

Human Behavior, 43(5), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000339

Tyler, T. (2017). Procedural Justice and policing: A rush to judgment? Annual Review

of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-

lawsocsci-110316-113318