Accessing justice: The impact of discretion, ‘deservedness’ and distributive justice on the equitable allocation of policing resources
| Author | Sarah Charman,Emma Williams |
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/17488958211013075 |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211013075
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2022, Vol. 22(3) 404 –422
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17488958211013075
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Accessing justice: The impact
of discretion, ‘deservedness’
and distributive justice on the
equitable allocation of policing
resources
Sarah Charman
University of Portsmouth, UK
Emma Williams
The Open University, UK
Abstract
The police are faced with a uniquely important role in the initiation of a process of justice.
Through a framework of distributive justice, which examines both processes and outcomes of
police encounters and the concrete and symbolic resources at their disposal, this paper seeks to
analyse data from three policing projects over a 16-year period. The findings indicate a remarkably
consistent story of barriers to justice which preclude the opportunity to access justice or of a
satisfactory outcome or indeed any outcome at all. The lack of allocated concrete or symbolic
resources was evident in complainants receiving limited time, investigation and voice. This paper
argues that there is evidence of an unfair and inequitable distribution of resources to victims
and potential victims of crime which is enabled by police discretion, justified by focusing on
deservedness and personal choice and encouraged by the cultural language of stigmatisation of
people and place.
Keywords
Deservedness, distributive justice, police culture, police discretion, policing victims
Corresponding author:
Sarah Charman, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, St George’s Building, 141
High Street, Portsmouth, Hants PO1 2HY, UK.
Email: sarah.charman@port.ac.uk
1013075CRJ0010.1177/17488958211013075Criminology & Criminal JusticeCharman and Williams
research-article2021
Article
Charman and Williams 405
Procedural fairness and access to fairly distributed justice are integral to democratic
policing (Bradford and Quinton, 2014). ‘Justice’ however remains a more contested
issue which political philosophy has grappled with for many centuries. There is exten-
sive evidence available to support the relationship between fair treatment and percep-
tions of police legitimacy (Bradford, 2016). Securing that police legitimacy is now a
continually negotiated arena (Jackson and Bradford, 2010). Positive policing actions
which focus upon respect, reassurance and fairness are vital to public perceptions of
legitimacy (Kleinig, 2008). This focus upon police legitimacy has been closely tied to a
surge of interest in procedural justice, behind which the policing literature has whole-
heartedly moved its allegiances (McLean, 2020). Thibaut and Walker (1975) were the
first to consider the importance of studying the process of achieving justice as a crucial
factor within the philosophies of justice but this work has expanded rapidly across the
discipline (for example in the work of Jackson et al., 2012; Sargeant, 2017; Tyler, 1990,
1994). These developments have witnessed a spotlight upon public perceptions of police
legitimacy and the impact of enhanced legitimate policing processes upon public coop-
eration, satisfaction and compliance. Police effectiveness then becomes closely con-
nected to the perceived fairness of the encounter rather than the effectiveness of the
outcome itself (Sunshine and Tyler, 2003).
However, there is a danger of conflating procedures with justice by focussing too
much upon processes (Cropanzano and Ambrose, 2001; Thibaut and Walker, 1975), a
danger of conflating the issue of fairness with that of generosity when considering posi-
tive outcomes (Lerner and Clayton, 2011) and finally a danger of conflating legitimacy
with fairness by focussing too much on the legitimacy of the authority granted to power-
holders rather than on the ethical behaviour of those involved (Leibling, 2004). This is
particularly relevant for policing as the relationships are already problematised by tradi-
tional perceptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ and discussions around
fairness remain about power and consent to power rather than the embedding of ethical
behaviour in practice. It is perhaps pertinent therefore to revisit a branch of justice which
although prominent towards the end of the last century has seen its influence within the
field of criminology waning – distributive justice.
The focus for this article therefore is on distributive justice and its application to an
examination of whether the policing of citizens is equitably balanced. While the concept
of utilitarianism, with its focus upon costs and benefits and the greatest happiness for the
greatest amount of people would seem to be a good starting point for an analysis of fair-
ness, we would argue that this is not the case. The reason for this is that the focus for
utilitarianism is centred upon the end result of increasing benefits and reducing costs
rather than on the fair and equitable distribution of these goods and services (Colquitt
et al., 2001). It is therefore distributive justice that is the focus here.
Distributive justice is a particularly important debate within the policing organisation
as a social institution which exerts coercion over others (Nagel, 2005). The paper seeks
to consider this allocation of resources through an examination of police discretion and
how, alongside the concept of ‘deservedness’ and the cultural schemas which influence
police actions, this might impact upon different sections of the population. The aim is
then to explore the barriers to accessing justice by drawing on qualitative data from three
separate policing research projects conducted over a sixteen-year period.
To continue reading
Request your trial