General and specific perceptions of procedural justice: Factors associated with perceptions of police and court responses to domestic and family violence
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865820935941 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
General and specific
perceptions of procedural
justice: Factors associated
with perceptions of police
and court responses to
domestic and family
violence
Silke Meyer
Monash University, Australia
CQUniversity, Australia
Harley Williamson
Griffith University, Australia
Abstract
Improving criminal justice responses to domestic and family violence is a key focus within many
policy and practice reforms. The efficacy of police and court responses to domestic and family
violence is central because of the role of police as first responders and courts in issuing protection
orders, imposing sanctions and ensuring perpetrator cooperation and accountability. To promote
compliance and satisfaction with criminal justice outcomes, a large body of research points to the
role of procedural justice. This study draws on survey and administrative data from an Australian
jurisdiction to examine perceptions of procedural justice in specific domestic and family violence-
related encounters. Findings and implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Keywords
Courts, domestic and family violence, offending, police, procedural justice, victimisation
Date received: 20 December 2019; accepted: 25 May 2020
Corresponding author:
Silke Meyer, Schoolof Social Sciences, Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University, Clayton
Campus, 20 Chancellors Walk, VIC 3800, Australia.
Email: silke.meyer@monash.edu
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
2020, Vol. 53(3) 333–351
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865820935941
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Introduction
Domestic and family violence (DFV
1
) is a global public health concern and a key driver
of disability and premature death in women in Australia (Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare (AIHW), 2019) and beyond (World Health Organization (WHO), 2013). In
Australia, one in six women reports experiencing physical and/or sexual violence per-
petrated by an intimate partner (AIHW, 2019). In addition to physical, emotional and
social impacts for victims and children, DFV has broader societal implications (Devries
et al., 2013). Its widespread nature creates a significant demand on service responses,
including physical and mental health services, child protection and the criminal justice
system (CJS). For many victims, the CJS is often the first point of contact in the formal
help-seeking process.
Many Australian jurisdictions have undergone substantial legislative and practice
reforms to improve service responses for victims and their children and to ensure that
DFV perpetrators are held accountable at a community and statutory agency level.
Social accountability signals to DFV perpetrators that using violence in the home is
unacceptable (Meyer, 2016). Yet, holding perpetrators accountable for their actions has
largely remained the role of law enforcement with an increasing focus on punishment.
Since the landmark reforms introduced by the Royal Commission into Family Violence
(2016) and the Not Now Not Ever (2015) reports in Victoria and Queensland, civil and
criminal justice DFV avenues are more frequently utilised (Crime Statistics Agency,
2016). These avenues play a crucial role in responding to DFV and preventing recidi-
vism (Mazerolle et al., 2018). However, evidence has repeatedly identified that police
and court responses to DFV are inadequate in responding to victim and perpetrator
needs, including protection, recovery and support around long-term behaviour change
(e.g. Meyer, 2011).
Criminological research has focused on the nature and effectiveness of criminal jus-
tice responses to reduce crime for decades (see, e.g. Gover et al., 2007; Maxwell et al.,
2019; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). Procedural justice consistently emerges as a key
antecedent to citizen compliance with law enforcement directives. Procedural justice
emphasises the role of respect,fairness,trustworthiness and having a voice in shaping
individuals’ perceptions of and future engagement and compliance with authorities
(Elliott et al., 2011; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Tyler, 2006).
Despite the efficacy of procedural justice in effecting positive police–citizen relations,
the role of procedural justice in DFV-related victim and perpetrator encounters with law
enforcement remains scarcely researched (see, e.g. Paternoster et al., 1997). However,
evidence linking perceptions of police and court encounters to future perpetrator behav-
iour and victim experiences suggests that police and courts should be equally concerned
with applying procedural justice to improve DFV victim and perpetrator outcomes
(Meyer, 2011; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). The current paper seeks to advance existing
research by exploring victims’ and respondents’ general perceptions of procedural jus-
tice towards Magistrates and police officers. It further canvases whether general per-
ceptions of procedural justice shape specific attitudes during DFV-related court and
police encounters. This paper draws on administrative and survey data from an
Australian jurisdiction to do so.
334 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 53(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial