Offender Supervision, Prisoners and Procedural Justice
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Author | BEN CREWE,RENÉE J. MITCHELL,IAN BICKERS |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12343 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
The Howard Journal Vol58 No 4. December 2019 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12343
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 477–495
Offender Supervision, Prisoners
and Procedural Justice
IAN BICKERS, BEN CREWE and REN´
EE J. MITCHELL
Ian Bickers is Deputy Director, Education Employment and Industries, HM
Prison and Probation Service; Ben Crewe is Deputy Director, Prisons Research
Centre, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge; Ren´
ee J. Mitchell is
Sergeant, Sacramento Police Department, Sacramento, CA, USA
Abstract: Relationships between prisoners and the staff responsible for them have long
been considered a cornerstone of institutional legitimacy in prisons. Considerable research
has focused on the everyday relationships between prison officers and those in their charge,
but almost none on the relationship between prisoners and those who are responsible for
their risk assessments within the custodial setting. Using semi-structured interviews, this
research elicited the perceptions of 19 sentenced prisoners with regard to the procedural
justice of their interactions with offender supervisors. Organised around the core compo-
nents of procedural fairness – voice, respect, neutrality, and trust – the article suggests
that prisoners experienced a very limited degree of procedural justice, which negatively
impacted their relationships with this important staff group and their prison experiences
in general.
Keywords: legitimacy; offender management; prisoners; prisons; procedural
justice
The issue of legitimacy within criminal justice settings has become increas-
ingly important in recent years. Authority can be characterised as legitimate
when people believe ‘that the decisions made and the rules enacted by au-
thority or by an institution are in some way right and proper and ought
to be followed’ (Zelditch 2001, p.27). Research has demonstrated the role
of legitimacy in achieving law-abiding behaviour and co-operation, espe-
cially through processes that are procedurally just (Bottoms and Tankebe
2012; Tyler 2003). Given the centrality of legitimacy to compliance, and the
relevance of compliance and engagement to prison life (see Crewe 2009;
Sparks, Bottoms and Hay 1996; Ugelvik 2014), it is all the more impor-
tant to understand how legitimacy is maintained or undermined among
prisoners, not only through the relationships between frontline staff and
prisoners, but also through the orientations and practices of other staff
groups. Based on semi-structured interviews in a medium-security local
477
C
2019 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol58 No 4. December 2019
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 477–495
prison in England, this article examines the quality of relationship between
prisoners and offender supervisors using a procedural justice framework
and explores the effects of those relationships on prisoners’ perceptions
of legitimacy and their engagement with the institution.1Specifically, it
explores the degree to which prisoners trust their offender supervisor, feel
respected and treated neutrally by them, and believe that they have a voice
in the offender supervision process.
Literature Review
The key normative judgments influencing the experience of legitimacy
relate to procedural justice (Tyler 1990). In his well-known Chicago Study,
Tom Tyler demonstrated that different aspects of procedure – ‘voice’, ‘re-
spect’, ‘neutrality’, and ‘trust’– independently influenced judgments about
whether the procedure was fair. One way to think about the process of
procedural justice is as follows: first, if people feel heard and understood
(voice), they will feel as though they have been treated with dignity and
respect (respect) (Paternoster et al. 1997; Rogers and Farson 1957; Thibaut
and Walker 1978). Second, if they feel as though they have been under-
stood and treated with respect, they will view the authority’s decisions
as fair and impartial (neutral) (Tyler and Folger 1980). Third, if people
feel that decisions are neutral, they will view the authority as trustworthy
(Sunshine and Tyler 2003). Fourth, if they view the authority as under-
standing, respectful, neutral, and trustworthy, they will regard it as legiti-
mate and will comply (Tyler and Huo 2002). While it is yet unknown which
of the four elements is the strongest predictor of public perception, there
is some evidence that voice plays a strong role (Dai, Frank and Sun 2011).
Voicerefers to the belief on the part of subordinates within an interaction
that they have had an opportunity to take part in the decision-making
process. This includes having an opportunity to present arguments, being
listened to, and having their views considered by those in power.More than
simply being listened to, ‘voice’ requires a person to feel heard (Mitchell
and Von Zoller 2016). Only when a person feels understood do they feel
as though the person in authority ‘considered the argument raised’ (Tyler
2013, p.106). Understanding is listening at a deeper emotional level, and
requires hearing the meaning behind the words. Without understanding,
people will not feel as though their opinions are being taken seriously and
fully considered when authorities are making decisions. Tyler found that
those who had a voice in a decision that affected them were typically much
more accepting of its outcome, irrespective of what that outcome was. Even
when someone is given a voice only after a decision is made, they still view
the interaction as fairer than does someone who has been given no voice
at all (Lind, Kanfer and Earley 1990).
Respect reflects a person’s standing in society or their ‘status within the
group’ (Tyler and Blader 2003, p.354). When subjects discuss injustice,
they most commonly refer to the lack of respect that they feel they are
given by others (Mikula, Petri and Tonzer 1990). Distinct from the quality
of the decision-making process itself, judgments about procedural justice
478
C
2019 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial