Policing terrorism with procedural justice: The role of police legitimacy and law legitimacy
| Author | Adrian Cherney,Kristina Murphy |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0004865813485072 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
46(3) 403–421
Policing terrorism with
! The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
procedural justice: The role
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865813485072
of police legitimacy and law
anj.sagepub.com
legitimacy
Adrian Cherney
School of Social Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia
Kristina Murphy
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Australia
Abstract
Research shows that procedural justice influences public cooperation with the police.
However, it cannot be assumed that factors that influence cooperation in general crime
control also apply to people’s willingness to cooperate in counter-terrorism. This proposition
is tested among a sample of Arabic-speaking people in Australia. We explore whether pro-
cedural justice has an impact on reported willingness to cooperate in counterterrorism
policing, and if this is mediated by law legitimacy and identity related factors. Our results
show that perceptions about the legitimacy of the law and identification with Australian
society matter a great deal when it comes to predicting cooperation in counter-terrorism.
In contrast, perceptions of police legitimacy matter most for predicting cooperation in gen-
eral crime control activities. Our discussion and results are linked to debates about how best
to police terrorism.
Keywords
Arabic speaking communities, cooperation, counter-terrorism, law legitimacy, police
legitimacy, procedural justice
Introduction
Since September 11th 2001 domestic policing in Western democracies has been trans-
formed by the increasing involvement of local police in counter-terrorism. While concern
has been raised about the implications of this trend for the resourcing of routine police
work, scholars have argued that it also has a bearing on police effectiveness because of its
impact on police–community relations (Lambert, 2011). Studies indicate that among
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities in the United Kingdom, the United States
Corresponding author:
Adrian Cherney, School of Social Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane 4072, Australia.
Email: a.cherney@uq.edu.au
404
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(3)
and Australia, there is widespread resentment and anger towards counter-terrorism
efforts because they are seen as arbitrarily and disproportionately targeting groups
due to their Islamic faith or ethnic identity (Pickering et al., 2008; Poynting and
Nobel, 2004; Spalek and Imtoual, 2007; Sun et al., 2011).
The problem is that counter-terrorism policing can undermine both support for police
and generate opposition towards the laws the police enforce – which also has implica-
tions for the perceived legitimacy of counter-terrorism policing (Jonathan-Zamir and
Weisburd, 2011; LaFree et al., 2009). Judgements of police legitimacy are essential to
eliciting voluntary cooperation among community members (Murphy et al., 2008).
Procedural justice has for some time been regarded as central to improving police legit-
imacy and public cooperation with police, with numerous studies supporting this obser-
vation (Mazerolle et al., 2010). Procedural justice refers to whether laws and policies are
perceived as being implemented fairly by authorities. Further, perceptions that autho-
rities enforcing those policies are treating citizens with respect and dignity are also
important to perceived procedural justice. More recently, the pioneer of procedural
justice research, Tom Tyler, has argued that procedural justice is relevant to the coun-
ter-terrorism context (Tyler, 2012). This is supported by three recent studies of US and
UK Muslims (i.e. Huq et al., 2011a, 2011b; Tyler et al., 2010). However, it cannot be
assumed that what influences cooperation in general crime control – the context from
which most procedural justice research is drawn – is the same for cooperation in counter-
terrorism policing. For instance, other factors, such as people’s perceptions about the
legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws or their level of identification with the country in
which they reside, might also be important for predicting willingness to assist police in
these matters (Cherney and Murphy, 2011; Hocking, 2004).
This paper aims to test whether the procedural justice model extends to the counter-
terrorism context among a sample of Arabic-speaking people in Australia. Of particular
interest is exploring whether procedural justice has an impact on reported willingness to
cooperate in activities aimed at counter-terrorism policing. We aim to explore factors
that may mediate this relationship, and whether these factors may differ when it comes
to predicting cooperation in general crime control. This is important to understanding
what influences cooperation with police in different crime control contexts.
This paper is organised as follows: firstly, background theory and research is can-
vassed to situate the study in relevant literature and to illustrate the link between coun-
ter-terrorism and our key concepts of interest. The survey instrument and sampling
process are described. Results are then reported, focusing on people’s cooperation in
general crime control compared to counter-terrorism. The results are discussed, as well
as the study’s limitations, and we conclude by reflecting on the implications of our
findings for counter-terrorism efforts.
Background theory and studies
Procedural justice, cooperation and counter-terrorism
The procedural justice model of policing challenges the argument that people simply
make judgements about the police on the basis of their performance (i.e. ability to
identify and apprehend law breakers). Rather, people are also concerned about the
Cherney and Murphy
405
basis of police decision-making and whether it is underpinned by a normative element
based upon fair and respectful treatment. Procedural justice is seen as central to these
normative judgements and is influenced by whether the police are neutral and transpar-
ent when applying legal rules; whether they explain their actions and seek input from
community members before making decisions; and whether they treat people with dig-
nity and respect. These dimensions are key predictors of peoples’ acceptance of police
decision-making and the laws they enforce, as well as for promoting cooperation with
police (Tyler, 2011).
Studies have shown that if police use procedural justice it helps build police legitim-
acy, and is a more effective way of securing long-term compliance with legal authorities
(Mazerolle et al., 2010). In actual fact when procedural justice is absent citizens are more
likely to become defensive, which encourages non-compliance (Braithwaite, 2009; Tyler,
2011). The reason procedural justice matters so much is because it communicates the
message that an individual is a respected member of society and deserves to be listened
to. It is a mistake to assume, however, that procedural injustice against a single person
only affects their judgements alone. Rather, the impact of experiencing or observing
unfairness in decision-making translates to one’s social group and can motivate
groups to question the legitimacy and power of specific authorities (Braithwaite, 2009;
Lind and Tyler, 1988). This can create defensiveness among social groups who react by
withdrawing their consent and cooperation with legal authorities. In the specific context
of policing this can have a significant impact on police effectiveness.
The procedural justice-based model of policing has important lessons for counter-
terrorism policing. Firstly, it has been consistently argued that community cooperation
is central to mitigating the risks of terrorism (DPMC, 2010: 67; Lambert, 2011; Pickering
et al., 2008). In the counter-terrorism context, a procedural justice-based model of poli-
cing may have the potential to provide police with greater pay-offs (i.e. more accurate
and timely intelligence) and can impose lower costs than coercive or intrusive forms of
policing, because of its capacity to generate increased levels of community cooperation.
Coercive and intrusive forms of policing can actually generate community back-
lash against counter-terrorism and may foster terrorist recruiting, hence undermining
community support for efforts to combat terrorism, as has been illustrated in the period
of the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland (LaFree et al., 2009). Given active and passive
support for terrorism is influenced by the functioning of state institutions (Tessler
and Robbins, 2007; Shapiro and Fair, 2009), how institutional authorities go about
designing and implementing counter-terrorism laws and policies (i.e. whether they
are designed and implemented in a procedurally just way) has a potential bearing on
support for terrorism, and the willingness of groups to cooperate in counter-terrorism
initiatives.
Limited evidence supports the link between procedural justice and cooperation in
counter-terrorism. Research conducted by Tyler and his colleagues has found that
among Muslims residing in the UK and US, procedural justice is a significant predictor
of people’s willingness to cooperate with the police in counter-terrorism initiatives (see
Huq et al., 2011a, 2011b; Tyler et al., 2010). In these studies judgements of procedural
justice were more significant than judgements about the perceived threat of terrorism,
and willingness to cooperate was neither influenced by ideological or religious beliefs (i.e.
attitudes on foreign policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial