Procedural Justice and the Adolescent Offender_2
-
Upload
suzanne-kaasa -
Category
Documents
-
view
155 -
download
1
Transcript of Procedural Justice and the Adolescent Offender_2
Procedural Justice and the Adolescent
Offender
Suzanne O. Kaasa, Lindsay C. Malloy, and Elizabeth Cauffman
University of California, Irvine
American Psychology-Law Society
March 8, 2008
Adjustment to Incarceration
Most crimes are committed during adolescence Important to study perceptions and reactions to
the justice system perceptions of how juvenile offenders were treated
by the justice system how this perception affects emotional and
behavioral adjustment to incarceration
Perceptions of Trial
How positive or negative individuals perceive their legal experience to be depends on Outcome (e.g., guilty or not guilty) Procedure (e.g., how fair was the trial?)
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 2000; Tyler & Folger, 1980)
What Makes a Procedure Just?
Voice/Process Control/Involvement (e.g., Leventhal, 1980; Casper et al., 1998; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Lind et al., 1990)
Neutrality (e.g., Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Leventhal, 1980; Tyler 1984, 1988, 1989, 1994)
Respectfulness (e.g., Casper et al., 1988; Fagan & Tyler, 2005, Tyler, 1989, 1994)
Motive/Honesty/Ethicality of Authority (e.g., Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Leventhal, 1980, Tyler, 1988, 1989, 1994)
Effects of Procedural Justice
Emotional/Attitudinal Emotions (e.g., anger, indignation) (e.g., Mikula, 1986)
Legal cynicism (e.g., Piquero et al., 2006)
General attitudes toward the court, quality of performance (e.g., Tyler, 1984, 2000; Tyler & Folger, 1980)
Behavioral Acceptance/Compliance with decision (e.g., McEwan & Maiman, 1984;
Greenberg 1987; Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Lind et al., 1993; MacCoun et al., 1988; Tyler, 1990)
Increased law abiding behavior (e.g., Gottfredson et al., 2007; Paternoster et al., 1997; Tyler, 1990; Tyler et al., 2007)
Method
373 incarcerated male juvenile offenders age 14-17 (M = 16) Five time points: Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, Month 1,
Month 2
53%
29%
6%
12%
LatinoAfrican American WhiteOther
Procedural InJustice Scale
20 items, alpha = .85 1-5 scale, higher scores = higher injustice Court, judge, prosecutor, defense attorney
“The judge did not let me tell all of the side of my story.” “The judge made up his/her mind prior to receiving any
information about the case.” “The judge treated me with respect and dignity.” “The judge showed concern for my rights.”
Injust vs. Moderate vs. Just
Adapted from Piquero et al. (2006)
Behavioral Adjustment
Self-Report of Offending (SRO; Adapted from Huizinga, Esbensen, & Weihar, 1991)
9-items “How often have you attacked someone where you
planned to seriously hurt them?”
frequency of offending at each time point total variety of offending behavior
Emotional Adjustment
Novaco Anger Scale (Novaco, 2003) 60 items “Have you felt this way in the past
week/month?” “When I think about something that makes me
angry, I get even more angry.” “If I feel myself getting angry, I can calm myself
down.”
Attitudinal Adjustment
Justice System Attitudes (adapted from Martin & Cohen, 2004)
12 items How fair and effective is the justice system? “The justice system is effective at punishing crimes.”
Organization Perceptions of the Facility 7 items How well-run is the facility? “The facility is always neat and clean”
Predictors of Procedural Injustice
M = 3.2, SD = .63, range 1.25-4.85 Age at baseline = ns
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Latino African American Caucasian
Proc
edur
al I
njus
tice
F(2, 283) = 3.47, p < .05
Frequency of Offending
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Week 2 Week 3 Month 1 Month 2
Mea
n Fr
eque
ncy
InJustModerateJust
Main effect: F(2, 152) = 4.11, p = .02
Offending Variety
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
InJust Moderate Just
Var
iety
Ove
r 2 M
onth
s
F(2, 282) = 4.42, p = .01
Anger
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Week 2 Month 1 Month 2
Nov
aco
Ang
er S
cale
InJustModerateJust
Main effect: F(2, 162) = 3.61, p = .03
Perception of Justice System
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Week 1 Month 1 Month 2
Neg
ativ
e Ju
stic
e Sy
stem
Att
itude
s
InJustModerateJust
Main effect: F(2, 199) = 12.03, p < .001
Perception of Institution
2.52.62.72.82.9
33.13.23.33.43.5
Week1
Week2
Week3
Month1
Month2
Faci
lity
Is W
ell R
un
InJustModerateJust
Main effect: F(2, 151) = 3.23, p = .04 Time*PJ: F(7.01, 529.36) = 2.78, p = .008
Summary
Perception of unjust treatment Greater for minorities Greater levels of anger Less positive view of the justice system Less positive view of the facility organization Greater frequency and variety of institutional
offending
Summary
Procedural Justice is not significantly related to: Prior offense history Victimization inside the institution Depression Perceptions of staff
Discussion Youth have undergone a significant interaction with the
legal system and must live in continual contact with legal authorities.
Youth who believe they were treated fairly by the legal system are less likely to act out.
Effects of procedural justice last over time. Efforts towards rehabilitation may need to begin at the
earliest contacts with the justice system.
Division of Juvenile Justice Bernard Warner Rudy Haapanen James Fairgrieve Carla Viazcan
Funding Source National Institute of Mental
Health
Graduate Students & Postdocs Amanda Cohen Julia Dmitrieva Sue Farruggia Asha Goldweber Erin Kelly Eva Kimonis Kristen Meyer Elizabeth Shulman
Undergraduate Students Madihha Ahussain, Katie Barnes,
Jordan Bechtold, Carolina Castanada, Jocelyn Cook, Kaycie Craib, Marine DeArmas, Diana Diaz, Priyanka Doshi, Helena Ertel, Kourtney Fuller, Nancy Girguis, Maribel Gonzalez, Angelica Gutierrez, Tyler Han, Melissa Hendricks, Allina Hightower, Natasha Jain, Sara Holderfield, Janet Kim, Ashley Kruger, Jenna Kirschenman, Claire Latouche, Danielle Lewien, Veronica Lopez, John Phan, Yuri Reyes, Chris Ridgeway, David Ritter, James Robinson, Kashif Ross, Danish Shahbaz, Corinne Sheehan, Ania Siedlecka, Jeanna Syn, Jeannete Villagran, Anamaria Wallner, Megan Watt
Acknowledgments