Procedural justice is concerned with ensuring police treat those they interact with fairly and make fair decisions. It is a key strategy for promoting willingness to cooperate with police. Little is known, however, about how procedural justice might influence young adult drug users. This study compares perceptions of police and policing and willingness to cooperate with police in a population based sample of young adult amphetamine-type stimulant users and non-users, using both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings suggest that procedural justice-based policing promotes positive perceptions of police and increases support for, and willingness to cooperate with, police among young adult illicit drug users.
References
URLs correct as at September 2024
Brown B & Benedict W 2002. Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 25(3): 543–580
Duff C 2005. Party drugs and party people: Examining the ‘normalization’ of recreational drug use in Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy 16(3): 161–170
Fitzgerald R, Mazerolle L & Mazerolle P 2013. Drug normalisation and Australian youth: Group differences in the social accommodation of drug use. Journal of Youth Studies 16(7): 901–915
Goodman-Delahunty J 2010. Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing 4(4): 403–410
Huo YJ 2003. Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identify undermine relationship-based governance? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(3): 336–348
Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, Myhill A, Quinton P & Tyler TR 2012. Why do people comply with the law?: Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology 52(6): 1,051–1,071
Lai Y & Zhao J 2010. The impact of race/ethnicity, neighbourhood context, and police/citizen interaction on residents’ attitudes toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice 38(4): 685–692
Liebling A 2004. Prisons and their moral performance. Oxford, London: Oxford University Press
Liebling A & Crewe B 2010. Values, practices and outcomes in public and private sector corrections, ESRC Impact Report RES-062-23-0212. Swindon: ESRC
Lind EA & Tyler TR 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum
Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Antrobus E & Eggins E 2012a. Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology 8(4): 343–367
Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E & Manning M 2013. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9(3): 245–274
Mazerolle L, Wickes R, Cherney A, Murphy K, Sargeant E & Zahnow R 2012b. Community variations in crime: A spatial and econometric analysis wave 3 (Technical Report). Brisbane, Australia: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security
Medina Ariza JJ 2013. Police-initiated contacts: Young people, ethnicity, and the ‘usual suspects’. Policing and Society 24(2): 208–223
Murphy K 2009. Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 42(2): 159–178
Murphy K & Cherney A 2011. Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44(2): 235–257
Murphy K, Hinds L & Fleming J 2008. Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society 18(2): 136–155
Murphy K, Murphy B & Mearns M 2010a. The 2007 public safety and security in Australia survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. Alfred Deakin Research Institute Working Paper No. 16. Geelong: Deakin University
Murphy K, Murphy B & Mearns M 2010b. The 2009 crime, safety and policing in Australia survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. Alfred Deakin Research Institute Working Paper No. 17. Geelong: Deakin University
Murphy K, Tyler TR & Curtis A 2009. Does procedural justice help authorities when people question the underlying legitimacy of the law? Regulation and Governance 3(1): 1–16
Papachristos AV, Meares TL & Fagan J 2012. Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 102(2): 397–440
Parker H, Aldridge J & Measham F 1998. Illegal leisure: The normalization of adolescent drug use. London: Routledge.
Paternoster R, Brame R & Sherman L 1997. Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review 31(1): 163–204
Payne J, Kwiatkowski M & Wundersitz J 2008. Police drug diversion: A study of criminal offending outcomes. Research and Public Policy Series. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp97
Reisig MD, Bratton J & Gertz MG 2007. The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(8): 1,005–1,028
Sced M 2004a. Public satisfaction with police contact, Part I: Police-initiated contacts. ACPR Current Commentary No. 8. Payneham, Australia: Australasian Centre for Policing Research
Sced M 2004b. Public satisfaction with police contact, Part II: Self-initiated contacts. ACPR Current Commentary No. 9. Payneham, Australia: Australasian Centre for Policing Research.
Schuck AM & Martin C 2013. Residents’ perceptions of procedural injustice during encounters with the police. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 11(4): 219–237
Skogan WG 2012. Assessing asymmetry: The life course of a research project. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 22(3): 270–279
Skogan WG 2006. Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 16(2): 99–126
Skogan WG 2005. Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly 8(3): 298–321
Smirnov A, Kemp R, Wells H, Legosz M & Najman JM 2014. Using population screening for recruitment of young adults engaged in illicit drug use: Methodological issues and sampling outcomes. Social Science Research 45: 88–97
Stone AL, Becker LG, Huber AM & Catalano RF 2012. Review of risk and protective factors of substance use and problem use in emerging adulthood. Addictive Behaviors 37(7): 747–775
Sunshine J & Tyler TR 2003a. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review 37(3): 513–547
Sunshine J & Tyler TR 2003b. Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and the importance of procedural justice: The police as prototypical representatives of a group’s moral values. Social Psychology Quarterly 66(2): 153–165
Sutherland I & Shepherd JP 2001. Social dimensions of adolescent substance use. Addiction 93(3): 445–458
Tankebe J 2013. Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology 51(1): 103–135
Tyler TR 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Tyler TR & Huo YJ 2002. Trust in the law. Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage
Tyler TR & Lind EA 1992. A relational model of authority in groups, in Zanna M (ed), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press: 115–191