Tracking Procedural Justice in Processing Detainees: Coding Evidence from CCTV Cameras in Three Police Custody Suites

Author:

Firman Catherine Susan,Tankebe Justice

Abstract

Abstract Research question How closely do custody suite encounters between detainees and custody suite officers (CSOs) match the procedural standards for decision makers treating people who are subject to their authority? To what degree does measurement of procedural justice displayed by CSOs on  closed-circuit television (CCTV) records vary across detainees, CSOs and custody suites? Data Arrest records for July, August, and September 2020 across three custody suites in the East of England were obtained and a random sample of 150 encounters selected for analysis. Methods Encounters between CSOs and detainees at the booking-in stage as captured on pre-recorded CCTV were coded into four elements of procedural justice: voice, trustworthy motives, impartiality, and respect. Non-verbal communications and dialogue were also examined. Findings Overall, custody suite officers demonstrated high levels of respect and neutrality in dealing with detainees. However, they showed relatively less care for the wellbeing of the detainees and did not offer them enough opportunities to ‘tell their side of the story’ (‘voice’). Further analysis revealed statistically significant variations across the three custody suites in the level of opportunities offered to detainees to have an input in discussing the decision-making. We also found evidence that as length of service as police officers and in custody roles increased, the observed level of expression of ‘trustworthy motives’ displayed decreased. Finally, detainee compliance with officers was greater when respect and care for the wellbeing of detainees were more pronounced. Conclusions A tracking study can help identify police units and police officers with greater concentrations of procedural justice deficits. Such evidence can support more targeted training to improve the delivery of procedural justice, and enhance public confidence in policing.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference26 articles.

1. Augustyn, M. B. (2015). The (ir)relevance of procedural justice in the pathways to crime. Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 388–401.

2. Beetham, D. (2013). Revisiting legitimacy, twenty years on. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J. Crim. l. & Criminology, 102, 119–170.

4. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2017). Police legitimacy and the authority of the state. In A. du Bois Pedain, M. Ulväng, & P. Asp (Eds.), Criminal law and the authority of the state (pp. 47–88). Hart.

5. Bowling, B., Reiner, R., & Sheptycki, J. (2019). The Politics of the Police (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3