Procedural Justice Concerns and Technologically Mediated Interactions with Legal Authorities
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The use of surveillance technologies by legal authorities has intensified in recent years. As new data collection technologies expand into law enforcement spaces previously dominated by interpersonal interactions, questions emerge about whether the public will evaluate interpersonal and technologically mediated interactions with legal authorities in the same ways. In an analysis guided by procedural justice theory, we examine whether and how legal authorities’ use of decision-making technology affects public evaluations of an authority-subordinate interaction and its outcome in the context of airport border crossings. Using an experimental vignette design (N = 278), we varied whether an encounter between a traveller and border security “agent” that produced a secondary search was described as interpersonal (conducted by a human agent) or technologically mediated (conducted by a machine agent). We also varied the traveller’s group membership relative to the nation-state, describing the traveller as either born in the country in question and a member of the nation’s most common racial group (in-group) or not born in the country and a racial minority (out-group). Both encounter type and group membership independently affected perceptions of the interaction (procedural justice judgements) and its outcome (distributive justice judgments). Technologically mediated encounters improved perceptions of procedural and distributive justice. Further, procedural justice judgments mediated the relationship between encounter type and distributive justice, demonstrating how perceptions of interactions influence perceptions of the outcomes of those interactions. Out-group members were evaluated as having worse experiences across all measures. The findings underscore the importance of extending tests of procedural justice theory beyond interpersonal interactions to technologically mediated interactions.
Article Details
Surveillance & Society uses a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
- The author. The author licenses the article to the Surveillance Studies Network (SSN) for inclusion in Surveillance & Society (S&S), right of first publication. The copyright to the article remains with the author and any subsequent commercial reuse must be agreed by both parties.
- Non-commercial Users. SSN authorises all persons to use material published in S&S in any manner that is not primarily intended for or directed to commerical advantage or private monetary compensation, also provided that it is not modified and retains all attribution notices.
- Commercial Users. SSN retains the right to benefit from commerical reuse, in each specific case subject to the agreement of the author, and payment to SSN of a standard per-page fee (set by a vote of the Network and Editorial Board) by the Commercial User.
- Surveillance & Society supports open access archives and the free distribution of the results of academic work. Authors are encouraged to place copies of the final published version of their article in their university and / or other open access archives. We only ask that you make sure to include a link to the original published version on the Surveillance & Society website.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. 2013. You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans’ Movements. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-platereaders-are-being-used-record [accessed June 3, 2020].
Andrejevic, Mark. 2019. Automating Surveillance. Surveillance & Society 17 (1/2): 7–13.
Ball, Kirstie S., and Stephen T. Margulis. 2011. Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance in Call Centres: A Framework for Investigation: Surveillance in Call Centres. New Technology, Work and Employment 26 (2): 113–126.
Beijersbergen, Karin A., Anja J. Dirkzwager, Veroni I. Eichelsheim, Peter H. Van der Laan, and Paul Nieuwbeerta. 2015. Procedural Justice, Anger, and Prisoners’ Misconduct: A Longitudinal Study. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42 (2): 196–218.
Bennett Moses, Lyria, and Janet Chan. 2014. Using Big Data for Legal and Law Enforcement Decisions: Testing the New Tools. University of New South Wales Law Journal 37 (2): 643–678.
———. 2018. Algorithmic Prediction in Policing: Assumptions, Evaluation, and Accountability. Policing and Society 28 (7): 806–822.
Bowling, Ben, Alpa Parmar, and Coretta Phillips. 2003. Policing Ethnic Minority Communities. In Handbook of Policing, edited by Tim Newburn, 528–555. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
Bradford, Ben. 2014. Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and Cooperation between Police and Public. Policing and Society 24 (1): 22–43.
Bradford, Ben, Kristina Murphy, and Jonathan Jackson. 2014. Officers as Mirrors: Policing, Procedural Justice and the (Re)Production of Social Identity. British Journal of Criminology 54 (4): 527–550.
Brouwer, Jelmer, Maartje Van Der Woude, and Joanne Van Der Leun. 2018. Border Policing, Procedural Justice and Belonging: The Legitimacy of (Cr)immigration Controls in Border Areas. The British Journal of Criminology 58 (3): 624–643.
Cao, Liqun. 2014. Aboriginal People and Confidence in the Police. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 56 (5): 499–526
Chan, Janet B.L. 2001. The Technological Game: How Information Technology Is Transforming Police Practice. Criminal Justice 1 (2): 139–159.
Chan, Janet, and Lyria Bennett Moses. 2016. Making Sense of Big Data for Security. British Journal of Criminology 57 (2): 299–319.
Cope, Nina. 2004. “Intelligence Led Policing or Policing Led Intelligence?”: Integrating Volume Crime Analysis into Policing. British Journal of Criminology 44 (2): 188–203.
Demir, Mustafa, Robert Apel, Anthony A. Braga, Rod K. Brunson, and Barak Ariel. 2020. Body Worn Cameras, Procedural Justice, and Police Legitimacy: A Controlled Experimental Evaluation of Traffic Stops. Justice Quarterly 37 (1): 53–84.
Ericson, Richard V., and Kevin D. Haggerty. 1997. Policing the Risk Society. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.
Gandy, Oscar H. 2010. Engaging Rational Discrimination: Exploring Reasons for Placing Regulatory Constraints on Decision Support Systems. Ethics and Information Technology 12 (1): 29–42.
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane. 2010. Four Ingredients: New Recipes for Procedural Justice in Australian Policing. Policing 4 (4): 403–410.
Hasisi, Badi, and David Weisburd. 2011. Going beyond Ascribed Identities: The Importance of Procedural Justice in Airport Security Screening in Israel: Airport Security Screening. Law & Society Review 45 (4): 867–892.
Hayes, Andrew F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Condition Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Heuer, Larry, Steven Penrod, Carolyn L. Hafer, and Ilene Cohn. 2002. The Role of Resource and Relational Concerns for Procedural Justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (11): 1468–1482.
Innes, Martin, Laurence Abbott, Trudy Lowe, and Colin Roberts. 2009. Seeing like a Citizen: Field Experiments in “Community Intelligence‐led Policing.” Police Practice and Research 10 (2): 99–114.
Joh, Elizabeth E . 2007. Discretionless Policing: Technology and the Fourth Amendment. California Law Review 95 (1): 199–232.
———. 2016. The New Surveillance Discretion: Automated Suspicion, Big Data, and Policing. Harvard Law and Policy Review 10 (1): 15–42.
Jonathan-Zamir, Tal, Badi Hasisi, and Yoram Margalioth. 2016. Is It the What or the How? The Roles of High-Policing Tactics and Procedural Justice in Predicting Perceptions of Hostile Treatment: The Case of Security Checks at Ben-Gurion Airport, Israel: Roles of High-Policing Tactics and Procedural Justice. Law & Society Review 50 (3): 608–636.
Jonathan-Zamir, Tal, Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Shomron Moyal. 2015. Measuring Procedural Justice in Police-Citizen Encounters. Justice Quarterly 32 (5): 845–871.
Kraska, Peter B. 2007. Militarization and Policing: Its Relevance to 21st Century Police. Policing 1 (4): 501–513.
Lind, E. Allan, Ruth Kanfer, and P. Christopher Earley. 1990. Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 952–959.
Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Boston, MA: Springer.
Lum, Cynthia, Linda Merola, Julie Willis, and Breanne Cave. 2010. License Plate Recognition Technology (LPR): Impact Evaluation and Community Assessment. https://cebcp.org/wp-content/evidence-based-policing/LPR_FINAL.pdf [accessed June 3, 2020].
Lyon, David, ed. 2003. Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination. London: Routledge.
———. 2006. Airport Screening, Surveillance, and Social Sorting: Canadian Responses to 9/11 in Context. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48 (3): 397–411.
Maguire, Edward M. 2014. Police Organizations and the Iron Cage of Rationality. In The Oxford Handbook of Police and Policing, edited by Michael D. Reisig and Robert J. Kane, 68–100. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mazerolle, Lorraine, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant, and Matthew Manning. 2013. Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy: A Systematic Review of the Research Evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9 (3): 245–274..
Merola, Linda M., and Cynthia Lum. 2012. Emerging Surveillance Technologies: Privacy and the Case of License Plate Recognition (LPR) Technology. Judicature 96: 119–126.
Merola, Linda M., Cynthia Lum, and Ryan P. Murphy. 2019. The Impact of License Plate Recognition Technology (LPR) on Trust in Law Enforcement: A Survey-Experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology 15 (1): 55–66.
Mueller, John E. 2006. Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Murakami Wood, David, Kirstie Ball, David Lyon, Clive Norris, and Charles Raab. 2006. A Report on the Surveillance Society. Surveillance Studies Network. https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/1042390/surveillance-society-full-report-2006.pdf.
Murphy, Kristina, and Julie Barkworth. 2014. Victim Willingness to Report Crime to Police: Does Procedural Justice or Outcome Matter Most? Victims & Offenders 9 (2): 178–204.
Murphy, Kristina, and Adrian Cherney. 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.
Norris, Clive, Jade Moran, and Gary Armstrong. 1998. Algorithmic Surveillance: The Future of Automated Visual Surveillance. In Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control, edited by Dean Wilson and Clive Norris, 497–519. London: Routledge.
Ratcliffe, Jerry H. 2014. Intelligence-Led Policing. In Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, edited by Gerben Bruinsma and David Weisburd, 2573–2581. New York: Springer.
Sanders, Carrie B., and Stacey Hannem. 2012. Policing “the Risky”: Technology and Surveillance in Everyday Patrol Work. Canadian Review of Sociology 49 (4): 389–410.
Sanders, Carrie B., and James Sheptycki. 2017. Policing, Crime and “Big Data”: Towards a Critique of the Moral Economy of Stochastic Governance. Crime, Law and Social Change 68 (1–2): 1–15.
Sargeant, Elise, Emma Antrobus, Kristina Murphy, Sarah Bennett, and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2016. Social Identity and Procedural Justice in Police Encounters with the Public: Results from a Randomised Controlled Trial. Policing and Society 26 (7): 789–803.
Saulnier, Alana, Ryan Lahay, William P. McCarty, and Carrie Sanders. 2020. The RIDE Study: Effects of Body‐Worn Cameras on Public Perceptions of Police Interactions. Criminology & Public Policy 19 (3): 833–854.
Saulnier, Alana, and Diane Sivasubramaniam. 2015. Effects of Victim Presence and Coercion in Restorative Justice: An Experimental Paradigm. Law and Human Behavior 39 (4): 378–387.
———. 2018. Restorative Justice: Reflections and the Retributive Impulse. In Advances in Psychology and Law, edited by Monica K. Miller and Brian H. Bornstein, 177–210. Cham, CH: Springer International Publishing.
Schafer, Joseph A. 2013. The Role of Trust and Transparency in the Pursuit of Procedural and Organisational Justice. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 8 (2): 131–143.
Skogan, Wesley G. 2006. Asymmetry in the Impact of Encounters with Police. Policing and Society 16 (2): 99–126.
Smith, Heather J., Tom R. Tyler, Yuen J. Huo, Daniel J. Ortiz, and E. Allan Lind. 1998. The Self-Relevant Implications of the Group-Value Model: Group Membership, Self-Worth, and Treatment Quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34 (5): 470–493.
Sum, Melissa, Vivien Chan, and Margot Legosz. 2009. Public Perceptions of the Queensland Police Service: Findings from the 2008 Public Attitudes Survey. https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publications/CMC/Bulletins%2Cseries-and-discussion-papers/Public-perceptions-series/Public-Perceptions-Series-Public-perceptions-of-the-Queensland-Police-Service-2011.pdf [accessed June 3, 2020].
Sunshine, Jason, and Tom R. Tyler. 2003. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review 37 (3): 513–548.
Thibaut, John W., and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
———. 1978. A Theory of Procedure. California Law Review 66: 541–566.
Tyler, Tom R. 1988. What Is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures. Law & Society Review 22 (1): 103–136.
———. 1989. The Psychology of Procedural Justice: A Test of the Group-Value Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (5): 830–838.
———. 1994. Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (5): 850–863.
———. 2004. Enhancing Police Legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593 (1): 84–99.
———. 2005. Policing in Black and White: Ethnic Group Differences in Trust and Confidence in the Police. Police Quarterly 8 (3): 322–342.
———. 2007. Procedural Justice and the Courts. Court Review 44 (1–2): 26–31.
———. 2016. Police Discretion in the 21st Century Surveillance State. University of Chicago Legal Forum 2016: 579–614.
———. 2017. Procedural Justice and Policing: A Rush to Judgment? Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13 (1): 29–53.
Tyler, Tom R., and Steven L. Blader. 2003. The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7 (4): 349–361.
Tyler, Tom R., and Peter Degoey. 1995. Collective Restraint in Social Dilemmas: Procedural Justice and Social Identification Effects on Support for Authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (3): 482–497.
Tyler, Tom R., and Yuen J. Huo. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyler, Tom R., Jonathan Jackson, and Avital Mentovich. 2015. The Consequences of Being an Object of Suspicion: Potential Pitfalls of Proactive Police Contact. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12 (4): 602–636.
Tyler, Tom R., and E. Allan Lind. 1992. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by Mark P. Zanna, 115–191. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.
Tyler, Tom R., and Cheryl J. Wakslak. 2004. Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police Authority. Criminology 42 (2): 253–282.
van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, Kees van den Bos, and Henk A. M. Wilke. 2002. Procedural Justice and Status: Status Salience as Antecedent of Procedural Fairness Effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (6): 1353–1361.
Wales, Heathcote W., Virginia A. Hiday, and Bradley Ray. 2010. Procedural Justice and the Mental Health Court Judge's Role in Reducing Recidivism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (4): 265–271.
Wells, Helen. 2008. The Techno-Fix Versus The Fair Cop: Procedural (In)Justice and Automated Speed Limit Enforcement. British Journal of Criminology 48 (6): 798–817.
Wells, Helen, and David Wills. 2012. Individualism and Identity: Resistance to Speed Cameras in the UK. Surveillance & Society 6 (3): 259–274.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109 (1): 121–136.