Politsei osalemine ühiskonnas toimub üksikisiku kaudu. Organisatsioon ja institutsionaalne kontekst on olulised, kuid elaniku-politsei suhe toimub indiviidide vahel. Seda, kuidas inimene ennast peale kontakti politseiga “tunneb”, on raske üle hinnata. Sestap siinviidatu vabalevis olev tekst oma koha leidiski.

Kontekstist:

While particularly salient in the USA, clashes, protests and confrontations between the police and the public have recurred in different shapes and with different backgrounds in many other western countries over the past decade. In most of these cases, the tensions have had distinct ethnic dimensions and are strongly connected to society-wide debates surrounding discrimination and structural inequality.

Usalduse loomisest:

At present, a fourth wave of police trust-building strategies is in vogue, fundamentally different from (although not necessarily incompatible with) previous schools of thought (Tyler et al., 2015). This new wave, especially salient in the USA, is partially a sign of the times. There, the police have in recent years been facing a crisis that is ”Not about corruption, political influence, or miscarriages of law. It is not about the effectiveness of the strategies they employ to control crime. It is about the way in which individual police officers deal with the people they encounter daily in the course of their work.” (Bayley, 2018: 125)

Protseduurilise õigluse keskne idee:

The core idea of the theory, supported in these empirical studies, is that citizens’ perceptions of legal authorities treating them fairly and in a procedurally just manner are the primary influence on how these authorities are experienced as legitimate and trustworthy.

Autorid seavad eesmärke:

We aim to show the underlying assumptions behind the concepts used and where these fall short theoretically and empirically. Our goal in this article is not to reject the core ideas of procedural justice, but rather to address their weaknesses and open up avenues for renewal.

Protseduurilise õigluse etümoloogia:

As a school of thought, procedural justice originates in legal psychology. Early studies attempted to find antecedents of acceptance and legitimacy of courtroom decisions (Lind, 1982; Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Their central assertion was that, where distribution of outcomes (verdicts and sentences) could not be changed, procedures could be adjusted to improve perceived fairness of the steps taken to achieve these outcomes.

Protseduurilise õigluse “kaks probleemi”:

The first issue is that procedural justice theory has trouble distinguishing process from outcome both empirically and conceptually, causing researchers to overestimate the importance of procedural justice. The second issue partly follows from the first: by implicitly applying what we consider a ‘consensus perspective’ (eschewing issues of conflict and pluriformity), procedural justice theory often carries a thoroughly one-dimensional image of society.

Pime usaldus ei ole hea idee:

Meanwhile, procedural justice theory has been less focused on citizens’ well-being, inclusion and substantive justice. We have highlighted, too, that blind trust in the police is undesirable (see MacCoun, 2005). Accordingly, we would encourage new research agendas to move beyond this consensus model and beyond focusing only on how police legitimacy is increased.

Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justiceTheoretical Criminology, 13624806211056680.