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