Trust in justice and the legitimacy of legal authorities: topline findings from a European comparative study

Issues of public trust in justice and institutional legitimacy are becoming increasingly salient in debate about criminal justice across Europe. Legitimate authority can be defined as having three interlinked elements: (a) legality (acting according to the law); (b) shared values (values that are shared by those with authority and those subject to that authority); and (c) consent (the sense amongst the policed of a moral obligation to obey the authority). According to this definition, legitimacy is present not only when individuals recognise the authority of institutions and feel a corresponding duty of deference to them (consent); it is also present when individuals believe that justice institutions have a proper moral purpose (shared values), and that justice institutions follow their own rules as well as the rules that govern everyone in society (legality). With this definition in mind, we analyse in this chapter data from the fifth European Social Survey on relationships between public trust in justice institutions and public perceptions of the legitimacy of these institutions

Information and punitiveness: trial reconstruction in Ireland

Purpose of this paper: to report results from a rape trial reconstruction in Ireland Design/methodology/approach: A studio audience of 100 members of the Irish public were selected to attend a TV programme by the Republic of Ireland’s national broadcasting organisation (RTÉ). This involved the examination of the sentencing of a rape case. The audience’s sentencing preferences were measured at the outset, when they had been given only summary information about the case, and later, when full details had been disclosed. Findings: Previous research examining changes in public attitudes to crime and punishment has shown that deliberation, including the provision of new information and discussion with others and experts, tends to decrease public punitiveness and increase public leniency towards sentencing. An experiment in Ireland, however, showed that providing information does not invariably and necessarily moderate punitive attitudes. This article presents the results, and offers some explanations for the anomalous outcome. Research limitations: The pre/post design, in which the audience served as their own controls, is a weak one, and participants may have responded to what they took to be the agenda of the producers. - Due to the quality of the sample, the results may not be generalizable to the broader Irish population. Practical implications: - Policy makers should recognise that the public is not uniformly punitive for all crimes. There is good research evidence to show that the apparent public appetite for tough punishment is illusory, and is a function of the way that polls measure public attitudes to punishment. - However the ‘information hypothesis’ is too often stated in overly simple terms, that fuller and more accurate information about specific cases necessarily moderates public punitiveness. - The experiment presented here serves as a counter-example, showing that a sample of the public failed to moderate their views when given fuller information about a rape case involving serious violence and a vulnerable victim. - Sentencers and those responsible for sentencing policy would benefit from a fuller understanding of the sorts of cases which illicit strong punitive responses from the public, and the reasons for this response. - However any such understanding should not simply translate into responsiveness to the public’s punitive sentiments – where these exist. What is original/value of paper: There have been limited research studies which reports factors which may increase punitiveness through the provision of information and deliberation

Trust and legitimacy across Europe: a FIDUCIA report on comparative public attitudes towards legal authority

FIDUCIA (New European Crimes and Trust-based Policy) seeks to shed light on a number of distinctively ‘new European’ criminal behaviours which have emerged in the last decade as a consequence of both technology developments and the increased mobility of populations across Europe. A key objective of FIDUCIA is to propose and proof a ‘trust-based’ policy model in relation to emerging forms of criminality – to explore the idea that public trust and institutional legitimacy are important for the social regulation of the trafficking of human beings, the trafficking of goods, the criminalisation of migration and ethnic minorities, and cybercrimes. In this paper we detail levels of trust and legitimacy in the 26 countries, drawing on data from Round 5 of the European Social Survey. We also conduct a sensitivity analysis that investigates the effect of a lack of measurement equivalence on national estimates

Trust in the German police

The relative levels of trust in the police are explored, using data from the fifth round of the European Social Survey (ESS) which covered mainly 28 European countries. In this article, the position of Germany is examined within the international context. German trust in the police, for both German natives and ethnic minorities, for those 15 and over is high in comparison to other European countries. The article also tests if it is the fair treatment of citizens by the police, or the high value placed on rule adherence and conformity, that is driving the German citizen’s trust. It shows that the German police is trusted due to their perceived fairness, effectiveness and shared moral values, rather than on value placed on conformity to authority

The decision to imprison

What factors influence sentencers when choosing between custody or community sentences? Mike Hough, Jessica Jacobson and Andrew Millie report the findings of the study they conducted with the Criminal Policy Research Unit and the Prison Reform Trust

An evaluation of the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction: final report

The ‘What Works Network’, launched in 2013, is a nationally co-ordinated initiative which aims to “improve the way government and other organisations create, share and use high quality evidence for decision-making”. The What Works philosophy is that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If relevant or adequate evidence is unavailable, decision-makers should be encouraged to use high quality methods to find out ‘what works’. The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) was launched in September 2013, led by a team from the College of Policing with support from an Academic Consortium. Its work involves: Building and refining the evidence base by systematically reviewing available research on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce crime; summarising that evidence in terms of its strength and quality, cost, impact, mechanisms (why it works), context (where it works) and implementation issues; Providing police, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and other crime reduction stakeholders with the knowledge, tools and guidance to help them target their resources more effectively. Our three and a half year evaluation - 2014 to 2017 - conducted alongside the work of the Consortium, but independently of it, aimed to: Assess the impact of the WWCCR, including whether it had engaged key stakeholders, produced tools and guidance that they found clear and easy to use, and improved stakeholder understanding and application of research evidence; Chart outputs, modes of dissemination and user reactions during the evaluation; Identify changes in use of research evidence, especially in strategic decision-making and resource allocatio