Governing Pluralistic Societies

Societies can be held together in many ways. Historically, many groups were linked by a common history, common ethnicity, and common religious and social values. These societies shared a unified set of norms dictating right and wrong. Other groups have been held together by charismatic leaders who present a unifying vision, but modern pluralistic society, uniquely, accepts a diversity of views about what is appropriate and reasonable, which makes these forms of authority difficult to enact. The form of authority emerging in western democratic states has been, instead, authority based upon the processes of government: people recognize democratic procedures as legitimate and defer to authorities because of the manner in which they manage. Here, Tyler discusses several social-psychological contributions in managing ethnic diversity

Reimagining American Policing

Current efforts at police reform focus on heightening the legal accountability of police officers when they engage in questionable behavior. While valuable, such reforms do not address the underlying problems in police organizations that lead to problems with the use of force. This paper highlights the desirability of shifting from a warrior culture, one built around gaining compliance through the threat or use of force, to a guardian- or service-oriented culture, one focused on gaining acceptance by building trust and confidence among people in the community. Beyond changing the dynamics of authority in police-civilian encounters, this new model of policing promotes a climate of reassurance within communities that promotes their social, economic, and political vitality. Instead of focusing on harm reduction via crime control, the police can have a positive role in helping communities develop their way out of crime. Taking up that role requires the police to move from a harm reduction model to a model based upon creating and sustaining public trust

Can the Police Enhance Their Popular Legitimacy Through Their Conduct?: Using Empirical Research to Inform Law

My goal is to demonstrate the value of evidence-informed law through an examination of its influence upon issues that have been central to recent discussions about the police. The first advantage of evidence-informed law is that it draws upon social science theories to suggest possible alternatives to traditional legal frameworks. The second advantage is that through social science research the value of such alternative frameworks can be validated or falsified. Hence, when legal frameworks are implemented their consequences are known

The Quality of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Outcomes: Measurement Problems and Possibilities

In recent years, many members of the legal establishment, including judges, lawyers, and disputants, have expressed concern over perceived inadequacies in traditional adjudicative procedures for dispute resolution. These concerns have led to the development of a wide variety of alternative dispute resolution procedures, including settlement conferences, mediation sessions and court-annexed arbitration. Both proponents and skeptics about such procedures for the alternative resolution of disputes have recently become interested in examining their quality

Police Discretion in the 21st Century Surveillance State

This analysis discusses changes in policing that could help build popular legitimacy, i.e. public trust and confidence in the police. The low level of public trust, especially in minority communities, has been the focus of recent national attention in the wake of a series of deaths during public contact with the police. This analysis will focus on three potential areas of change: the style of policing, the scope of policing, and the organization of policing

The Psychology of Aggregation: Promise and Potential Pitfalls

My goal is to look at aggregation from the perspective of the psychology of the litigant. Doing so is based on the premise that one goal of the courts is to manage conflicts in ways that enhance the legitimacy of the legal system, something which research indicates is best accomplished by using procedures that those involved in litigation view as fair. Applying this perspective to aggregation I make three basic points. The first is that people are dissatisfied when they feel they lack the resources to bring their grievances to a court. If aggregation allows people to more readily access justice in the courts, this should enhance legitimacy. Second, if people go forward with aggregate cases it is important not to eliminate individualized hearings, because research demonstrates that people value such opportunities to address legal authorities. Judges would benefit from using the approach pioneered by Judge Weinstein and Kenneth Feinberg, which provides individual personalized hearings in which litigants receive a respectful hearing of their concerns. Third, private aggregation, achieved through contracts among plaintiffs, offers an opportunity for plaintiffs to achieve many of the psychological benefits traditionally associated with the judicial recognition of their claims through solidarity among litigants who have suffered similar harms

Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: The Benefits of Self-Regulation

In this lecture I argue for the value of a self-regulatory approach to law and criminal justice. I do so by first describing and critiquing the dominant approachto regulation in use today: deterrence. I suggest that in practice this model is costly and minimally effective in securing compliance with the law and motivating the acceptance of decisions made by police officers and judges. I then outline a different, self- regulatory model which focuses on engaging people\u27s values as a basis for motivating voluntary deference to the law. I review empirical research suggesting that this strategy is both viable and more desirable than current sanction-based approaches. My argument is that this approach is particularly important when the goal is voluntary compliance with the law and/or willing cooperation with legal authorities