Legal norms and crime control: A comparative, cross-national analysis

This is a comparative, cross-national study into attitudes towards legal authorities, compliance with the law, cooperation with legal authorities, and the policing of minority and majority groups. The proposal is to address questions of deterrence, legitimacy, cooperation and compliance using a powerful new dataset that we have generated from national probability sample surveys of 30 different countries.

Our goal is to mount an ambitious cross-national empirical test of deterrence theory and procedural justice theory. Crime control policy tends to be based on the assumption - at the heart of deterrence theory - that people make instrumental or rational cost/benefit calculations when deciding whether or not to break the law. Yet, much work on the psychology of law-related behaviour suggests that (a) there is strong normative component to law-related behaviour (namely, people cooperate and comply because doing so is the right thing to do); that (b) legal institutions can influence people's normative orientations by behaving in a procedurally fair manner; and that (c) normative levers 'trump' instrumental levers, in the sense that moral principles more strongly influence behaviour than instrumental factors. The central assumption of procedural justice theory is that fair and respectful treatment of victims, witnesses, offenders and the public are the hallmark of effective justice systems.

A crucial issue for the proposed project will be the weighing of instrumental versus normative processes across multiple national contexts. Representing one of the most extensive comparative criminological studies yet undertaken, we will assess the empirical evidence for instrumental and normative modes of compliance and social regulation in diverse social, legal and political contexts. Importantly, we led a team that designed a module on 'trust in justice and the legitimacy of legal authorities' in Round 5 of the ESS. Fielded in 2010 to national probability samples of 28 countries (with data for 27 countries becoming available in March 2012) the module allows us to test deterrence theory and procedural justice theory across Europe and beyond. The data are available, and the goal of the current proposal is to draw upon new data from surveys in the US, South Africa and Japan that replicate the ESS module.

Cross-national comparison is important not only because the procedural justice model of policing originated in the US and has hitherto been primarily applied in Anglophone countries (casting significant doubt on 'universalistic' claims); it is also important because comparing across different countries will allow us to consider questions of social and political context. Do aspects of the political economy of different countries - for example the extent to which they have be subject to neo-liberal market reforms - influence the applicability and relevance of normative models of crime control? Do people living in some countries have a more instrumental orientation toward policing and crime control?

Our key issues of concern will be people's encounters with the police, trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the police, the perceived legitimacy of the police, perceived morality of criminal acts, perceived risk of sanction, compliance with the law, and preparedness to cooperate with the police and the courts. We will identify the relationships that exist between these factors, and we will do so with particular reference to the experiences of minority and immigrant groups. On the one hand, immigration is often blamed, in political discourse, for a perceive weakening in normative commitment to law and social rules. We will question the extent to which is true. On the other hand, relations between minority groups and the police, in particular, are often problematic. Is this really the case across different national contexts (and if so, why)? What role do justice institutions play in processes of social inclusion and exclusion?

Who will benefit from this research?

Beneficiaries are academics - discussed above - and those involved in criminal policy and criminal justice practitioners. Key policy and practitioner audiences are:

- central government politicians and their advisors in government departments (Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Cabinet Office);
- bodies concerned with accountability and professional standards, such as the National Audit Office, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Independent Police Complaints Authority, the Judicial College and the College of Policing;
- police and Crime Commissioners and senior police officers;
- the senior judiciary, Crown Court judges and the magistracy; and,
- non-governmental organisations with an interest in criminal justice and penal policy.

We have pre-existing links with these bodies. Several have shown interest in our work to date. We also think it important to engage with NGOs such as the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League, and Victim Support (all of whom have worked with us previously), and would hope to engage with these bodies in our dissemination strategy.

We aim to reach audiences beyond the UK. The team has been involved in two EU FP7 projects (Euro-Justis and Fiducia) on these topics, and we shall exploit the networks and dissemination frameworks that the two projects have developed, to reach European audiences.

How will they benefit from this research?

The study will offer beneficiaries a fresh perspective, or set of concepts, for thinking about social regulation and crime control. It will sensitise politicians and leaders in the criminal justice system to ideas about legitimacy and normative compliance. We shall build an evidence base about the links between legitimacy and compliance with the law, on the one hand, and about the 'building blocks' of institutional legitimacy, on the other. As politicians, police and sentencers come to attach more importance to issues of institutional legitimacy, they will need better information about the surest routes to building legitimacy - and the quickest ways of squandering it.

How will we reach our key audiences?

We shall produce several distinct 'products' to ensure that the project's findings are fully exploited and reach relevant audiences. Academic audiences will be reached through a minimum of three peer-reviewed journal articles and a monograph. We shall also present findings at the British, European and American Societies of Criminology conferences in 2015/16.

We shall produce shorter and more accessible articles targeting various policy and practitioner audiences. A key divide is between policing audiences and the judiciary. However, effective dissemination is not simply a question of publishing an article in a professional journal. It is important to build and exploit networks, to present results informally, and at conferences and seminars, and where possible through training events. (The College of Policing and the Judicial College are key bodies to target on the latter.)

Products for policy audiences include:

- a web-published policy report of around 25-30 pages;
- publications in professional journals;
- circulation of thematic summaries to relevant national and international stakeholder organisations;
- posting news and short summaries about the project on our institutional websites and blogs; and,
- participation in policy, practitioner and academic conferences and seminars (potential hosts including the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the College of Policing and the Judicial College).

We can also count on the support of the European Social Survey Central Coordinating Team to help us in dissemination. They will publicise our work on their website, and they are likely to want to publish findings in their series of 'topline findings' for general audiences, as they have already done (see ESS, 2011, 2012).

Finally, we shall disseminate findings to broadcast and print media.