No abstract

No abstract

The connection between social identity and attitudes toward the criminal justice system (CJS) is an area of interest among criminologists and legitimacy scholars. Previous work has proposed a social identity theory of legitimation, positing that individuals categorize CJS officials as either in-group (i.e. legitimate authority) or out-group (i.e. illegitimate enforcer). Subsequently, how individuals perceive their CJS – including the sincerity of its commitment to the rule of law – is tied to this relationship. Those viewing the government as an out-group oppressor are less likely to accept its legitimacy. This article explores this thesis. From the perspective of system justification theory, how the CJS is categorized should depend on how strongly an individual identifies as belonging to a group disadvantaged by the CJS. System justification theorists hypothesize that system justification (including acceptance of system legitimacy) is more likely when members of disadvantaged groups believe that group interests are less important. Alternative models that explain attitudes toward the system by using social identity theory suggest the opposite: Those who identify more strongly with disadvantaged groups and hold their interests to be more important nonetheless justify oppositional systems and view them legitimately. The present study uses a sample of Black Americans (a disadvantaged group in the American CJS) to determine whether group identification predicts system justification.

Narrative identity theorists have long held that individuals construct identities as a coherent tale of their past, present, and future selves. These life stories are structured along predictable scripts borrowed from cultural master narratives. Heretofore, legitimacy theorists have relied on social identity theory to explain legitimation processes. I propose integrating elements of narrative identity theory with social identity for a more complete legitimation theory. I analyze 92 in-depth interviews with individuals who encountered the police departments of Newark, New Jersey, and Cleveland, Ohio. Respondents’ narratives followed common narrative scripts, suggesting a shared master narrative guiding interpretations of police encounters. A significant proportion of the sample interpreted their views of the police from a group-based lens, while an equally significant proportion used alternative narratives. An integration of social identity, narrative identity, and current legitimacy theory holds promise for a more comprehensive model of legitimation and a more complete theory of self.

Trends seemingly signal the decay of White heterosexual male hegemony in academe. Still, while changes have addressed lack of access to an academic system whose benefits are assumed, critical literatures call into question Western-based theory and traditionally Eurocentric ways of knowledge production. An important programmatic component of decolonizing knowledge production consists of arguing for increased inclusivity and diversity among scholars. The present study is inscribed in these decolonial tendencies and focuses on the experience of otherness inside academia. Using collaborative autoethnography, we set side-by-side the academic and professional experiences and epistemological reflections of two criminal justice and criminology scholars: an Arab European scholar of politico-ideological violence and a Black American scholar of identity and the psychology of justice. We explore otherness as a ‘social fact’ and identify three dimensions, namely (1) otherness as a lens to read coloniality, (2) feeling and coping with otherness, and (3) otherness as connection. We suggest that promoting the “othered lens” in academia, especially criminology, may not only be healthy and necessary for a diversification of views and perspectives, but also epistemologically and methodologically vital for how criminology engages with the socially deviant or harmed Other it is, by its very essence, preoccupied with.

Facilities are important aspects of rehabilitative treatment. To fully understand the impact of a facility on the effectiveness of treatment, the direct perspectives of service providers are critical. We examine four autoethnographic accounts from correctional service providers to determine the role of the facility in their provision of care and organize these into considerations of three central aspects of correctional architecture—space, layout, and setting (SLS)—which play an important role in the efficacy of rehabilitative services. We conclude by proposing how research may advance in this area, especially through the use of practitioner accounts.

No abstract

No abstract