Procedural Justice, Anger, and Prisoners’ Misconduct

Abstract

Procedural justice literature suggests that when criminal justice authorities treat people with fairness and respect, people will be more likely to comply with authority’s decisions and rules. Up until now, prior research has largely neglected the correctional context and often used cross-sectional designs. The aims of this study were to examine (a) the longitudinal relationship between prisoners’ procedural justice perceptions and their misconduct, and (b) the mediating role of anger in this relationship. Using two waves of survey data (T1 and T2) and disciplinary reports from a sample of 806 Dutch prisoners, structural equation models were employed to investigate associations. The results show that prisoners who felt treated in a procedurally just manner in the correctional facility at T1 were less likely to report engaging in misconduct at T2. They were also less likely to have received a disciplinary report at T2. Anger fully mediated the effect of procedural justice on prisoners’ misconduct.

Doing your own time: Peer integration, aggression and mental health in Dutch male detainment facilities

“…Of the 1,064 respondents who remained in pre-trial detention at T2, 846 (80%) agreed to participate in the T2 interview. T2 participants were similar to T2 refusers on a wide range of variables (e.g., age, prior imprisonments), but differed by ethnic background and educational level (refusers were more often non-Dutch and with lower educational level (Beijersbergen et al, 2015). An advantage of the T2 survey is that it concluded with relationship questions for up to three other detainees that respondents “get along with best.” These network nominations allowed us to operationalize the quality of detainees’ informal peer ties.…”

“…Other differences between the two systems include (1) plea bargaining is not possible for Dutch pre-trial detainees, (2) prison conditions are relatively mild in the Netherlands compared to the United States, with low levels of violence and no overcrowding, and (3) the majority of detainees reside in individual cells (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015; Dervan, 2011; Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012). Lastly, and relevant to our study, Dutch pretrial detention centers, in contrast to jails in the United States, have a regime of limited association, meaning that detainees remain locked in their cells when not participating in communal or group activities.…”

“…The final sample, according to registered data of the Dutch Prison Service, was representative of all pre-trial detainees on age and marital status, but participants differed from non-participants in the type of crime for which they had been arrested. Participants, compared to refusers, were less likely to have been arrested for a property crime (30.7% versus 36.2%; χ 2 (3) = 11.14, p <0.05) (Beijersbergen et al, 2015). …”

Importation and deprivation correlates of misconduct among Romanian inmates

“…Moreover, the few studies on prison misconduct in Europe have almost all been conducted in West European countries (for example, ArbachLucioni et al, 2012;Beijersbergen et al, 2014). Thus, there is a regrettable paucity of knowledge on determinants of prison misconduct in East European countries.…”

The Feelings of Others Don't Impress Me Much – Effects of Living Group Climate on Empathy in Adolescent Male Offenders

“…The model shows a good fit to the data, rehabilitative living group climate (including fairness, respect, humanity and supportive relationships with staff) to be positively associated with active coping and treatment motivation (van der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & van der Laan, 2014), reactions to social problem situations (Eltink et al, 2015), and personality development (van der Helm, Stams, van Genabeek, & van der Laan, 2012), and negatively associated with mental health problems (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2014), aggressive incidents during detention (Ros, van der Helm, Wissink, Schaftenaar, & Stams, 2013), selfreported aggression (van der Helm, Stams, van Genabeek & van der Laan, 2012), prison misconduct (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015), and criminal offense recidivism (Schubert et al, 2012).…”