TY - JOUR
T1 - Clarifying the Contours of the Police Legitimacy Measurement Debate
T2 - a Response to Cao and Graham
AU - Trinkner, Rick
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2019/12/1
Y1 - 2019/12/1
N2 - With the emergence of police legitimacy as a major indicator of good policing, scholars have continued to push our conceptual understanding of this construct. In recent years, a debate has emerged about whether four factors—lawfulness, procedural justice, distributive justice, and effectiveness—are possible sources of legitimacy judgments (Tyler in Annual Review of Psychology 57, 375–400, 2006) or actual components of legitimacy (Tankebe in Criminology 51, 103–135, 2013). My goal in the present paper is review the contours of this debate.
AB - With the emergence of police legitimacy as a major indicator of good policing, scholars have continued to push our conceptual understanding of this construct. In recent years, a debate has emerged about whether four factors—lawfulness, procedural justice, distributive justice, and effectiveness—are possible sources of legitimacy judgments (Tyler in Annual Review of Psychology 57, 375–400, 2006) or actual components of legitimacy (Tankebe in Criminology 51, 103–135, 2013). My goal in the present paper is review the contours of this debate.
KW - Distributive justice
KW - Effectiveness
KW - Lawfulness
KW - Measurement
KW - Police legitimacy
KW - Procedural justice
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074825588&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074825588&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11417-019-09300-4
DO - 10.1007/s11417-019-09300-4
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85074825588
SN - 1871-0131
VL - 14
SP - 309
EP - 335
JO - Asian Journal of Criminology
JF - Asian Journal of Criminology
IS - 4
ER -