Response to "procedural justice and policing

A rush to judgment?"

Daniel S. Nagin, Cody Telep

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We are heartened by Tom Tyler's concurrence with the key conclusion of our full essay that evidence of procedurally just treatment of citizens by police or other representatives of the criminal justice system altering citizen perceptions of legitimacy and legal compliance is in short supply. Our main point of disagreement with Tyler is on how this agreed-upon conclusion about the state of the evidence should be communicated to policy makers. It is our view that the policy process is best served by a forthright acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the evidence base.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)55-58
Number of pages4
JournalAnnual Review of Law and Social Science
Volume13
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 13 2017

Fingerprint

justice
citizen
evidence
legitimacy
police
supply

Keywords

  • Legal compliance
  • Legitimacy
  • Police
  • Procedural justice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Response to "procedural justice and policing : A rush to judgment?". / Nagin, Daniel S.; Telep, Cody.

In: Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 13, 13.10.2017, p. 55-58.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{51e5508a5b9b423681c8a22f77dbfd3c,
title = "Response to {"}procedural justice and policing: A rush to judgment?{"}",
abstract = "We are heartened by Tom Tyler's concurrence with the key conclusion of our full essay that evidence of procedurally just treatment of citizens by police or other representatives of the criminal justice system altering citizen perceptions of legitimacy and legal compliance is in short supply. Our main point of disagreement with Tyler is on how this agreed-upon conclusion about the state of the evidence should be communicated to policy makers. It is our view that the policy process is best served by a forthright acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the evidence base.",
keywords = "Legal compliance, Legitimacy, Police, Procedural justice",
author = "Nagin, {Daniel S.} and Cody Telep",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120516-024409",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "55--58",
journal = "Annual Review of Law and Social Science",
issn = "1550-3585",
publisher = "Annual Reviews Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to "procedural justice and policing

T2 - A rush to judgment?"

AU - Nagin, Daniel S.

AU - Telep, Cody

PY - 2017/10/13

Y1 - 2017/10/13

N2 - We are heartened by Tom Tyler's concurrence with the key conclusion of our full essay that evidence of procedurally just treatment of citizens by police or other representatives of the criminal justice system altering citizen perceptions of legitimacy and legal compliance is in short supply. Our main point of disagreement with Tyler is on how this agreed-upon conclusion about the state of the evidence should be communicated to policy makers. It is our view that the policy process is best served by a forthright acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the evidence base.

AB - We are heartened by Tom Tyler's concurrence with the key conclusion of our full essay that evidence of procedurally just treatment of citizens by police or other representatives of the criminal justice system altering citizen perceptions of legitimacy and legal compliance is in short supply. Our main point of disagreement with Tyler is on how this agreed-upon conclusion about the state of the evidence should be communicated to policy makers. It is our view that the policy process is best served by a forthright acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the evidence base.

KW - Legal compliance

KW - Legitimacy

KW - Police

KW - Procedural justice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031683216&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031683216&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120516-024409

DO - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120516-024409

M3 - Review article

VL - 13

SP - 55

EP - 58

JO - Annual Review of Law and Social Science

JF - Annual Review of Law and Social Science

SN - 1550-3585

ER -