Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Authorities in Relation to Degree of Value Discrepancy with Public Citizens
- PDF / 284,191 Bytes
- 25 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 84 Downloads / 175 Views
Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Authorities in Relation to Degree of Value Discrepancy with Public Citizens N. T. Feather • Robert J. Boeckmann
Published online: 23 April 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract In this study of perceived legitimacy, Australian citizens from a randomly selected national sample first responded to information about how judicial authorities responded to two crimes (green protest, date rape) in terms of seriousness and recommended punishment. They also provided ratings of the importance of a set of values for judicial authorities compared with self, and measures of global value discrepancy, procedural fairness, expertise, and legitimacy. Results showed that perceived legitimacy was negatively related to global value discrepancy and that the information provided to participants about judge’s position primed differences in value discrepancy only for the date rape crime. Other findings also implied that the nature of the offense moderated legitimacy/value discrepancy relations. Perceived legitimacy was also positively related to procedural fairness and the expertise of the authority, and higher when the judicial authority was perceived to assign specific values as even more important than participants did themselves. Keywords Legitimacy Value discrepancy Type of offense Procedural fairness Expertise
It is not uncommon to hear complaints from members of the public that judges are out of touch with the community in the sentences they impose and in the values that they hold. These beliefs are usually expressed when the perpetrator of a heinous crime receives a lighter sentence than expected and they are typically held in the N. T. Feather (&) School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia e-mail: [email protected] R. J. Boeckmann University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA
123
194
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:193–217
absence of full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the crime that was committed. Various explanations of perceived judicial leniency have been proposed and research has shown that leniency beliefs are modified when more information is provided about the typical features of cases that appear before the courts (e.g., Roberts & Stalans, 1997, 1998). What are the consequences when public opinion about the seriousness of offenses and the severity of penalties is discrepant with the perceptions of how the courts behave? Various authors have described the adverse effects that can occur when judicial decisions are discrepant with public expectations. For example, Robinson and Darley (1995) argued that ‘‘…a conflict between the legal code and individual moral intuitions can lead people to persevere in their own judgments and move toward contempt for the legal code’’ (p. 485)—see also Darley and Gromet (2010). Note, however, that the legal code also has the power to lead public opinion when changes that are made conflict with currently held beliefs. Changes in the law then become a potent influenc
Data Loading...
