Trust and Confidence in Criminal Justice by Lawrence W. Sherman Photo source: Kenny Blackbird and PhotoDisc Blackbird Kenny Photo source: about the author riminal justice in America Lawrence W. Sherman is the Albert M. Greenfield Professor of Human Relations and today is a paradox of Director of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. Contact Cprogress: While the fairness him at 3814 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, 215–898–9216, [email protected]. and effectiveness of criminal justice have improved, public trust and confidence apparently have not. system, public schools, television between whites and blacks about Criminal justice is far less corrupt, news, newspapers, big business, the individual components of brutal, and racially unfair than it and organized labor.1 the criminal justice system and has been in the past. It is arguably especially the police. Whites express The most striking finding in the more effective at preventing crime. considerably more confidence in Gallup poll is the difference between It has far greater diversity in its the police, local court system, the low evaluation of “criminal staffing. Yet these objectively defined and State prison system than justice” and the high evaluation improvements seem to have had blacks (see exhibit 1). given to the police and the Supreme little impact on American attitudes Court. Other sources of data show Race, Victimization, and toward criminal justice. similar attitudes: Confidence in Punishment. Racial differences Understanding this paradox— local courts and prisons is far also appear in rates of victimization better work but low marks— lower than it is for the police.2 and punishment: Blacks are 31 per- is central to improving public These large differences suggest cent more likely to be victimized trust and confidence in the that Americans may not think by personal crime than whites and criminal justice system. of police in the same way as they twice as likely as whites to suffer a do the criminal justice system. completed violent crime.3 How Low Is Public Young black males are historically Confidence? The Racial Divide 10 times more likely to be murdered than white males.4 Gallup polls over the last few A 1998 Gallup poll reports little years have consistently found overall demographic difference Arrest rates for robbery are five that Americans have less confi- among the respondents saying times higher for blacks than for dence in the criminal justice they had confidence in the criminal whites; four times higher for murder system than in other institutions, justice system. But what is most and rape; and three times higher such as banking, the medical clear is the difference in opinion for drug violations and weapons possession.5 Blacks are eight times more likely Exhibit 1: Confidence Ratings for to be in a State or Federal prison Criminal Justice System Agencies, by Race than non-Hispanic whites (and three times more likely than 70 Hispanic whites). Almost 2 percent 61% of the black population, or 1 of 60 every 63 blacks, was in prison in 51% 1996.6 50 White Black Percentage 40% Race and Neighborhood. What 40 36% of adults 34% these data fail to show, however, who express 30 26% is the extent to which the racial confidence 25% 23% differences in attitudes, victimiza- 20 16% 15% tion, and punishment may be largely 10 related to more blacks being the residents of a small number of high- 0 crime, high-poverty areas concen- Police U.S. Supreme Local Courts Prisons Criminal Justice trated in a small fraction of urban Court System neighborhoods. This is the case Source: The Gallup Organization, "Confidence in Institutions," retrieved from even though Harvard University the World Wide Web site http://www.gallup.com, October 10, 2000.

NIJ Journal no. 248, 2002 23 sociologist Orlando Patterson has estimated that only 1 in every 30 black adults resides in these high- crime, high-poverty areas; the pro- The personal opinions of the portion is higher for children. What we may understand as a prob- survey respondents are consistent with lem of race in America may largely reflect conditions in those neighbor- a major theory about the declining public hoods that are generalized by both blacks and whites to conditions of the larger society. confidence in all government—not just Due to limited national data, it is difficult to determine what precisely criminal justice—in all modern nations, drives the lower levels of confidence in criminal justice among blacks, not just the United States. The concerns but insights from city-by-city analysis suggest two conclusions: arise from the decline of hierarchy and There is no race-based subculture of violence. Blacks and whites who live in the rise of equality in all walks of life. The rise neighborhoods with similar conditions have similar views in egalitarian culture increases the demand on the legitimacy of law. To the extent that race is associated with attitudes toward law, it for government officials to show more may be a reflection of the greater likelihood that blacks reside in respect to citizens. poverty areas. There is no race-based hostility to police in high- crime areas. High levels of Victims are not informed dissatisfaction with police are Strong Demands for Change enough about the status of endemic to high-crime areas. their cases. Whites residing in such areas The findings and responses from Victims are not able to talk to express attitudes just as hostile a random digit-dialing telephone 7 prosecutors enough. as blacks toward police. The survey of 4,000 residents of 10 distrust of police in high-crime northeastern States in 1998 found Victims should be able to tell areas may be related to the that more than 80 percent—four out the court what impact the crime prevalence of crime rather than of five respondents—preferred the had on them, but most victims to police practice. If negative idea of “totally revamping the way do not get that chance. attitudes are driven by police the [criminal justice] system works” practice, it may be because those Offenders, even if jailed, should for violent crime; 75 percent said the reimburse victims for the cost practices fail to prevent crime 8 same for all crime. The responses of the crime. rather than because police pres- varied little from State to State or ence or behavior is excessive. from one demographic group to Offenders should acknowledge Or it may be that the practice another. The majority of respon- their responsibility for the crime. of policing in such areas offers dents believed that: Victims should have the less recognition and dignity to opportunity to meet with the citizen consumers than is found Victims are not accorded offender to find out why the in lower crime areas. sufficient rights in the criminal justice process. crime occurred and to learn

Trust and Confidence in Criminal Justice 24 whether the offender accepted responsibility. Ordinary citizens, not courts, should set penalties for non- violent crimes. Drug treatment should be used more widely for drug- using offenders. The personal opinions of the survey respondents are consistent with a major theory about the declining public confidence in all government—not just criminal justice—in all modern nations, not just the United States. The concerns arise from the decline of hierarchy and the rise of equality in all walks of life. The rise in egalitarian culture increases the demand for govern- ment officials to show more respect 9 to citizens. PhotoDiscPhoto source:

Indeed, the consistently greater of authority (although not hierarchy Egalitarianism in support for police than for courts of wealth)—of husbands over wives, Modern Culture: may result from a perception of doctors over patients, schoolteachers Raised Expectations, police as egalitarian individualists over students and parents, parents Reduced Trust (the new cultural ideal) while judges over children, and government are seen as bossy conformists (the officials over citizens. This evolution Americans’ trust in government has outdated ideal). may have led to widespread prefer- declined sharply in the last quarter ence for the recognition of individ- 10 The massive three-decade decline century. A similar loss of trust has ual dignity over the recognition of of public trust in liberal democratic been found in 18 other democracies. communal authority.13 Citizens now expect higher levels of governments suggests a deeper para- recognition, respect, and status from dox of success: As democracies Thus, what Robert J. Sampson, the government. Criminal justice become more materially successful Professor of Sociology, University of serves as a flashpoint for this change and better educated, the perceived Chicago, and other scholars refer to in citizen attitudes because so many need for governance declines and as “legal cynicism”— the extent to Americans have contact with the expectations of government for which people feel that laws are not appropriate conduct increase.11 The binding—is not the product of a criminal justice system and because 14 the hierarchical design of criminal crisis of government legitimacy has criminal subculture. It is a 400- justice institutions juxtaposes so thus been prompted less by declin- year-old Christian political theology starkly with the egalitarian demands ing quality of government conduct that has become globally accepted of the public. than by increasing public dissatisfac- across people of all religions in a tion with institutions in general, more egalitarian and individualistic As the spread of equality has com- driven by what Ronald F. Inglehart, modern culture. bined with growing freedom from Professor, University of Michigan, In such a world, people are less want, political culture has shifted calls “postmaterialist values.”12 away from Puritan views of a likely to obey the law out of a sense hierarchical communal democracy Social changes taking place around of communal obligation, and more to Quaker views of a more egalitari- the globe appear to be resulting likely to obey laws they support an individualistic democracy. in challenges to the legitimacy of through a personal sense of what virtually all forms of social hierarchy is moral.

NIJ Journal no. 248, 2002 25 Trust and Recognition What changing culture may be Consensus thus appears to be a much creating is a world in which people trust laws but not legal institutions. better fit to the new political culture. Standing This new world may be one in which trust in criminal justice is no longer automatic; it must be earned every up when judges enter a room and obeying day, with each encounter between legal agents and citizens. orders barked out by police, for example, The research of Tom R. Tyler, Department of Psychology, are procedural forms that may imply officials New York University, shows that Americans—especially members are more important than citizens. Such forms of minority groups—are extremely sensitive to the respect they perceive and the procedures employed when may do more to undermine legal trust they come into contact with criminal justice.15 Tyler’s evidence suggests than to build respect for the law. that in building citizen trust in the legal system, it may matter less whether you receive the speeding ticket than whether the police officer Tyler suggests that respectful overly “bossy” and unnecessarily addresses you politely or rudely treatment creates a stronger consen- authoritarian. sus about what is moral and what during the traffic stop. Similarly, Results of experiments in Canberra, the law must be. The consensus sentencing guidelines that punish Australia, suggest that an egalitarian, model assumes more equality than possession of crack more harshly consensual procedure of stakeholder the deference model on which our than possession of powdered cocaine citizens deciding the sentence for a legal institutions were designed.17 may discriminate against blacks. But crime creates more legitimacy in the dissatisfaction may be greater with Consensus thus appears to be a eyes of both offenders and victims some police officers engaged in drug much better fit to the new political than the hierarchical, deferential enforcement who treat suspects and culture. Standing up when judges process of sentencing by a judge.18 arrestees like people who are enemies enter a room and obeying orders The experiments compared tradi- rather than like people who are equal barked out by police, for example, fellow citizens. tional court sentencing of youthful are procedural forms that may violent and property offenders to an Tyler concludes that the procedural imply officials are more important alternative community justice con- justice perceived in treatment by than citizens. Such forms may ference making the same decisions. legal officials affects the level of trust do more to undermine legal citizens have in government.16 That trust than to build respect for Offenders who were sent to con- level of trust, in turn, affects the the law. ferences were far less likely than pride we have in our government offenders who were sent to tradi- and the degree to which we feel we tional court to say that they were are respected by other members Fitting Legal pushed around; disadvantaged by of our democracy—including the Institutions to their age, income, or education; government. treated as if they were untrust- the Culture: The worthy; or not listened to. They Tyler further concludes that the Canberra Experiments also were more likely to report that odds of citizens reaching the conclu- For all Americans, regardless of race, their experience increased their sion that the law is morally right the central cause of declining trust respect for the justice system and are much higher when citizens feel may be the misfit of hierarchical the police, as well as their feeling that the law has given each of them legal institutions in an egalitarian that the crime they had committed adequate recognition and respect. culture. In many ways, citizens may was morally wrong. Rather than creating a willingness experience the conduct of judges, Victims also were far more satisfied to defer to the power of the law, prosecutors, and police as being with community justice conferences

Trust and Confidence in Criminal Justice 26 than with court proceedings. Much As exhibit 2 shows, the risk of repeat officers on how to treat citizens of this difference may be because offending was 40 percent for offend- respectfully, zealous monitoring most victims of criminals sent to ers who had a low perception of of complaints, and followthrough court were never informed of the police procedural fairness, but only with consequences for officers offenders’ court appearances, either 25 percent for those who perceived who received complaints. before or after sentencing. The vic- a high level of police fairness. The In addition, the simple elimination tims invited to community justice estimate of offending risk took prior of the precinct’s high desk and bar conferences with offenders, in sharp levels of violence into account; in front of the desk in the reception contrast, gained increased trust hence the findings shown in exhibit area helped the precinct present a in police and justice, as well as 2 increase our confidence that less hierarchical face to the commu- decreased fear of and anger at the how the police make an arrest may nity. Research on the effects of offender. (For more details, see affect the crime rate (much of which the strategy, conducted by the “Alternative Community Justice comes from repeat offending)— Vera Institute of Justice, found Conferences,” page 28.) through trust and confidence in that citizens began to perceive the the criminal justice system. police as responsive to community Building Trust One Reducing Complaints Against concerns.21 Police. Other tests of the hypothesis Case at a Time The second test of the procedural that trust in criminal justice comes equality theory comes from a com- The Canberra experiments suggest from egalitarian procedures can be munity with a population of almost the highly personal nature of citizen seen in actions that have been shown one million; 55 percent of the trust in criminal justice. The per- to reduce complaints against police. sonal legitimacy of legal agents population is African American. In the 42nd and 44th precincts may depend on a leveling of dis- Complaints dropped in this depart- in the Bronx, complaints reached tinctions in rank between citizen ment of 1,400 officers when a new a 10-year high in 1996. But after the and official. procedure for traffic stops was initi- precinct commanders instituted a ated in 1997–99. The procedure, As Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Professor program to promote respectful called “Take Away Guns” (TAG), Emeritus, Sociology Department, policing and improve police rela- was one part of a larger strategy to Yale University, observed, the legiti- tions with community residents, reduce gun violence. One of the first macy of police authority in the eyes complaints dropped dramatically. steps the department took was to of citizens varies widely from one Among the elements of the new 19 increase traffic enforcement—a situation to the next. Thus, officials program was vigorous training for must earn the legitimacy of their 400-some percent increase—so authority one case at a time.

The most dramatic demonstration Exhibit 2: Repeat Offending After Arrest for Domestic Violence of this principle is the finding that by Perceived Fairness of Arrest Process how police make arrests for domestic violence affects the rate of repeat 50 offending. Raymond Paternoster, 40% Ph.D., University of Maryland, et al. 40 demonstrated that offenders who Percentage were arrested for domestic violence of arrestees 30 25% and who perceived that the police who repeat domestic abuse officers’ arresting procedures were 20 fair were less likely to repeat the 10 offense than offenders who per- ceived the arresting procedures as 0 20 unfair. Actions that constituted Fair Unfair “procedural justice” included the Perceived fairness of police conduct during arrest process police taking the time to listen to both the offender and the victim, Source: Paternoster, R., R. Brame, R. Bachman, and L.W. Sherman, "Do Fair not handcuffing the offender in Procedures Matter? The Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault," Law & Society Review, 31(1997): 185. front of the victim, and not using physical force.

NIJ Journal no. 248, 2002 27 Alternative Community Justice Conferences

In the Canberra experiments, the the offender (possibly “I forgive al court may take 10 minutes police invite victims, offenders, you”)? spread across several different and their respective supporters to appearances, which have no One of the most important parts a meeting in which the offenders emotional significance for victim of the proceedings is that everyone must not—for these purposes— or offender, and thus leave citizens is allowed to talk, just as in a dispute their guilt. At the meetings, feeling like cogs in a wheel. A Quaker meeting, but no one person everyone sits in a circle to discuss community justice conference dominates speech, as might the harm the crime has caused, is about the people present rather happen in a Calvinist church or acknowledge the pain and emo- than the legal formalities. People in an Anglo-American courtroom. tional impact of that harm, and come only once, prepared to stay Emotions can be intense at the deliberate democratically as to until the case is resolved. conferences—unlike the restraint how the offenders should repair valued by Puritan cultures and Trust in Justice. Research that harm. Western courts. shows that sentences imposed The egalitarian proceedings begin in the community justice confer- No Lawyers. Lawyers are not with the police officer moderating ences and the traditional court allowed to attend the conferences the proceedings, offering only process were fairly similar despite as legal advocates for either an questions, not answers. For exam- the major differences in the offender or the State, although ple, what did the offender do? decisionmaking procedures they may attend as personal How did it hurt the victim? How employed.1 But the conferences supporters. They are always on does the victim feel about that produced far better results in call, ready to act to protect anyone hurt? How do the victim’s friends terms of citizen respect for legal whose rights may seem abused. and family feel? How do the offen- institutions. But as long as the victim-offender der’s family and friends feel about consensus is under discussion, what has been said? What would 1. Sherman, L.W., H. Strang, everyone in the circle has equal be the right way for the offender to and G.C. Barnes, “Stratification authority, regardless of age or edu- of Justice: Legitimacy of repay the debt to the victim and to cation. Hierarchical and Egalitarian society? Does everyone agree? Is Sentencing Procedures,” there anything the offender wants Extra Time Required. A commu- unpublished manuscript, to say to the victim (sometimes the nity justice conference takes, Fels Center of Government, offender says “I’m sorry”)? Is there on average, about 70 minutes to University of Pennsylvania, 1999. anything the victim wants to say to resolve. A similar case in tradition-

that police had an opportunity to praise from the drivers stopped officials far more important to explain the program at each traffic who approved of the efforts to public trust and left officials out stop and distribute a letter from the get guns off the street. Over the of step with modern culture. district police captain explaining the first 2 years of the program, both This explanation gains further program. The letter contained the gun violence and citizen complaints support from scholarship on the captain’s phone number and invited of excessive force by police dropped effect of television and other com- citizens to call the captain with substantially. munications media on the nature of complaints or questions. Officers In sum, a growing body of theory authority and trust in government. were trained to be very polite in and evidence suggests that it is For despite Tyler’s focus on personal explaining the program to drivers not the fairness or effectiveness contacts with criminal justice, most and then asking permission to of decisions criminal justice officials citizens have little if any personal search the car for guns. make that determines the public’s contact with legal officials. For this The program not only received level of trust. Changes in modern majority of Americans, the level of a high rate of compliance with culture have made the procedures trust in criminal justice may depend the requests, but also received and manners of criminal justice on what they hear about criminal

Trust and Confidence in Criminal Justice 28 through friends or through televi- sion shows than from personal In sum, a growing body of theory and experience with their own legal system. The evidence is clear: evidence suggests that it is not the fairness On a Wednesday night when police convene a neighborhood meeting in a church basement, or effectiveness of decisions criminal more local residents are home watching television than attending justice officials make that determines the the meeting. We may well ask if there are any public’s level of trust. Changes in modern celebrities of American criminal justice, and if so, who they are— culture have made the procedures and The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? The director of the FBI? Probably not. These positions manners of criminal justice officials far more appear to fit Friedman’s characteris- tics of traditional authority: stern, important to public trust and left officials out distant, and remote. Television’s Judge Judy, on the other hand, is an of step with modern culture. internationally recognized celebrity, with far greater name-face recogni- tion than the traditional authority figures. justice encounters with other citi- The horizontal society is [one in Unfortunately, the entertainment zens, a little-studied area. But it which] the men and women who get values of the television business also may depend on how legal agen- and hold power become celebrities” conflict with the core values of cies are portrayed in entertainment and the public come to know them, legal institutions. What sells TV and news media. or think they know them, through audiences is conflict and putdowns, the media. “By contrast,” Friedman tools Judge Judy uses to portray writes, “traditional authority was a rude, in-your-face (but perhaps Authority and vertical, and the higher up the egalitarian), power-control image Media Celebrity authority, the more stern, distant, of the bench. Audiences find this fun 22 The future authority of the criminal and remote it was.” to watch, although Judge Judy may confirm their worst fears, leaving justice system may well depend on A celebrity culture creates still them reluctant to have anything how the system appears not just to another paradox: Americans now to do with the legal system. those directly involved in the system, feel more personal connections with but to all citizens. That, in turn, may celebrities living far away than they The difficulty in using celebrity depend heavily on how criminal do with legal officials in their own power to send messages about the justice manages its image in the hometown. Just as many people felt trustworthiness of criminal justice electronic media. Legal historian more emotional loss at the death is the clash of cultures between law Lawrence Friedman notes that mod- of Princess Diana than at the death and entertainment. The reticence ern culture has changed the very of a neighbor, the celebrity culture of the legal culture conflicts with nature of authority from vertical makes us feel personal connections the chattiness of celebrity culture. (where people look up to leaders to people we do not know. in high position) to horizontal One can imagine a legal official (where people look in to the center Thus, for all the programs designed appearing weekly on a talk show of society to find leaders who are to foster community policing or with a huge audience, saying things celebrities, defined by the number community prosecution with legal that could help shore up public of people who recognize their names officials in the neighborhood, faith in criminal justice as an and faces). “Leaders are no longer Americans still are more likely to egalitarian and fair system. One distant, awesome, and unknown; form their impressions of criminal can equally imagine such a strategy they are familiar figures on TV…. justice from vicarious contact being condemned by leaders of

NIJ Journal no. 248, 2002 29 the American Bar Association, prophecy, defining conduct for Today they are formally forbid- conservative journalists, and other legal officials and the public alike. den to use any kind of force. defenders of traditional remoteness Their instructions are to explain, The research on respect for authori- of authority. to make people understand, to ty suggests that street sanctioning convince them.25 The kind of public education styles interact with different kinds programs that legal culture would of citizen personalities in ways that It may be easier to change official approve of—such as tasteful PBS produce the following differences conduct in a dictatorship than in specials or public service announce- in repeat offending: a democracy, but the power of ments on radio and television— electronic media may make the Decent sanctioning of “decent” would seem unlikely to reach much dynamics totally different today. people produces the lowest of the public, let alone those citizens Electronic communications com- repeat offending. most distrustful of the system. prise a highly democratized, free- Street sanctioning of “decent” market institution that cannot people produces higher repeat be manipulated easily for official Portraying Values offending. purposes. But the media can be a in the Media Decent sanctioning of “street” venue in which celebrity power is The media often portray criminal people may produce even higher built and put to use in fostering sup- justice through a morality play repeat offending. port for “decent” styles of criminal justice, both in the image and the that explores themes of what Street sanctioning of “street” Elijah Anderson, Charles and reality of how criminal justice people produces the highest works. William L. Day Professor, Sociology levels of repeat offending.24 Department, University of Pennsylvania, calls “street” and The research on respect for authori- ty consistently suggests that when The Domains “decent” values. Based on years of Public Trust of field research in high-crime people in positions of authority areas of Philadelphia, Anderson impose “street” attitudes or sanc- Three major domains appear to has observed people who exhibit tions, the reaction is almost always affect public trust and confidence “decent” values as patient, hopeful, negative. It is more productive for in criminal justice: respectful of authority, and with a criminal justice officials to show The conduct and practices of belief in the predictability of punish- more respect to, and take more time the criminal justice system. ment. Those who exhibit “street” to listen to, citizens. To the extent values take on a bitter, impatient, that this message is portrayed in The changing values and expec- antisystem outlook that is disre- entertainment media and identified tations of the culture the system spectful of authority and demanding with celebrity authority, the criminal serves. 23 justice system might be able to of deference. The images of the system pre- increase its public trust and confi- sented in electronic media. Television dramas that portray a dence. Yet to the extent that “decent” hero’s impatience with red tape may values are themselves communicated Changes in each domain affect glorify the “street” enforcement of in an illegitimate way, it will be the others. Trust, as the product vengeance and personal respect. difficult to foster a more “decent” of all three combined, is likely to TV interviewers who ask officials legal culture. increase only when changes in all provocative and insulting questions three domains can be aligned to Half a century ago and half a world may reflect an effort to produce a create practices and values that are away, a French journalist observed “street” response. perceived to be fair, inclusive, and during a 2-month tour of China in trustworthy. The paradox of such media portray- the early 1950’s that police had als is that the more frequently legal become far more polite under Discovering how that can be made officials are portrayed breaking the Mao’s early communism: to happen is a daunting task. But the official rules out of distrust for data suggest that fairness builds trust In the olden days the Peking “decent” government, the less reason in criminal justice, and trust builds police were renowned for their the public has to believe the criminal compliance with law. Thus what is brutality, and pedestrians fre- justice system will treat citizens fairer is more effective, and to be quently suffered at their hands, decently. By showing criminal justice effective it is necessary to be fair. agents pursuing street values, the smacks in the face being the least media may create a self-fulfilling form of violence offered them. NCJ 189088

Trust and Confidence in Criminal Justice 30 Notes 11. Fukuyama, The End of History, 21. A more complete description see note 9; Heclo, H., “The of the Vera Institute of Justice 1. Retrieved from the World Wide Sixties’ False Dawn: Awakenings, study can be found in NIJ Web site http://www.gallup.com, Movements, and Postmodern Journal, July 2000, p. 24, October 10, 2000. Policymaking,” Journal of Policy http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ 2. Maguire, K., and A. Pastore, eds., History, 8(1996): 50–58; Balogh, jr000244f.pdf. The authors’ Sourcebook of Criminal Justice B., “Introduction,” Journal of presentation of findings also Statistics, 1997, Washington, Policy History, 8(1996): 25. is available on videotape from NCJRS (NCJ 181106). DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 12. Inglehart, R., “Postmaterialist Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998 Values and the Erosion of 22. Friedman, L., The Horizontal (NCJ 171147). Institutional Authority,” in Society, New Haven, CT: Yale 3. Maguire and Pastore, Source- Why People Don’t Trust University Press, 1999: 14–15. Government, eds. J.S. Nye, Jr., book, 182, see note 2. 23. Anderson, E., Crime and Justice, P.D. Zelikow, and D.C. King, Chicago: Chicago University 4. Reiss, A.J., Jr., and J. Roth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 1999. Understanding and Preventing University Press, 1997. Violence, Washington, DC: 24. Just how much harmful impact 13. Baltzell, E.D., Puritan Boston National Academy of Sciences, “street” conduct by agents of and Quaker Philadelphia: Two 1993: 64 (NCJ 140290). criminal justice can have has Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of been revealed by experimental 5. Hacker, A., Two Nations: Black Class Authority and Leadership, and quasi-experimental research and White, Separate, Hostile, and New York: Free Press, 1979. Unequal, New York: Free Press, on diverse situations using dif- 1992: 181. 14. Sampson and Bartusch, “Legal ferent levels of analysis. See, for Cynicism and Subcultural example, Nisbett, R.E., and D. 6. Maguire and Pastore, Tolerance of Deviance,” see Cohen, Culture of Honor: The Sourcebook, 494, see note 2. note 7. Psychology of Violence in the South, Boulder, CO: Westview 7. Sampson, R., and D. Bartusch, 15. Tyler, T., Why People Obey Press, 1996: 46–48; Raine, A., P. “Legal Cynicism and Subcul- the Law, New Haven, CT: Yale Brennan, and S.A. Mednick, tural Tolerance of Deviance: University Press, 1990; Tyler, T., “Birth Complications Combined The Neighborhood Context of “Trust and Democratic Gover- With Early Maternal Rejection Racial Differences,” Law & nance,” in Trust and Governance, at Age 1 Year Predispose to Society Review, 32(4)(1999): eds. V. Braithwaite and M. Levi, Violent Crime at Age 18 Years,” 777–804. New York: Russell Sage Founda- Archives of General Psychiatry, tion, 1998. 8. Boyle, J.M., Crime Issues in the 51(1994): 986; Greenberg, J., Northeast: Statewide Surveys of 16. Tyler, “Trust and Democratic “Employee Theft as a Reaction the Public and Crime Victims in Governance,” see note 15. to Underpayment Inequity: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, The Hidden Costs of Pay Cuts,” 17. Baltzell, Puritan Boston, 369, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Journal of Applied Psychology, see note 13. Hampshire, New Jersey, New 75(1990): 561–568; Makkai, T., York, and Rhode Island,Silver 18. See details of the Reintegrative and J. Braithwaite, “Reintegra- Spring, MD: Schulman, Ronca, Shaming Experiments project at tive Shaming and Compliance and Bucuvalas, Inc., 1999. http://www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/ With Regulatory Standards,” 9. Fukuyama, F., The End of History rise. Criminology, 32(1994): 361–385. and the Last Man,New York: 19. Reiss and Roth, Understanding 25. de Segonzac, A., Visa for Peking, Free Press, 1992. and Preventing Violence,2,3,59– London: Heinemann, 1956. 10. Orren, G., “Fall From Grace: 65, see note 4. The Public’s Loss of Faith in the 20. Paternoster, R., R. Brame, R. Government,” in Why People Bachman, and L.W. Sherman, Don’t Trust Government, eds. J.S. “Do Fair Procedures Matter? The Nye, Jr., P.D. Zelikow, and D.C. Effect of Procedural Justice on King, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Spouse Assault,” Law & Society University Press, 1997: 83. Review, 31(1997): 185.

NIJ Journal no. 248, 2002 31