重新思考警察程序正义

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
D. Schaap, Elsa Saarikkomäki
{"title":"重新思考警察程序正义","authors":"D. Schaap, Elsa Saarikkomäki","doi":"10.1177/13624806211056680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While procedural justice theory has become the dominant paradigm in thinking about police legitimacy, it has several important weaknesses. First, procedural justice's conceptually essential distinction between ‘process’ and ‘outcome’ is blurred in reality, which is visible both in empirical operationalizations and in researchers’ understanding of police work. Second, procedural justice theory views society through an implicit consensus lens, making it poorly equipped to address police–citizen conflicts and structural societal inequalities. This is evident in the theory's inability to unpack the dynamics of police–citizen interactions and its reluctance to problematize the police role in contemporary plural societies. To advance our understanding of police legitimacy and police–citizen relations, particularly among marginalized groups, we strongly recommend working toward theoretical renewal and empirical diversification.","PeriodicalId":47813,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Criminology","volume":"26 1","pages":"416 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking police procedural justice\",\"authors\":\"D. Schaap, Elsa Saarikkomäki\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13624806211056680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While procedural justice theory has become the dominant paradigm in thinking about police legitimacy, it has several important weaknesses. First, procedural justice's conceptually essential distinction between ‘process’ and ‘outcome’ is blurred in reality, which is visible both in empirical operationalizations and in researchers’ understanding of police work. Second, procedural justice theory views society through an implicit consensus lens, making it poorly equipped to address police–citizen conflicts and structural societal inequalities. This is evident in the theory's inability to unpack the dynamics of police–citizen interactions and its reluctance to problematize the police role in contemporary plural societies. To advance our understanding of police legitimacy and police–citizen relations, particularly among marginalized groups, we strongly recommend working toward theoretical renewal and empirical diversification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical Criminology\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"416 - 433\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

虽然程序正义理论已经成为思考警察合法性的主导范式,但它也有几个重要的弱点。首先,程序正义在概念上对“过程”和“结果”的本质区别在现实中是模糊的,这在经验操作和研究人员对警察工作的理解中都是可见的。其次,程序正义理论通过隐含的共识视角来看待社会,使其无法解决警察与公民之间的冲突和结构性社会不平等问题。这一点在该理论无法揭示警察与公民互动的动态以及不愿将警察在当代多元社会中的角色问题化中表现得很明显。为了加深我们对警察合法性和警民关系的理解,特别是在边缘化群体中,我们强烈建议努力实现理论更新和经验多样化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking police procedural justice
While procedural justice theory has become the dominant paradigm in thinking about police legitimacy, it has several important weaknesses. First, procedural justice's conceptually essential distinction between ‘process’ and ‘outcome’ is blurred in reality, which is visible both in empirical operationalizations and in researchers’ understanding of police work. Second, procedural justice theory views society through an implicit consensus lens, making it poorly equipped to address police–citizen conflicts and structural societal inequalities. This is evident in the theory's inability to unpack the dynamics of police–citizen interactions and its reluctance to problematize the police role in contemporary plural societies. To advance our understanding of police legitimacy and police–citizen relations, particularly among marginalized groups, we strongly recommend working toward theoretical renewal and empirical diversification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Theoretical Criminology
Theoretical Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Consistently ranked in the top 12 of its category in the Thomson Scientific Journal Citation Reports, Theoretical Criminology is a major interdisciplinary, international, peer reviewed journal for the advancement of the theoretical aspects of criminological knowledge. Theoretical Criminology is concerned with theories, concepts, narratives and myths of crime, criminal behaviour, social deviance, criminal law, morality, justice, social regulation and governance. The journal is committed to renewing general theoretical debate, exploring the interrelation of theory and data in empirical research and advancing the links between criminological analysis and general social, political and cultural theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信