Legal norms and crime control: A comparative, cross-national analysis

这是一项关于对法律当局的态度、对法律的遵守、与法律当局的合作以及少数群体和多数群体的治安的比较的跨国研究。我们的建议是利用一个强大的新数据集来解决威慑、合法性、合作和合规问题，该数据集是我们从30个不同国家的国家概率抽样调查中生成的。我们的目标是对威慑理论和程序正义理论进行雄心勃勃的跨国实证检验。犯罪控制政策往往基于这样的假设——这是威慑理论的核心——即人们在决定是否违法时，会进行工具性或理性的成本/收益计算。然而，许多有关法律行为心理学的研究表明：(a)法律行为有很强的规范性成分（即，人们合作和遵守，因为这样做是正确的）；(b)法律机构可以通过程序公平的方式影响人们的规范性取向；(c)规范性杠杆“胜过”工具性杠杆，在某种意义上，道德原则比工具性因素更强烈地影响行为。程序正义理论的核心假设是，公平和尊重对待受害者、证人、罪犯和公众是有效司法制度的标志。拟议项目的一个关键问题将是在多个国家背景下权衡工具性进程与规范性进程。作为迄今为止最广泛的比较犯罪学研究之一，我们将评估在不同社会、法律和政治背景下合规和社会监管的工具和规范模式的经验证据。重要的是，我们领导的团队在ESS第五轮设计了一个关于“对正义的信任和法律当局的合法性”的模块。该模块于2010年对28个国家的国家概率样本进行了实地调查（其中27个国家的数据于2012年3月可用），使我们能够在欧洲及其他地区测试威慑理论和程序正义理论。数据是可用的，当前提案的目标是利用来自美国、南非和日本的调查的新数据，这些调查复制了ESS模块。跨国比较之所以重要，不仅是因为警务的程序正义模式起源于美国，迄今为止主要应用于英语国家（对“普遍主义”主张提出了重大质疑）；这也很重要，因为在不同国家之间进行比较将使我们能够考虑社会和政治背景的问题。不同国家的政治经济方面——例如它们受到新自由主义市场改革的程度——是否会影响犯罪控制规范模型的适用性和相关性？生活在某些国家的人们是否对治安和犯罪控制有更多的工具性倾向？我们关注的关键问题将是人们与警察的接触、对警察的公正和效率的信任、对警察的合法性的感知、对犯罪行为的道德感知、对制裁风险的感知、对法律的遵守以及与警察和法院合作的准备。我们将确定这些因素之间存在的关系，我们将特别参照少数民族和移民群体的经历来这样做。一方面，在政治话语中，移民经常被指责为对法律和社会规则的规范性承诺的明显削弱。我们将质疑这在多大程度上是真实的。另一方面，特别是少数群体与警察之间的关系往往存在问题。在不同的国家背景下，情况真的如此吗？如果是这样，为什么？司法机构在社会包容和排斥过程中扮演什么角色？

This is a comparative, cross-national study into attitudes towards legal authorities, compliance with the law, cooperation with legal authorities, and the policing of minority and majority groups. The proposal is to address questions of deterrence, legitimacy, cooperation and compliance using a powerful new dataset that we have generated from national probability sample surveys of 30 different countries.Our goal is to mount an ambitious cross-national empirical test of deterrence theory and procedural justice theory. Crime control policy tends to be based on the assumption - at the heart of deterrence theory - that people make instrumental or rational cost/benefit calculations when deciding whether or not to break the law. Yet, much work on the psychology of law-related behaviour suggests that (a) there is strong normative component to law-related behaviour (namely, people cooperate and comply because doing so is the right thing to do); that (b) legal institutions can influence people's normative orientations by behaving in a procedurally fair manner; and that (c) normative levers 'trump' instrumental levers, in the sense that moral principles more strongly influence behaviour than instrumental factors. The central assumption of procedural justice theory is that fair and respectful treatment of victims, witnesses, offenders and the public are the hallmark of effective justice systems. A crucial issue for the proposed project will be the weighing of instrumental versus normative processes across multiple national contexts. Representing one of the most extensive comparative criminological studies yet undertaken, we will assess the empirical evidence for instrumental and normative modes of compliance and social regulation in diverse social, legal and political contexts. Importantly, we led a team that designed a module on 'trust in justice and the legitimacy of legal authorities' in Round 5 of the ESS. Fielded in 2010 to national probability samples of 28 countries (with data for 27 countries becoming available in March 2012) the module allows us to test deterrence theory and procedural justice theory across Europe and beyond. The data are available, and the goal of the current proposal is to draw upon new data from surveys in the US, South Africa and Japan that replicate the ESS module. Cross-national comparison is important not only because the procedural justice model of policing originated in the US and has hitherto been primarily applied in Anglophone countries (casting significant doubt on 'universalistic' claims); it is also important because comparing across different countries will allow us to consider questions of social and political context. Do aspects of the political economy of different countries - for example the extent to which they have be subject to neo-liberal market reforms - influence the applicability and relevance of normative models of crime control? Do people living in some countries have a more instrumental orientation toward policing and crime control? Our key issues of concern will be people's encounters with the police, trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the police, the perceived legitimacy of the police, perceived morality of criminal acts, perceived risk of sanction, compliance with the law, and preparedness to cooperate with the police and the courts. We will identify the relationships that exist between these factors, and we will do so with particular reference to the experiences of minority and immigrant groups. On the one hand, immigration is often blamed, in political discourse, for a perceive weakening in normative commitment to law and social rules. We will question the extent to which is true. On the other hand, relations between minority groups and the police, in particular, are often problematic. Is this really the case across different national contexts (and if so, why)? What role do justice institutions play in processes of social inclusion and exclusion?