Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:07 am
Time: 12:07 am
Results for public confidence
6 results foundAuthor: Wilson, Carole Title: The Public and the Justice System: Attitudes, Drivers and Behaviour - A Literature Review Summary: This literature review examines evidence on what public attitudes to the justice system are, what drives these attitudes, what effect these attitudes have on behaviour, and what works to improve such attitudes. People’s attitudes to the justice system are complex, and vary depending on whether the focus is confidence, satisfaction, trust or legitimacy, and what part of the system or aspect of performance is in question. The most important drivers of people’s attitudes to the justice system are personal experience. This includes direct contact with justice system professionals, seeing or hearing from local police, experience and perceptions of the local neighbourhood, and stories about the experiences of other people. It is crucial that people feel that the justice system, as represented by people such as the police, demonstrates ‘procedural justice’ - that is that they value and care about individuals and the community, and behave fairly, respectfully, neutrally and take seriously the things that matter to people. Research shows that experiencing such procedural justice leads to higher satisfaction, confidence and perceived legitimacy of justice system professionals, which in turn is associated with people being more compliant and cooperative when they interact with the justice system. For parts of the justice system that fewer people have direct or vicarious personal experience of, such as sentencing, people make judgements from other information available to them, which may include media sources. The impact on people’s attitudes depends on which media sources they use, and the degree to which information from the media aligns with their existing attitudes and experiences. Four broad types of activity have been found to improve public attitudes: procedurally fair treatment of system users, visibility of police and engagement with the public, improving neighbourhood conditions, and written communication. The key message from the evidence is that people’s personal experiences of the justice system and of their local area is the most important influence on their attitudes to the justice system. Factors such as knowledge about the system, and the media, do not have the large direct influence that some might expect. The evidence shows that building responsive relationships between justice system professionals and individuals and communities can improve attitudes to the justice system, and by doing so may also improve people’s engagement with the justice system and their wider behaviour. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2012. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2012 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00396342.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00396342.pdf Shelf Number: 125606 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemsPublic Attitudes (Scotland)Public ConfidencePublic Opinion |
Author: Tyler, Tom R. Title: Future Challenges in the Study of Legitimacy and Criminal Justice Summary: Studies conducted over the last several decades have established that legitimacy shapes law-related behavior. They also make it clear that we should broaden our framework for understanding both how to conceptualize and measure legitimacy and for exploring its antecedents and consequences. This chapter reviews recent efforts to address these questions. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale Law School, 2012. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 264: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2141322 Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2141322 Shelf Number: 126460 Keywords: Police BehaviorPolice LegitimacyPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsPublic ConfidenceTrust |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: Public Confidence in the New South Wales Criminal Justice System: 2012 update Summary: Public confidence in the NSW criminal justice system has increased significantly over the last four years, according the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. This is one of the key findings to emerge from a survey of public confidence in the criminal justice system commissioned by the Bureau. The Bureau conducted a similar survey in 2008. Interviews were conducted with over 2,000 NSW residents aged 18 years and over. Survey sample quotas were set on the basis of age, sex and residential location to match, as closely as possible, the distribution of these characteristics in the NSW population. Respondents in both surveys were asked how confident they were that the criminal justice system: Is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice; Meets the needs of victims Respects the rights of people accused of committing a crime Treats people accused of crime fairly; Deals with cases promptly. With one exception , the percentage of respondents who said they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ confident that the NSW criminal justice system is achieving these objectives was significantly higher in 2012 than it had been in 2008. Public knowledge of the criminal justice system and confidence in sentencing also increased. To measure public knowledge about crime and justice respondents were asked: Whether property crime had increased, decreased or remained about the same over the last five years; What percentage of all crime recorded by police involves violence or the threat of violence? What percentage of persons charged with home burglary are convicted of the offence? What percentage of persons convicted of home burglary receive a prison sentence? The percentage of respondents who gave tolerably accurate answers to each of these questions was significantly higher in 2012 than it was in 2008. To measure public confidence in sentencing, the Bureau asked respondents whether the sentences handed down by courts are much too tough, a little too tough, about right, a little too lenient or much too lenient. In 2008, 25.5 per cent responded ‘about right’. The proportion giving this answer in 2012 rose to 31.4 per cent. There was a corresponding fall in the percentage of respondents who felt that sentences are ‘much too lenient’ (from 37.3% to 29.3%). Generally speaking, the public have higher levels of confidence in the capacity of police to bring offenders to justice, meet the needs of victims and deal with cases promptly. They have higher levels of confidence in the courts when it comes to respecting the rights of accused people and treating accused people fairly. Details: Brisbane: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 165: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 127549 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemPolice-Community RelationsPublic Attitudes (Australia)Public ConfidencePublic Opinion |
Author: Halstead, Imogen Title: Public confidence in the New South Wales criminal justice system: 2014 update Summary: Aim: To assess (1) the level of public confidence in the New South Wales (NSW) criminal justice system (CJS) in 2014, (2) the relationship between confidence levels and individuals' characteristics, including personal exposure to crime, and media consumption behaviours, (3) how confidence in the NSW CJS has changed since 2007, and (4) whether changes in confidence are associated with changing perceptions of crime and criminal justice outcomes. Method: Data are sourced from a repeat cross-sectional survey of the NSW public (n=2,002 in 2007; n=2,001 in 2012; n=1,989 in 2014). Variation in confidence levels across the 2014 sample and over time is documented and tested for statistical significance. Basic logistic regression models are developed to predict respondents' confidence as a function of their individual characteristics, and extended to control for variation in their perceptions of crime and justice outcomes. Results: The results suggest that two out of every three NSW residents (64 per cent) are confident that the CJS brings people who commit crimes to justice. Just 44 per cent of residents are confident that the CJS meets the needs of victims, compared with 81 per cent confidence that the CJS treats individuals accused of committing crimes fairly and respects their rights. Most residents (66 per cent) believe sentences handed down are too lenient. One in three residents (35 per cent) are confident that the CJS deals with cases promptly. Personal exposure to crime is associated with lower levels of confidence in the CJS in general, and confidence also varies across groups with different media consumption habits. Since 2012, there has been a slight reduction in confidence around whether the CJS meets the needs of victims, and punitiveness appears to have intensified. Otherwise, public confidence in the justice system remained largely unchanged over this two-year window. Confidence is at higher levels than those recorded in 2007, and this partly reflects slight corrections in public perceptions of crime and justice outcomes. Conclusion: Public confidence in the NSW CJS has improved since 2007, but pervasive misperceptions around crime trends and justice outcomes seemingly continue to undermine confidence. The magnitude of the media's influence on confidence levels remains an open question. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 182: Accessed February 16, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb182.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb182.pdf Shelf Number: 134623 Keywords: Citizens AttitudesCriminal Justice System (Australia)Public ConfidencePublic Opinion |
Author: Cho, David Title: Restoring Public Confidence: Recommendations For Improving Oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Summary: The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, one of the largest policing agencies in the nation, has been the subject of media and public criticism for decades. Despite numerous attempts at reform over the past twenty years, the Department continues to exhibit numerous problems, ranging from excessive use of force to personnel corruption. In 2011, the Board of Supervisors formed the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence in hopes of creating a better Sheriff's Department. In its report, the Commission called for the creation of an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) - an agency that would attempt to remedy the deficiencies present in the Sheriff's three current oversight entities. Special Counsel, the Office of Ombudsman, and the Office of Independent Review handle current Sheriff's Department audits, complaints, and investigations, respectively. They operate largely independent of one another and lack the coordination necessary for effective oversight. Thus, our analysis offered a design for a consolidated Office of the Inspector General. We relied on expert interviews, comparisons of other oversight bodies, internal LA County documents, financial review of County and external budget documents, and previous findings and literature for the majority of our data and information. We used these data to identify a combination of common elements and functions shared by oversight bodies: agency independence, investigative authority allowing for initiation of case investigations and policy audits, jail monitoring, reviewing of complaints, quality assurance/risk management, and communication & public engagement. Identifying these key elements allowed us to analyze the design of an OIG by considering the presence or absence of these elements. This discussion led us to consider three policy options for potential OIG models: - An Expert-Informed model that was constructed by the common views and opinions of industry experts on what elements and functions constitute an "ideal" OIG. - A Client-Preference model that captures the County's current preferences and its preliminary ideas of the structure and function of the OIG. - And a Hybrid model, which we propose that seeks to moderate the extremes of the previous two models. In evaluating these options, we considered the degree of oversight provided, political feasibility, and ease of implementation. Based on our analysis, we provided two recommendations for the design of an LA County Office of the Inspector General: - Short-term Recommendation: Due to the difficulties associated with pursuing statutory authority1 at the current time and because of the deficiencies in oversight present in the client's current preferences, we recommend that LA County pursue the Hybrid model. This model provides a fairly high level of oversight (even with the lack of statutory authority) and faces no significant barriers to implementation. - Long-term Recommendation: The County should adopt the Expert-Informed model by pursuing an amendment to the California Constitution in order to establish an OIG that has statutory authority and can compel the Sheriff to action. In addition, we evaluated the funding and staffing needs for the Hybrid model based on the assumption that the County must at least maintain the current staffing levels for the current three oversight bodies. At a minimum, the OIG will need to be staffed by twenty-five individuals led by an Inspector General. Their combined salaries, pension, and benefits, would cost the County approximately $3.5 million per year. Approximately another $1.1 million would be needed for annual operation costs for a total OIG budget of approximately $4.8 million per year. Los Angeles County has a unique opportunity to improve oversight of the Sheriff's Department. Various County stakeholders need to ensure that the Office of the Inspector General takes a leading role in this task. By identifying, correcting, and preventing issues, the OIG will begin to restore public trust in the Sheriff's Department. Details: Los Angeles: Meyer and Renee Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, 2015. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://luskin.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/13%20-%20County%20Sheriff.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://luskin.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/13%20-%20County%20Sheriff.pdf Shelf Number: 136140 Keywords: OmbudsmanPublic ConfidencePublic OpinionSheriffs |
Author: Hail, Yvonne Title: Review of Evidence: What effect do enforcement-orientated and engagement-orientated methods of visible policing have on public confidence? Summary: - There is a lack of existing research which focuses on the effect of visible policing on public confidence. In the main, the existing visible policing studies are primarily concerned with crime reduction. - Crucially, there is also a lack of research on what police officers do while being visible, e.g., while on foot patrol. - The research showed that strategies around increasing public confidence in the police should be based on an organisational and individual officer acceptance of the importance of regular foot patrols for enhancing community engagement. - The research supports the idea that the type of policing technique used (i.e., soft versus hard policing styles) has different implications for how the police are viewed and engaged locally. For example, repeated use of enforcement-based styles have a negative impact on police community relations, whilst familiarity and positive communication can enhance public confidence. - The evidence supports the premise that officers being visible on foot and bicycle patrols are perceived as more approachable, friendly and accountable to the public than those in cars and, furthermore, gather more in-depth knowledge regarding crime and criminal behaviour on their 'beat'. Local knowledge assists police officers to make the correct decisions for each context and assists in addressing local needs. - There is evidence to suggest that without organisational buy-in and management support for community policing/foot patrols, e.g., the existence of key performance indicators and reward frameworks which only relate to enforcement activity, it is more difficult for community police officers to see the value in their role. They may become frustrated and look towards roles that are 'real' police work. - Overall there is evidence that the style of policing (enforcement vs. engagement) delivered by individual officers has serious implications for police community relationships. This may raise questions around the policing styles and skill sets of officers and the need for focused training for community roles. Enforcement styles of policing can increase mistrust and act as a barrier to engagement. Negative experiences with the police impact more on public perceptions of policing than positive experiences. - The review also highlighted the importance of regular community engagement, with ongoing communication being important for building trust and confidence with communities. Being familiar, accessible, approachable, helpful, empathetic, and listening and understanding the needs of the community are related to trust and confidence. - Finally, there is a lack of research conducted in a Scottish context. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Institute for Policing Research, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2018 at: http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/assets/files/Review_methods_of_visible_policing_and_public_confidence_Hail_%20Aston_%20O'Neill.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/assets/files/Review_methods_of_visible_policing_and_public_confidence_Hail_%20Aston_%20O'Neill.pdf Shelf Number: 151493 Keywords: Communication Foot patrols Law Enforcement Police Legitimacy Police-Citizen Interactions Police-Community Relations Public ConfidenceVisible Policing |