Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 390–405 | Cite as

Procedural Justice and Psychological Effects of Criminal Proceedings: The Moderating Effect of Offense Type

  • Malini LaxminarayanEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is well-established that victims of crime have numerous preferences when encountering the criminal justice system. Often, research examines these preferences in terms of procedural justice, asserting that elements such as voice, respect, and fair treatment may lead to greater satisfaction and more positive experiences. Positive experiences also entail preventing secondary victimization by the legal system. Much of the research surrounding this topic, however, discusses victims of crime as a single entity. The current research examines if differences among crime victims, namely whether they suffered sexual or non-sexual victimizations, influence their legal preferences. Victims of sexual assault have undergone particularly traumatic and stigmatizing experiences that may warrant a greater need for expression and understanding of their harm. It is hypothesized that for victims of sexual assault, there will be a stronger association between procedural justice and negative psychological effects of criminal proceedings. Therefore, type of offense is examined as a moderator variable of this relationship. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that there is in fact an interaction effect for procedural justice and psychological effects, suggesting that these preferences are more desired by victims of sexual assault.

Keywords

Procedural justice Victims Sexual assault Secondary victimization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express her gratitude to the Dutch Compensation Fund for Victims of Serious Crimes (Schadefonds geweldsmisdrijven) and the numerous victim support agencies throughout Australia for their assistance.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

The data collection complies with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction effects. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, A. L., & Peterson, C. (1977). Self-blame by rape victims as a function of the rape’s consequences: An attributional analysis. Crisis Intervention, 8(3), 92–104.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brandl, S. G., & Horvath, F. (1991). Crime victim evaluation of police investigative performance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1976). Rape trauma syndrome. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(9), 981–986.Google Scholar
  7. Buzawa, E. S., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining police response to domestic violence victims: The role of victim preference. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 610–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, R., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., Wasco, S. M., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Social reactions to rape victims: Healing and hurtful effects on psychological and physical health outcomes. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 287–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14(3), 261–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (2005). The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: Help-seeking experiences with military and civilian social systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandek, M. S., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (1998). The efficacy of expectancy disconfirmation in explaining crime victim satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly, 1, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, H. (2010). “What is the justice system willing to offer?” Understanding sexual assault victim/survivors’ criminal justice needs. Family Law Matter, 85, 28–37.Google Scholar
  13. Cluss, P. A., Boughton, I., Frank, E., Stewant, B. D., & West, D. (1983). The rape victim: Psychological correlates of participation in the legal process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emm, D., & McKenry, P. C. (1988). Coping with victimization: The impact on rape of female survivors, male significant others and parents. Contemporary Family Therapy, 10(4), 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erez, E. (1990). Victim participation in sentencing: Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gramatikov, M., Barendrecht, M., Laxminarayan, M., Verdonschot, J., Klaming, L., & Van Zeeland, C. (2010). A handbook for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice. Apeldoorn: Maklu.Google Scholar
  18. Groenhuijsen, M. S. (2005). International protocols on victims’ rights and some reflections on significant recent developments in victimology. In R. Snyman & L. Davis (Eds.), Victimology in South Africa (pp. 333–351). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Henry, P. J. (2011). The role of group-based status in job satisfaction: Workplace respect matters more for the stigmatized. Social Justice Research, 24, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herman, J. L. (2003). The mental health of crime victims: Impact of legal intervention. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(2), 159–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herman, J. L. (2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 571–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmstrom, L. L., & Burgess, A. W. (1991). The victim of rape. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Molina, L. E. (2010). Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 200–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larcombe, W. (2002). The ‘ideal’ victim v successful rape complainants: Not what you might expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  26. Levine, M. (1974). Scientific method and the adversary model: Some preliminary thoughts. American Psychologist, 29, 661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  28. Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Montada, L. (1994). Injustice in harm and loss. Social Justice Research, 7, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). Psychological testing: Principals and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Orth, U. (2002). Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Social Justice Research, 15(4), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orth, U. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 173–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parsons, J., & Bergin, T. (2010). The impact of criminal justice involvement on victims’ mental health. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23(2), 182–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothbaum, B. O., Foa, E. B., Riggs, D. S., Murdock, T., & Walsh, W. (1992). A prospective examination of posttraumatic stress disorder in rape victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5(3), 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapland, J., Duff, P., & Willmore, J. (1985). Victims in the criminal justice system. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  36. Skogan, W. G., Davis, R. C., & Lurigio, A. J. (1990). Victims’ needs and victim services: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  37. Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010–2035.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, R., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wemmers, J. M., Van der Leeden, R., & Steensma, H. (1995). What is procedural justice: Criteria used by Dutch victims to assess the fairness of criminal justice procedures. Social Justice Research, 8(4), 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, J. E. (1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology, 9(1), 66–81.Google Scholar
  45. Young, A. (1998). The wasteland of the law, the worldless song of the rape victim. Melbourne University Law Review, 22, 442–465.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT)Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations