Procedural Justice and Psychological Effects of Criminal Proceedings: The Moderating Effect of Offense Type
- 914 Downloads
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.
KeywordsProcedural justice Victims Sexual assault Secondary victimization
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.
The data collection complies with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction effects. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1976). Rape trauma syndrome. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(9), 981–986.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Holmstrom, L. L., & Burgess, A. W. (1991). The victim of rape. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). Psychological testing: Principals and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Shapland, J., Duff, P., & Willmore, J. (1985). Victims in the criminal justice system. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
- 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
- Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Williams, J. E. (1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology, 9(1), 66–81.Google Scholar
- Young, A. (1998). The wasteland of the law, the worldless song of the rape victim. Melbourne University Law Review, 22, 442–465.Google Scholar