Table of Contents
Editorial/Uvodnik	.......................383
ARTICLES
Elmedin Muratbegović, Srdan Vujović, Adnan Fazlić
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy and Cooperation of Bosnian
Students with the Police	.......................387
Pavla Homolova
Trust in Criminal Justice and Compliance with the Law in Czech
Society: Testing the Normative Hypothesis on 1999 and 2011 Samples	.......................412
Gordana Buzarovska, Oliver Bachanovic, Gordan Kalajdziev, Aleksandra Gruevska Drakulevski, Boban Misoski, Bogdancho Gogov, Divna Ilic, Natasa Jovanova
Students' Views on the Police in the Republic of Macedonia	.......................435
Janina Czapska, Ewa Radomska, Daria Wójcik
Police Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Cooperation with the
Police: A Polish Perspective	.......................453
Gorazd Meško, Rok Hacin, Katja Eman
Trust in Police by Slovenian Law and Criminal Justice and Security Students .......................471
Rachel Swaner, Avi Brisman
Legal Cynicism among Civically-Engaged Youth	.......................492
Editorial
Editorial
Trust and Legitimacy in Policing and Criminal Justice
Dear readers, it is a great pleasure to introduce the latest special issue of the journal Criminal Justice and Security published in English and focused on trust and legitimacy in policing and criminal justice.
Due to constant changes in the democratic political system and the (legal) state, modern society is becoming increasingly attentive to problematic aspects of the modern paradigm of trust in formal social control institutions and in legitimacy of their operations. Trust in supervisory institutions, their actions and fairness in procedures, authority, integrity and coherence of values between citizens and social controllers, effectiveness and legitimacy of their operations, and the belief that these institutions are also required to act in the interest of the state and all citizens represent the normative aspects of empirical research in the field of modern criminology. This issue focuses mainly on the studies of trust and legitimacy in policing and judicial institutions. The number of empirical studies in the European area is slowly increasing, and the papers in this special issue represent an important contribution to the study of trust and legitimacy in the countries of Southeast Europe and beyond. Some papers in this special issue were prepared within the framework of the basic research project Legitimacy and legality of policing, criminal justice and execution of penal sanctions (J5-5548) that was launched in August 2013 at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor. The three-year national research project is funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. One of the project's aims is to discuss legitimacy, legality, and integrity of responding to crime and of enforcement of criminal sanctions in Slovenia, other European countries, and globally.
The present issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice and Security focuses on the issues of compliance with laws and lawful functioning of formal social control institutions and on the beliefs of people that law enforcement authorities are able and willing to carry out supervisory activities in accordance with the principles of democratic policing, while placing special emphasis on legality and legitimacy. The papers represent studies and discussions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Macedonia, Poland, Slovenia, and the United States of America, all addressing questions about legitimacy, legality, and integrity of policing in a democratic society. The findings indicate that legitimacy and trust in police are related to the level of democratization, for authority is most vividly reflected in contacts with uniformed police officers enforcing in practice the laws designed to control crime and disorder in society. Among other, the papers show that despite differences between individual countries, the variables including procedural justice, police efficiency, police authority, and legal cynicism have an impact on trust in police and, partly, on legitimacy, as well. Despite the different forms of development and implementation of police reforms in these countries, all police forces should strive to improve their efficiency, procedural justice, authoritativeness, and distributive justice.
We hope that you will find the papers interesting, instructive, and useful for the development of empirical research on trust and legitimacy in policing and criminal justice. However, it should be noted that different researchers use different concepts of trust and legitimacy. Tyler (1990), on the one hand, one of the first founders of the concept legitimacy, comprehends trust as the present and legitimacy as a variable consisting of trust and willingness to obey police and legal compliance, while Bottoms and Tankebe (2012), on the other, explain the willingness to obey police as a result of legitimacy (i.e., the conviction that the police act lawfully, fairly, and efficiently) and trust stemming from the positive experience. The latter is of outstanding importance for the understanding and interpretation of the results of studies on trust and legitimacy presented in the papers published in this special issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, as well as for the general social developments associated with public opinion on fairness, legitimacy, credibility, effectiveness, efficiency, and authority of formal social control agencies.
Gorazd Meško, Edmund F. McGarrell, Branko Ažman & Katja Eman
Guest Editors
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 101-152.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Uvodnik
Zaupanje in legitimnost policijske dejavnosti in kazenskega pravosodja
Spoštovane bralke in bralci, v veliko veselje nam je, da lahko predstavimo novo tematsko številko revije Varstvoslovje v angleškem jeziku. Tema te številke revije je zaupanje in legitimnost policijske dejavnosti in kazenskega pravosodja.
Sodobna družba se v luči nenehnih sprememb demokratičnega političnega sistema in (pravne) države sooča z vedno pogostejšim opozarjanjem na problematične plati moderne paradigme zaupanja v institucije formalnega družbenega nadzorstva in utemeljevanja legitimnosti njihovega delovanja. Zaupanje v nadzorstvene institucije, njihovo ravnanje in pravičnost v postopkih, avtoriteta, integriteta, skladnost vrednot med državljani in družbenimi nadzorovalci, učinkovitost in legitimnost njihovega delovanja ter prepričanje, da morajo ravno te institucije delovati v interesu države in vseh prebivalcev, predstavljajo normativne vidike empiričnega raziskovanja na področju sodobne kriminologije. Med temi v tej številki revije prevladuje preučevanje zaupanja in legitimnosti policijske dejavnosti in pravosodnih institucij. Število empiričnih študij v evropskem prostoru počasi narašča, zato prispevki pričujoče tematske številke predstavljajo pomemben prispevek k raziskovanju zaupanja in legitimnosti v državah Jugovzhodne Evrope in širše. Nekateri prispevki v tematski številki so del raziskovalnega dela v okviru temeljnega raziskovalnega projekta Legitimnost in zakonitost policijske dejavnosti, kazenskega pravosodja in izvrševanja kazenskih sankcij (J5-5548), ki od avgusta 2013 poteka na Fakulteti za varnostne vede Univerze v Mariboru. Triletni nacionalni raziskovalni projekt financira Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije. Eden izmed ciljev projekta je razprava o legitimnosti, zakonitosti in integriteti odzivanja na kriminaliteto in izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij v Sloveniji, drugih evropskih državah in širše.
Pričujoča številka revije Varstvoslovje se osredotoča na vprašanja spoštovanja zakonov in zakonitega delovanja institucij formalnega družbenega nadzorstva in prepričanj ljudi, da so organi pregona sposobni in voljni izvajati nadzorstvene dejavnosti v skladu z načeli demokratične policijske dejavnosti, pri čemer sta v ospredju zakonitost in legitimnost. Prispevki predstavljajo raziskave in razprave iz Bosne in Hercegovine, Češke, Makedonije, Poljske, Slovenije in Združenih držav Amerike. Vprašanja glede legitimnosti, zakonitosti in integritete policijske dejavnosti v demokratični družbi kot rdeča nit potekajo skozi prispevke. Ugotovitve kažejo, da sta legitimnost in zaupanje v policijo povezana s stopnjo demokratizacije držav, saj se oblast najvidneje odraža pri stikih z uniformiranimi policisti, ki v praksi izvršujejo zakone, ki so namenjeni obvladovanju kriminalitete in nereda v družbi. Iz prispevkov izhaja, da imajo, kljub razlikam med posameznimi državami, spremenljivke postopkovna pravičnost, učinkovitost policije, avtoritativnost policije in pravni cinizem vpliv na zaupanje v policijo in ponekod tudi na legitimnost. Kljub različnim smerem razvoja in vpeljave policijskih reform v obravnavanih državah bi si morale vse policijske sile prizadevati za izboljšanje lastne učinkovitosti, postopkovne pravičnosti, avtoritativnosti in distributivne pravičnosti.
Upamo, da bodo prispevki zanimivi, poučni in uporabni za razvoj empiričnega raziskovanja zaupanja in legitimnosti policijske dejavnosti in kazenskega pravodsodja. Pri tem velja opomniti, da sta zaupanje in legitimnost različno razumljena koncepta in da prihaja do razlik med svetovno znanimi raziskovalci. Tako Tyler (1990), kot eden prvih utemeljiteljev pojma legitimnosti, namreč zaupanje pojmuje kot sedanjost in legitimnost kot sestavljeno spremenljivko iz zaupanja in pripravljenosti ubogati policijo ter spoštovati zakone. Na drugi strani pa Bottoms in Tankebe (2012) razlagata, da je pripravljenost za podrejanje policiji rezultat legitimnosti, tj. prepričanja ljudi, da policisti delujejo zakonito, pravično in učinkovito, zaupanje pa naj bi bilo kot rezultat pozitivnih izkušenj. Slednje je izrednega pomena za razumevanje in interpretacijo rezultatov študij o zaupanju in legitimnosti, ki jih predstavljajo prispevki pričujoče tematske številke revije Varstvoslovje, kot tudi splošnega dogajanja v družbi, ki je povezano z javnim mnenjem o pravičnosti, zakonitosti, kredibilnosti, učinkovitosti, uspešnosti in avtoriteti organov formalnega družbenega nadzorstva.
Gorazd Meško, Edmund F. McGarrell, Branko Ažman in Katja Eman
Gostujoči uredniki
Bottoms, A. in Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 101-152.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy and Cooperation of Bosnian Students with the Police
VARSTVOSLOVJE, Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, year 16 no. 4 pp. 387-411
Elmedin Muratbegović, Srđan Vujović, Adnan Fazlić
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to highlight the factors that influence police legitimacy in students' eyes. More specifically, this study presents an empirical test and description of student attitudes based on prior experiences with the police and the criminal-justice system. This study aims at describing correlations between police legitimacy and the identified significant factors (procedural justice, compliance with the law, police effectiveness, moral credibility, personal morality, deterrence) which may determine legitimacy of the police. Furthermore, it is important to assess attitudes of students of the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo about their cooperation with the police. The ultimate purpose of this study is to test various research hypotheses derived from the process-based model of policing. The findings may be used as a basis for the future related research in Sarajevo or Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Design/Methods/Approach:
This study tests process-based model hypotheses using cross-sectional data from students of the Faculty of Law and Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, who successfully completed an online questionnaire (n = 583). In this empirical study, a survey was used as a method of data collection. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion) and statistical inference (factor analysis and correlation analyses).
Findings:
The study presents the findings of the survey conducted among the students of the Faculty of Law and Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The majority of the surveyed respondents revealed that trust in the police is determined by the perceived police reputation. That means that if the police work effectively, morally, and in compliance with the law, the level of trust in the police increases. Moreover, the findings have shown that the threat of sanctions/costs (formal and informal) plays a significant role in the story about trust in the police, as well as the relationship between procedural justice and trust in the police. On the other hand,
the analyses did not report significant correlations between police legitimacy and other factors such as cooperation with the police. Thus, demographic factors (gender and age), self-control and lifestyle do not play a significant role in terms of trust in the police, at least within this sample of college students.
Research Limitations/Implications:
The limitations of this study relate primarily to sampling. A convenience sample was used in this case, and although the online survey questionnaire was available to all students in the two faculties (N = 4014), a large number did not complete the survey, which can be considered as a research limitation. Considering that only 583 students successfully completed the online questionnaire, the response rate is 14.51%.
Practical Implications:
The results of this study have implications for police practices in Canton of Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Specifically, the findings can be considered as the indicators which can aid the police to improve their practice in Canton Sarajevo.
Originality/Value:
The study is important because studies of this kind are a rarity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it means that the results of this study could become the basis for such studies in the future. Furthermore, this study examines those factors that influence trust in the police among students of law, criminal justice, criminology and security studies in Sarajevo.
UDC: 343.2.01:351.74(497.5)
Keywords: police, legitimacy, trust, cooperation, legal compliance, students, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Postopkovna pravičnost, legitimnost policije in sodelovanje bosanskih študentov s policijo
Namen prispevka:
Namen študije je osvetliti dejavnike, ki vplivajo na zaupanje študentov v policijo v Sarajevu. Natančneje, pričujoča študija predstavlja empirični preizkus in opis odnosa študentov, ki temelji na preteklih izkušnjah s policijo in sistemom kazenskega pravosodja. Namen študije je ugotoviti, ali obstaja povezava med postopkovno pravičnostjo, legitimnostjo policije in sodelovanjem javnosti s policijo, kakor tudi preučiti, kaj vpliva na zaupanje v policijo med študenti Pravne fakultete in Fakultete za kriminalistiko, kriminologijo in varnostne vede Univerze v Sarajevu. Glavni namen študije je preveriti različne raziskovalne hipoteze, ki izhajajo iz postopkovnega modela policijske dejavnosti. Ugotovitve študije je možno uporabiti kot osnovo za prihodnje podobne raziskave v Sarajevu ter Bosni in Hercegovini.
Metode:
Študija testira hipoteze, ki izhajajo iz na postopkovnem modelu temelječe policijske dejavnosti. Pri tem uporablja presečne podatke študentov Pravne
fakultete in Fakultete za kriminalistiko, kriminologijo in varnostne vede Univerze v Sarajevu, ki so v celoti izpolnili spletni vprašalnik (n = 583). V pričujoči empirični raziskavi je bila kot metoda zbiranja podatkov uporabljena anketa. Podatke smo analizirali s pomočjo opisne statistike (mere srednjih vrednosti in razpršenosti) in statističnega sklepanja (faktorska analiza in analize korelacij).
Ugotovitve:
Članek predstavlja ugotovitve raziskave med študenti Pravne fakultete in Fakultete za kriminalistiko, kriminologijo in varnostne vede Univerze v Sarajevu v Bosni in Hercegovini. Večina respondentov je razkrila, da je zaupanje v policijo določeno z dojemanjem njenega ugleda. To pomeni, da če policija deluje učinkovito, moralno in v skladu z zakonom, se stopnja zaupanja v policijo povečuje. Ugotovitve so pokazale, da ima grožnja glede sankcij/stroškov (formalnih in neformalnih) pomembno vlogo v zgodbi o zaupanju v policijo, prav tako pa je pomemben tudi odnos med postopkovno pravičnostjo in zaupanjem v policijo. Po drugi strani pa analize niso pokazale pomembnih korelacij med legitimnostjo policije in drugimi spremenljivkami, kot je sodelovanje s policijo. Tako tudi demografski dejavniki (spol in starost), samonadzor in življenjski slog ne igrajo pomembne vloge glede zaupanja v policijo.
Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave:
Omejitve te študije se nanašajo predvsem na vzorčenje. Za namen pričujočega prispevka je bil uporabljen priložnostni vzorec. Čeprav je bila spletna anketa na voljo vsem študentom obeh fakultet (N = 4014), veliko študentov vprašalnika ni izpolnilo, kar lahko štejemo za omejitev raziskave. Glede na to, da je samo 583 študentov v celoti izpolnilo spletni vprašalnik, je stopnja odzivnosti 14,51 %.
Praktična uporabnost:
Rezultati raziskave imajo vpliv na policijsko prakso v kantonu Sarajevo ter Bosni in Hercegovini. Natančneje, ugotovitve je možno obravnavati kot kazalnike, ki lahko pomagajo policiji pri izboljšanju svoje prakse v kantonu Sarajevo.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
Raziskava je pomembna, saj so študije te vrste v Bosni in Hercegovini redkost, kar pomeni, da bi ti rezultati lahko postali podlaga za podobne raziskave v prihodnosti. Študija proučuje tudi tiste dejavnike, ki vplivajo na zaupanje v policijo med študenti prava, kazenskega pravosodja, kriminologije in varnostnih ved v Sarajevu.
UDK: 343.2.01:351.74(497.5)
Ključne besede: policija, legitimnost, zaupanje, sodelovanje, spoštovanje zakonov, študenti, Sarajevo, Bosna in Hercegovina
1 INTRODUCTION
The link between procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police has received significant scholarly attention in criminology and criminal justice. In this triangle, police legitimacy may be considered as a certain pathway for the police to elicit cooperation, obtain compliance, and increase satisfaction among the public. On the other hand, numerous studies have shown that the most effective promotion of legitimacy is based on procedural justice and public trust in the police (Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013). In the context of the relationship between police and citizens, trust is expected to promote their cooperation, so the trust of citizens in the police has been studied a great deal. In the sense of the afore-mentioned statements, the police will enjoy higher levels of legitimacy in the eyes of the public when citizens believe that the police are respectful, polite, and make fair decisions when dealing with community members (Reisig, Tankebe, & Meško, 2013). These theoretical assumptions have received empirical verification in a large number of studies (e.g. Cherney & Murphy, 2013; Flexon, Lurigio, & Greenleaf, 2009; Gau, 2014; Jackson, Huq, Bradford, & Tyler, 2013), but it should be noted that these studies are limited by various factors.
In previous studies, definitions of police legitimacy were linked to the concepts about the legitimacy of governments in general. Generally speaking, legitimacy is the right to rule and the recognition by the ruled of that right (Tyler & Jackson, 2013). In that sense, Gau (2014: 188) considered that "any agent or agency possessing coercive authority over some subordinate segment of society must devise a rationale that explains to these subordinates the reasons why it is necessary or right to submit to this authority". Also, legitimacy can be defined as "the right of legal authorities to exercise power, prescribe behaviour, and enforce laws" (Jackson et al., 2013: 2), or "the extent to which an individual states that he or she believes that the law (or legal agents) represents just, fair and valid basis of legal authority" (Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan, 2012: 417).
Legitimacy is primarily an issue of procedural justice (Tyler & Jackson, 2013) because judgments about procedural justice influence police legitimacy. These in turn shape compliance with the law. Gau (2014) states that the procedural model of police legitimacy maintains that police garner legitimacy through their efforts to make their relations with the community more positive and respectful. According to Mazerolle et al. (2013), procedural justice implies four essential components: (1) a dialogue that encourages citizen participation in the proceedings prior to an authority reaching a decision, (2) the citizen's perception of neutrality in decision making, (3) indicators that the authority demonstrates dignity and respect in contact with citizens, and (4) an awareness of trustworthy motives of authority. In accordance with this, Reisig et al. (2013) claim that public cooperation with the police is powerfully shaped by general perceptions that the police are legitimate. On the other side, the police need voluntary help from the public because it is essential to their efforts to reduce crime, as evident in the following statements:
• the majority of volume crimes are detected through the information provided by victims and witnesses (Jansson, 2005);
•	problem-solving is often most effective when the public is involved (Tuffin, Morris, & Poole, 2006); and
•	the public can provide extra resources to the police by volunteering to take on a variety of roles (Goldstein, 1990).
Considering that public cooperation is based on a model which involves costs and benefits, the police should provide desirable rewards for cooperation, such as high performance in solving crime, maintaining order, or addressing public concerns (Tyler & Jackson, 2013).
The present study represents an effort to examine correlations between procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police based on Bosnian students' attitudes toward the police. This article has two main aims: the first is a description of the data provided by the survey conducted among students of the Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies and Faculty of Law, University of Sarajevo, while the second is a scientific finding related to detecting the relationship between the factors derived from the theoretical framework. In this way, the paper will conclude with some foundations and recommendations for future research.
2 SOME PREVIOUS FINDINGS
In the last two decades, criminologists have been preoccupied with the idea that people obey the law because of their calculations about potential punishments and benefits and that these calculations are usually in their own self-interest (Klepper & Nagin, 1989; Reisig, Tankebe, & Meško, 2012; Sherman, 1990). In the context of the relationship between the police and citizens, trust is expected to promote their cooperation, so the trust of citizens in the police has been the object of a great deal of study. In that sense, police legitimacy has increasingly focused on normative considerations over the last two decades, and this can be considered as one of the most important developments in criminological research. In other words, some criminologists claim that compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities are primarily shaped by the general perception that legal authorities are legitimate. The name of this model is the process-based model of regulation or process-based model of policing. It implies that the variation in perceived police legitimacy is explained by procedural justice in terms of the manner in which police officers exercise their authority (Reisig et al., 2013; Tyler, 2003).
According to Bottoms (2002) and Hough, Jackson, and Bradford (2013), general compliance with authority is explained by four categories:
•	prudential or self-interested calculations about the potential costs and benefits of punishment, which take into account the risks and costs of punishment;
•	normative considerations about the 'rights and wrongs' of non-compliance;
•	the impact of obstructive strategies, such as locking up offenders to prevent their reoffending, and locking up the targets of criminal attention, literally or metaphorically; and
•	habit.
The first scientist to research antecedents and consequences of police legitimacy was Tom Tyler, who draws a distinction between instrumental and normative perspectives on the antecedents of police legitimacy (Tyler, 1990). According to Reisig et al. (2013: 151), "the instrumental perspective holds that the police are legitimate to the extent that they are effective in fighting crime and in preventing disorder". On the other hand, the normative perspective considers the importance of procedural justice. In that sense, procedural justice implies two dimensions: "quality of decision-making" and "quality of interpersonal treatment" (Reisig et al., 2013; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Decision-making quality primarily refers to the opportunity for people to present fully their case to the police, the neutrality of the police in the decision-making process, and the consistency of the police in applying the law (Paternoster, Bachman, Brame, & Sherman, 1997; Tyler, 2003). Interpersonal treatment quality concerns public perceptions that the police treat them with politeness and dignity and respect their human rights.
The existence of strong correlations between procedural justice and police legitimacy is confirmed by the research conducted by Jackson et al. (2013), who found that positive judgments about police legitimacy are associated with more negative views about the use of violence. In addition to those previously mentioned, numerous studies have been conducted in a great number of different countries, and these studies support the basic argument and show that legitimacy explains variations in compliance with the law (Jackson et al., 2012; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Jackson, 2013), as well as the willingness to defer to the decisions of police officers and judges (Tyler & Huo, 2002), to continue to accept decisions over time (Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes, & Woods, 2007), to cooperate with legal authorities (Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012; Tyler, Schulhofer, & Huq, 2010), and to believe that violence is an acceptable mean to achieve social control and social change (Tyler, Jackson, Huq, & Bradford, 2012).
Murphy (2009) claims that, in the context of policing, procedural justice has also been shown to be important for shaping citizens' views about police legitimacy, their satisfaction with the police, as well as in fostering cooperation with the police. In this study, Murphy examined the relative importance of procedural justice in the overall ratings of police satisfaction across two types of police-citizen encounters (citizen-initiated contacts and police-initiated contacts), and showed that procedural justice is most important in police-initiated contacts, while police performance is most important. Other research (Cherney & Murphy, 2013; Hinds & Murphy, 2007) indicates that procedural justice influences public cooperation with the police. The results of the research conducted by Cherney and Murphy (2013) show that perceptions about the legitimacy of the law and identification with Australian society matter a great deal when it comes to predicting cooperation in counter-terrorism. On the other hand, perceptions of police legitimacy matter most for predicting cooperation in general crime control activities.
In the United States of America, Reisig, Bratton, and Gerte (2007), using a sample of 432 adults from a nationwide telephone survey, determined that procedural justice judgments affect police legitimacy, which in turn influences
both cooperation with the police and compliance with the law. They found that if legitimacy was disaggregated, then trust in the police predicted both of the outcomes of interest.
Tankebe (2008) conducted a study of police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana, using data from a representative public survey in Accra (n = 374) and strived to fill gaps in criminological knowledge in this area. The results of this study show correlation between perceptions of police effectiveness and perceived police trustworthiness. Tankebe (2008) also found that the relationship is stronger if the police are also perceived to be procedurally fair. These results are significant because they show that building public trust in the police requires democratic reforms that simultaneously improve the capacity of the police to achieve both substantive effectiveness and procedural fairness.
A survey conducted by Ellison, Pino, and Shirlow (in press) focused on identifying the generative processes that influence perceptions of the police in the context of an inner-city neighbourhood in Northern Ireland. Contrary to other surveys, their analysis suggests that instrumental concerns about crime and illegal activity are more influential predictors of attitudes toward the police than expressive concerns with disorder and anti-social behaviour.
In this context, Kääriäinen and Sirén (2012) claim that the literature about police culture indicates that the police have a rather cynical approach to citizens. Empirical proof of this mainly comes from examining major cities in the United States and the United Kingdom. Considering this proof, Kääriäinen and Sirén (2012) conducted a study comparing the level of generalized trust among police officers and other respondents based on the cumulative materials gathered for the European Social Survey of 22 countries in 2002-2008. The primary findings of this study indicate correlations between generalized trust of those working in the police forces and generalized trust in society as a whole. In that sense, they found that if citizens generally trust each other, the police also trust the citizens. On the other hand, in countries with a low level of trust in general, the police are also cynical towards the citizens. Similar to this study, Jackson et al. (2011) outlined the conceptual roadmap for a current comparative analysis of trust in justice where the methodology included examining a 45-item module in Round 5 of the European Social Survey. The basis for this study was the social indicator approach to trust in justice. It recognizes that the police and criminal courts need public support and institutional legitimacy if they are to operate effectively and fairly.
When it comes to willingness to report crimes, Kääriäinen and Sirén (2011) found that trust in the police does not appear to increase the likelihood of people reporting crime. Instead, they found that the seriousness of crime and the relationship between victim and perpetrator have the most significant impact on the willingness to report crimes. In this sense, they pose a question: Does a high level of generalized trust reduce citizens' desire to rely on official control? Addressing this question, they examined the links between generalized trust and trust in the police, and their interactive effect on the willingness to report violent and property crimes. Kääriäinen (2007) also conducted a multilevel analysis dealing with trust in the police in 16 European countries. Assumptions in this
study were that general perception of corruption among public officials decreases public trust in the police, and that substantive investments in public order and safety institutions also decrease trust in the police. Kääriäinen (2007) concludes that corruption in government strongly explains the country-level variation in public trust towards the police.
In India, Vinod (2012) examined the impacts of community policing on public satisfaction and perception of the police. This study was conducted in the Indian state of Kerala and considered the Janamaitri community policing program. It indicated a strong impact of the program on different aspects of police-public relations, such as greater accessibility, better behaviour of the police, greater sense of security among the populace, and better perceptions of the police.
Jonathan-Zamir and Weisburd (2013) examined police performance and procedural justice as antecedents of police legitimacy in acute security threat situations and in "no threats" situations in Israel. They found that assessments of police performance did increase in importance for the public under threat, and procedural justice remained the primary antecedent of police legitimacy in both situations.
In the Western Balkan region, there have been other studies, one involving pencil-and-paper surveys that were administered to 683 individuals, 18 years of age and older, and enrolled in six high schools located in Maribor and Ljubljana, Slovenia. The purpose of this study, conducted by Reising et al. (2013), was to examine the effects of procedural justice judgments on the perceived police legitimacy. The findings indicate there is a strong correlation between procedural justice and police legitimacy, the latter influencing public cooperation. In other words, it shows that when the public cooperation scale is disaggregated, the effect of police legitimacy varies across different cooperation outcomes. Ultimately, the results reveal that:
•	procedural-justice judgments significantly shape individual perceptions of police legitimacy, and
•	perceived police legitimacy explains self-reported compliance with the law.
3 METHODS
The purpose of this research study is to collect information about students' experiences with the police and the criminal justice system and to examine factors that influence their trust of the police in Sarajevo. In other words, the effect of procedural justice judgments on perceived police legitimacy is empirically scrutinized. This study also has the intention to determine correlations between procedural police legitimacy and various legitimacy related variables, such as procedural justice, trust in police, police effectiveness, police authority, legal cynicism, legal compliance and public cooperation, as well as to examine what influences trust in the police among students of Faculty of Law and Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo. It is important to focus specifically on law and criminal justice and security studies students because the fact that a number of this students will work in the field of
law enforcement and criminal justice. However, the results are based on student opinions and are not representative of the entire population.
The research study "Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy and Public Cooperation with the Police among Bosnian Students" tests process-based model hypotheses using cross-sectional data from 583 students (aged 18 and above) attending two faculties within the University of Sarajevo (Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies and Faculty of Law), Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because of its similarity with the research studies conducted among students in some other countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Russia, etc.), the method applied here was very similar to that in the aforementioned research studies. The current study relies on an online student-survey questionnaire which was distributed via the official web sites of the two faculties during January-May, 2013.
This empirical study used a questionnaire (survey) as the method of data collection and was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Every study has its limitations, and the critical element in this study was sampling. Although the online survey questionnaire was available to all students of these two faculties (N = 4014), a large number of students did not complete the survey, and this can be considered as a research limitation. The number of students who answered the online questionnaire (n = 583) represents a response rate of 14.51%. In this sense, we used a convenience sample. It should be emphasized that a convenience sample consists of whatever subjects are readily available to the researcher and are appropriate in a variety of research situations. However, if we choose to examine respondents on the assumption that the included respondents provide a cross-section of different types, it can be said that the sample is representative. On the other hand, researchers must always be wary of potential threats to external validity every time they use a convenience sample. They have to be careful in the interpretation of their findings because convenience samples are prone to systematic biases precisely because they are convenient (Weisburd & Britt, 2007).
Overall, the surveyed students comprised three age groups: 18-24 (89.0%); 25-30 (7.6%); and 31 and older (3.4%), and the respondents were primarily female (64.0%). The mean age in years for all surveyed students was 22.5 years (SD = 3.8), and their major area of study was law (57.3%) and criminal justice and security (42.7%). In terms of years of study, the mean number was 2.7 years of study (SD = 1.1; range 1-7 years).
Participants were asked to respond to questions designed to capture their economic/financial status. In terms of this question, 9.4% of surveyed students reported that they have their own income, 69.3% answered that they get income from another source or person, 13.4% answered that they have combination of own income and income from another source/person and only 6.0% answered that they are grant-financed. Participants were also asked to provide information about their family's social status. On average, most participants ranked their family social status as "average" (79.9%), while other participants ranked their family social status as "far above average" (0.7%), "above average" (10.3%), "below average" (7.0%) and "far below average" (0.5%) (see Table 1).
Table 1: Sample characteristics
	Frequency	%
Age		
18-24	519	89.0
25-30	44	7.6
31 and more	20	3.4
Mean	22.5	
Std. Deviation	3.8	
Gender		
Male	210	36.0
Female	373	64.0
Major area of study		
Law	334	57.3
Criminal justice and security	249	42.7
Year of study		
First year	109	18.7
Second year	91	15.6
Third year	289	49.7
Fourth year	54	9.3
Master study (fifth year)	31	5.3
Doctoral study	8	1.4
Economic/financial status		
Own income	55	9.4
Income from another source or person	404	69.3
Combination of own income and income from another source/person	78	13.4
Grant	35	6.0
Missing	11	1.9
Family's social status		
Far above average	4	0.7
Above average	60	10.3
Average	466	79.9
Below average	41	7.0
Far below average	3	0.5
Missing	9	1.5
4 RESULTS 4.1 Variables
In this section of the article, the key findings will be presented. First, it is important to examine respondents' experiences with the criminal justice system and prior victimization. As can be seen in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, students were asked to describe which role they had in the official/formal communication/contact with the criminal justice system and how these institutions responded to them. They were also asked to describe if they had ever been a victim of a crime, which crime it was, and to describe the victimization they experienced.
The students answered that they had official contact with the criminal justice system as a hearsay witness (11.5%), as an eyewitness (19.9%), as a person who has committed a minor offence (25.4%), as a suspect of a crime (9.6%), as someone who reported a crime (23.8%) and as a victim of a crime (24.4%). In total, just under half of the respondents (47.3%) have prior experience with the criminal justice system. In terms of the way the criminal justice system institutions responded, 47.9% of students answered that they did not communicate with anyone personally; 9.3% of students answered that institution employees' behaviour/response was generally very professional; 29.5% answered that behaviour/response was mostly professional but thought they could have handled the matter a little better; 6.2% of students think that employees' behaviour/response was generally unprofessional; 5.3% have the opinion that behaviour/response was both unprofessional and rude; and 1.9% of students answered that employees' behaviour/response was generally cruel and accusatorial, without any provocation/reason (see Appendix 1).
In addition to the questions asked about their experiences with the criminal justice system, students were also asked about possible victimization. In that sense, 29.3% of students answered that they were a victim of a crime at some point in their lives. In terms of the type of crime, 74.8% of students answered that they were theft victims; 66.2% were break-in/burglary victims; 0.7% were rape/sexual assault victims; 0.5% were armed robbery victims; 10.3% were arson victims; 15.6% were assault victims; 15.3% were fraud victims, and 4.3% were victims of some other crime. Specifically, 13.9% of students indicated that victimization that they experienced was non-violent, while 11.5% of students answered that they experienced violent victimization. Further, students described the incident of being victimized as follows: 3.8% of students think that victimization was a bad experience, and they are still suffering at this point in time; 9.3% of students think that was a bad experience and that they are no longer suffering any ill effects; 8.9% think that was not so bad and that they are able to handle/cope quite well; and 9.4% think that victimization did not really impact them in any major way (see Appendix 2).
In the Table 2, we will show police legitimacy in the respondents' eyes. In this case, police legitimacy is a variable composed of four questions. Thus, students were asked to describe their attitudes about police legitimacy where they had to choose one answer with the above statements on a scale from 1 - never, 2 - rarely,
3 - occasionally, 4 - frequently. The level of internal consistency for this composite variable is acceptable (Cronbach's a = 0.67).
Table 2: Police legitimacy
Composite Variable	M	SD
Police legitimacy**	9.51	2.443
Questions***		
Do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree	2.56	0.74
Accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong	2.36	0.80
The police in my community are trustworthy	2.37	0.77
Proud of the police in community	2.23	0.80
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 4 = minimum to 16 = maximum
***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
Table 2 shows that the mean of the composite variable is close to 10, and if we consider that the minimum is 4 and maximum 16, we can conclude that students do not have a clear attitude toward the police legitimacy. If we consider their answers to the first two questions in this section, we can conclude that students mostly are not sure whether to do something that is contrary to their beliefs, if police ask it. Further, the answers to the other two questions suggest that they do not have complete confidence in the police. In addition, it is evident that there is a statistically significant difference in the opinions of the students who have had previous experiences with the criminal justice system and students who had not. Namely, students with previous experience rated police legitimacy lowest (t-test, p = 0.002).
Obviously, the variable Police legitimacy is a summated scale composed of two components /factors: a) obligation to obey the police, and b) trust in the police. It seems that considering these components as separate composite variables makes sense. Namely, we want to show correlations between mentioned variables and the factors which may determine legitimacy of the police. The composite variable Obligation to obey the police is composed of two questions. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the above statements on scale from 1 - strongly disagree, to 4 - strongly agree. Results are presented in Table 3. The level of internal consistency is good (Cronbach's a = 0.85).
Table 3: Obligation to obey the police
Composite Variable	M	SD
Obligation to obey the police**	4.92	1.440
Questions***		
You should do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree	2.56	0.74
You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong	2.36	0.80
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 2 = minimum to 8 = maximum
***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
The mean number of the composite variable presented in Table 3 is near 5, and with the minimum being 2 and the maximum 8, we can conclude that students' attitudes toward the obligation to obey the police are mostly neutral as was seen in the previous two cases. Students also indicated statistically significant differences
in their opinions toward the obligation to obey the police. In that sense, students who have had previous experiences with criminal justice system express much more disagreement (t-test, p = 0.001).
The second component of Police legitimacy is the variable Trust in the police, composed of two questions (Table 4). It is very important that students of criminal justice, security studies and law have a high level of trust in the police. Therefore, the variables which measure the level of students' trust in the police were analysed on a scale from: 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree. This scale possesses an acceptable level of internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.92).
Table 4: Trust in the police
Composite Variable	M	SD
Trust in the police**	4.59	1.5
Questions***		
The police in my community are trustworthy	2.37	0.77
I am proud of the police in this community	2.23	0.80
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 2 = minimum trust to 8 = maximum trust ***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
As it can be seen in Table 4, the mean of the composite variable is near 5 (Mode = 6) with standard deviation of 1.5. Obviously, students' trust in the police is not on a high level. We should also emphasize that there are not statistically significant differences between students who have had experiences with the criminal justice system and students who had not in terms of their trust in the police.
In Tables 5 to 12, the results shown identify the variables introduced in the theoretical remarks and previous research as the crucial factors which can determine police legitimacy. Operationally, the factors are composite variables built of certain questions from the instrument.1
Table 5 presents the results for the composite variable Perceived police's compliance with the law, composed of two questions. Participants were asked to rate legality of police work with the statements on a four-point scale where one indicates "strongly disagree" and four indicates "strongly agree". In this case the level of internal consistency is acceptable (Cronbach's a = 0.76).
Table 5: Perceived police's compliance with the law
Composite Variable	M	SD
Perceived police's compliance with the law**	4.46	1.422
Questions***		
The police always obey the law	2.20	0.77
When the police deal with people, they always behave according to the law	2.27	0.73
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 2 = minimum to 8 = maximum compliance with the law ***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
1 Choosing questions was depending of factor analysis. Namely, the analysis identified questions from instrument which compose one factor.
As can be seen in Table 5, students' opinions on the legality of police work were mostly neutral. This conclusion is supported by the mean number of the composite variable, which is near 5. In this sense, it can be also concluded that a slightly larger group of students rated legality of police work in a negative context. The t-test reports statistically significant differences between respondents with and without experience with criminal justice system (p = 0.002). Namely, respondents with such experience viewed police as less compliant with the law.
The next composite variable is Procedural justice and is composed of twelve questions pertaining to the level of agreement with the statements on a scale from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree. This scale possesses excellent level of internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.93). The results can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6: Procedural justice
Composite Variable	M	SD
Procedural justice**	28.30	6.395
Questions***		
The police treat citizens with respect	2.43	0.73
The police take time to listen to people	2.34	0.74
The police treat people fairly	2.39	0.71
The police respect citizens' rights	2.47	0.71
The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with	2.46	0.70
The police treat everyone with dignity	2.30	0.72
The police make decisions based on the facts	2.51	0.71
The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with	2.46	0.71
The police provide better services to wealthier citizens*	3.06	0.75
The police make decisions to handle problems fairly	2.44	0.71
The police don't often listen to all of the citizens involved before deciding what to do*	2.78	0.68
The police follow through on their decisions and promises they make	2.36	0.73
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation *Reverse scored
**Cumulative score from 12 = minimum to 48 = maximum ***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
The mean score of the composite variable (Table 6) is near 28, which means that respondents mostly rated low level of agreement with the above statements, except those statements which are reverse scored. Based on the results, we can conclude that students mostly disagree with the statement that the police are respectful and polite, and they think the police mostly make unfair decisions when dealing with citizens. Respondents with experience with the criminal justice system gave these responses more frequently than other respondents. The t-test reports a statistically significant difference between respondents with and without experience with the criminal justice system (p = 0.038).
Police effectiveness is the next composite variable, and is composed of two questions which refer to the students' perception of effectiveness of criminal
justice system. Also, in this case a four-point scale is used going from 1 - strongly disagree, to 4 - strongly agree (Cronbach's a = 0.83). Results are presented in Table 7.
Composite Variable	M	SD
Police effectiveness**	4.68	1.450
Questions***		
The police are doing well in controlling violent crime	2.30	0.78
The police are doing a good job preventing crime in my neighborhood	2.37	0.79
Table 7: Police
effectiveness
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 2 = minimum to 8 = maximum effectiveness ***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
As seen in Table 7, the mean number of the composite variable is near 5, which means that students tend to disagree that police are effective. But, if we consider each question separately, the conclusion is that a slightly larger group of students consider that police effectiveness is not at a desirable level.
Legal cynicism is one of the important composite variables, and is composed of five questions which can be seen in Table 8. Students were asked to rate the level of their agreement with the statements below. As expected, the scale has a good level of internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.81).
Composite Variable	M	SD
Legal cynicism**	12.11	3.235
Questions***		
Laws were made to be broken	2.07	0.91
It is okay to do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone	2.70	0.82
To make money, there are no right or wrong ways anymore, only easy ways and hard ways	2.51	0.89
Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself	2.33	0.84
Fighting between friends or within families is nobody else's business	2.50	0.83
Table 8:
Legal
cynicism
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 5 = minimum to 20 = maximum legal cynicism ***Response set ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree
From Table 8, it can be seen that a slightly larger group of students disagree with these statements; in other words, students mostly want to obey the law. These conclusions are supported by the mean number of the composite variable which is near 12. If we consider that the minimum is 5 and maximum 20, it can be concluded that students' opinions are quite divided as well.
Another important variable is Moral credibility that contains only one item - The law does a good job making sure that criminals get the punishment they deserve regardless of how much money they have (M = 2.65; SD = 0.90). The conclusion that can be derived from this is that students have significantly different attitudes regarding this statement, but it is observed that a slightly larger group of students are of the opinion that criminals do not get the punishment they deserve. In this
case, a four-point scale was used (1 - strongly disagree to 4 - strongly agree) for rating the level of agreement with the statement.
A four-point scale was also used for the composite variable Deterrence, but in case 1 was "very unlikely" and 4 was "very likely". The composite variable is composed of six questions where students were asked to choose one number beside each statement (Cronbach's a = 0.83).
Table 9: Deterrence
The results in Table 9 show that students' opinion is that the level of deterrence is not high. The mean number of the composite variable (near 15) indicates that opinions differ significantly, but if we consider each question separately, we note that there are some exceptions. In this sense, students mostly consider it unlikely that someone will be caught and punished if they illegally dispose of trash and litter. On the other hand, students mostly have the opinion that someone who broke traffic laws or stole a car is more likely to be caught and punished.
The next composite variable is Personal morality. It contains six questions, and a three-point scale was used (1 - not wrong, 2 - somewhat wrong and 3 - very wrong): respondents were asked to choose one number beside each statement to express their attitude about it. The level of internal consistency for personal morality is good (Cronbach's a = 0.86).
Table 10: Personal morality
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 6 = minimum to 18 = maximum personal morality ***Response set ranging from 1 - not guilty, 2 - little guilty, to 3 - very guilty
Composite Variable	M	SD
Deterrence**	14.49	3.732
Questions***		
How likely are you to be caught and punished if you ...		
... illegally disposed of trash and litter?	1.94	0.94
... made a lot of noise at night?	2.47	0.83
... broke traffic laws?	2.73	0.75
... bought something you thought might be stolen?	2.19	0.88
... to steal a car?	2.86	0.86
... used marijuana or some other drug?	2.31	0.92
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
**Cumulative score from 6 = minimum to 24 = maximum deterrence ***Response set ranging from 1 - very unlikely to 4 - very likely
Composite Variable	M	SD
Personal morality**	15.92	2.648
Questions***		
In your opinion, how wrong is it for someone to ...		
... illegally disposed of trash and litter?	2.53	0.63
... made a lot of noise at night?	2.45	0.62
... broke traffic laws?	2.83	0.46
... bought something you thought might be stolen?	2.51	0.67
... to steal a car?	2.92	0.39
... used marijuana or some other drug?	2.69	0.64
If we consider the mean number of the composite variable which is near 16, it can be concluded that students have shown a solid level of personal morality (see Table 10). For each particular question, the students indicate the highest level of personal morality with regard to a situation where someone steals a car, and the lowest level of personal morality pertains to the question regarding a situation when someone made a lot of noise at night.
Moral credibility of the police and criminal justice system is a five-item summarized scale (Cronbach's a = 0.70). Participants were asked to rate moral credibility of the police and criminal justice system with the statements on a four-point scale where 1 indicates, "minimum credibility" and 4 indicates "maximum credibility".
Table 11 Moral credibility
Composite Variable	M	SD
Moral credibility**	13.37	2.6
Questions***		
To make sure they get what they deserve, criminals should be punished according to the law	3.32	0.75
Lots of people I know think the law often punishes people who DO NOT deserve it*	2.77	0.70
The law does a good job making sure that criminals get the punishment they deserve regardless of how much money they have	2.65	0. 90
Most people in my community believe that the law punishes criminals the amount they deserve	2.31	0.82
Innocent people who are accused of crimes are always protected by the law	2.33	0.79
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation *Reverse scored
**Cumulative score from 5 = minimum to 20 = maximum personal morality ***Response set ranging from 1 - min credibility to 4 - max credibility
From the results in Table 11 it can be seen that the mean of the composite variable is near 13 (Mode = 15 for composite variable; Mode = 3 for each individual variable/question) with a standard deviation of 2.6. Generally, it is obvious that students do not have a clear attitude about moral credibility of the police and the criminal justice system. We should also emphasize the presence of statistically significant differences between the students who have had experiences with the criminal justice system and the students who had not (t-test, p = 0.020).
All of the mentioned variables can influence the respondents' cooperation with police. Thus, the last composite variable in this article is Cooperation with the police. This variable is comprised of five questions (see Table 12). As in the previous section, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the above statements on scale from 1 - strongly disagree, to 4 - strongly agree (Cronbach's a = 0.82).
Table 12: Cooperation with the police
Composite Variable	M	SD
Cooperation with the police**	16.35	3.15
Questions***		
Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?	3.09	0.87
If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?	3.30	0.83
Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this behaviour to the police?	3.10	0.95
How likely would you be to call the police if you saw someone break into a house or car?	3.63	0.64
How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed?	3.24	0.83
M - Mean, SD - Standard Deviation
** Cumulative score from 5 = minimum to 20 = maximum preparedness to cooperate *** Response set ranging from 1 - never to 4 - frequently
In this case, we can conclude that respondents mostly indicated a high level of agreement with the statements shown in Table 12, where it can be seen that the mean number of the composite variable is near 16. From these results we can also conclude that students are likely to report crimes as well as to cooperate with the police as a witness. The t-test did not show statistically significant differences between attitudes of students with and without experience with the criminal justice system.
4.2 Correlation Analysis
To get the basic information about the relationship between the identified factors and Police legitimacy, we conducted a correlation analysis. Surely, we should observe police legitimacy through two components: 1) Trust in the police and 2) Obligation to obey the police. Results are shown in Table 13.
Table 13: Correlations (Pearson's coefficient)
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Police legitimacy	1									
Obligation to obey the police	.82**	1								
Trust in the police	.84**	.37**	1							
Procedural justice	.71**	.38**	79**	1						
Compliance with the law	.65**	.38**	.69**	.73**	1					
Cooperation	-.04	-.09*	.02	.07	-.06	1				
Deterrence	.48**	.32**	.48**	.47**	.48**	.02	1			
Personal morality	.43**	29**	.42**	.38**	.42**	.11*	.62**	1		
Police effectiveness	.60**	.32**	.67**	.65**	.61**	-.03	.61**	.51**	1	
Moral credibility	.36**	29**	.41**	.44**	.48**	.11**	.49**	.50**	.56**	1
< 0. 05; **p < 0.01
Table 13 reports the correlations between the variables/factors which we used. It is possible to see that Trust in the police and Perceived police's compliance with the law represent a correlation coefficient (r = 0.69), which is significantly (p < 0.01) different from zero. In other words, the relationship existing between these variables is statistically significant. There is also a positive relationship between Trust in the police and Moral credibility (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) and Police effectiveness (r = 0.67, p < 0.01). It seems plausible that image (reputation) of the police determines trust in the police, and if the police work effectively, morally, and in compliance with the law, trust in the police will go up. Interestingly, that does not necessarily mean that citizens will cooperate with the police. Namely, the correlation between these variables and the Cooperation with the police does not exist, or there is a very low correlation. Similarly, there is a significant positive relationship between the aforementioned variables (Perceived police's compliance with the law, Moral credibility, Police effectiveness) and Obligation to obey the police (r = 0.38, p < 0.01; r = 0.29, p < 0.01; r = 0.32, p < 0.01), as the second part of the police legitimacy.
It seems that threat of sanctions/costs (formal and informal) plays a significant role regarding trust in the police. Thus, certainty of legal sanctions (Deterrence) and moral sanctions (Personal morality) significantly correlates with trust in the police (r = 0.48, p < 0.01; r = 0.42, p < 0.01) and also with the obligation to obey the police (r = 0.32, p < 0.01; r = 0.29, p < 0.01).
Finally, the factor procedural justice has a strong relationship with trust in the police (r = 0.79, p < 0.01), and the correlation between this factor and obligation to obey the police is statistically significant with moderate strength (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). The results of the correlation analyses did not show significant correlations between police legitimacy and other factors/variables we describe in the article. Thus, demographic factors (sex/gender and age) are not playing a significant role in shaping trust in police, likewise self-control or lifestyle. It is very important to understand that the variable Cooperation with police does not significantly correlate with any of factors. Figure 1 shows the correlation between trust in police and the obligation to obey the police, as parts of Police legitimacy, and identified factors.
Figure 1: Relationship between police legitimacy and identified factors
Strong relationship
-Moderate relationship
— — Weak relationship
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The first objective of this paper was to describe Police legitimacy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) through the eyes of students. We began by reviewing theoretical perspectives on this topic, and, by doing so, crucial factors have been identified and the relationships between them have been examined. In presenting the findings, we presented some descriptive statistics and noted that students are very cautious in assessing police legitimacy. To find the causes, we examined the variables Trust in police and Obligation to obey the police. According to Reisig et al. (2013), these are two crucial segments of police legitimacy.
Results show that trust in the police in our student population is not at a high level. In this context, trust is believing that the police have the right intentions and are competent to do what they are tasked to do (Hough et al., 2013). Therefore, students do not believe the police can be characterized in this manner: as a result, following their opinions, they will not accept an obligation to obey the police in all cases. That can be a significant problem if we consider the fact that the survey respondents were students of criminal justice, security studies, and law. On the other hand, it is very important to consider the doubt in the criminal justice system, precisely the doubt in functionaries' moral credibility. Robinson (1995) dedicates special attention to this factor. The results indicate that a significant part of students view the criminal justice system with less moral credibility. If we add the attitude about limited police effectiveness, we get a complete picture. Generally, through the students' eyes, the image of police in Sarajevo is negative, and the worst thing is their experience with criminal justice system. When compared to respondents without such experiences, they more frequently reported police violations of the law. These findings somewhat contradict the Tyler and Fagan (2008) study according to which experiencing procedural justice as a personal experience increases legitimacy. How each community perceives law enforcement depends on each police department. It is thus essential that police programs and tactics
be tailored to meet the specific needs of the neighbourhoods (Brown & Benedict, 2002). Namely, we should give the impression that the public and the police are on the same side. But how can we do that? According to Tyler and Fagan (2008), the police can generally enhance their legitimacy by using fair procedures.
The article examined beliefs of students about certainty of sanctions for some criminal offences. It seems that most respondents think that, as offenders, they will not be arrested and punished. That could be an indicator of police working effectively or not. On the other hand, most respondents have strong moral beliefs, and they blame offenders. Moral beliefs play a significant role in the decision-making processes about compliance with the law (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Paternoster, 2004). We should probably expect cooperation with the police and obey the police decisions from people with high level of moral beliefs.
In the eyes of students, the style the police use in their contact with citizens is not at a high level. In his works, Tyler dedicates some special attention to this factor (Hough at al., 2013), as it is usually significant in the considerations about police legitimacy because fair and legal treatment also demonstrates that the police are acting in the interests of the wider community.
On the other side, this article examined relationships between two linked parts of police legitimacy and thereto related factors, such as low self-control, lifestyle, procedural justice, cooperation with the police, perceived compliance by the police with the law, legal cynicism, deterrence, personal morality, police effectiveness, and moral credibility, many of which indicate a strong and moderate relationship with trust in the police. Obviously, low trust in the police reduces police legitimacy in the eyes of the public. If we consider the obligation to obey the police, the conclusion will be similar but not identical. The analyses show that trust in the police is a far more salient antecedent than the obligation to obey the police. Similar results have been noted by Reisig et al. (2013).
Some of the identified indicators do not show a significant relationship with Police legitimacy, but that does not mean that we should ignore them. Namely, we should note the aforementioned limitations of the research, and improve the methodology in future studies.
In the end, the results from this study should serve as an inspiration for the next phase of research and as indicators for better realization. Considered from the perspective of the social justification of this work, the results can be expected to contribute to better policing policy-making. It is important to note that the police cannot function without the support of the public, so they should strive to work in such ways that maximize public cooperation.
REFERENCES
Bottoms, A. (2002). Compliance and community penalties. In A. Bottoms, L. Gel-sthorpe, & S. Rex (Eds.), Community penalties: Change and challenges (pp. 87116). Cullompton: Willan. Brown, B., & Benetict, R. W. (2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police, Strategies and Managament, 25(3), 543-580.
Cherney, A., & Murphy, K. (2013). Policing terrorism with procedural justice: The role of police legitimacy and law legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 403-421. doi: 10.1177/0004865813485072
Ellison, G., Pino, N. W., & Shirlow, P. (in press). Assessing the determinants of public confidence in the police: A case study of a post-conflict community in Northern Ireland. Criminology and Criminal Justice. doi: 10.1177/1748895812462597
Flexon, J. L., Lurigio, A. J., & Greenleaf, R. G. (2009). Exploring the dimensions of trust in the police among Chicago juveniles. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 180-189.
Gau, J. M. (2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187-205.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27-42.
Hough, M., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2013). Legitimacy, trust and compliance: An empirical test of procedural justice theory using the European Social Survey. In J. Tankebe, & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 326-352). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2012). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon: Routledge.
Jackson, J., Huq, A. Z., Bradford, B., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the acceptability of violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 479-497. doi: 10.1037/a0033852
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051-1071.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S. R., Widdop, S., et al. (2011). Developing European indicators of trust in justice. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 267-285.
Jansson, K. (2005). Volume crime investigations: A review of the recent literature. London: Home Office.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3-32.
Kääriäinen, J. (2007). Trust in the police in 16 European countries: A multilevel analysis. European Journal of Criminology, 4(4), 409-435.
Kääriäinen, J., & Sirén, R. (2011). Trust in the police, generalized trust and reporting crime. European Journal of Criminology, 8(1), 65-81.
Kääriäinen, J., & Sirén, R. (2012). Do the police trust in citizens? European comparisons. European Journal of Criminology, 9(3), 276-289.
Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27(4), 721-746.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245-274.
Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 159-178.
Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2012). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(2), 397-440.
Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Brame, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effects of procedural justice on spousal assault. Law & Society Review, 31(1), 163-204.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gerte, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 1005-1028.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14(2), 147-164.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2013). Compliance with the law in Slovenia: The role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20(2), 259-276.
Robinson, P. H. (1995). Moral credibility and crime. Atlantic Monthly, 275, 72-78.
Sherman, L. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 12, 1-48.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513-547.
Tankebe, J. (2008). Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: An empirical appraisal. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 185-202.
Tuffin, R., Morris, J., & Poole, A. (2006). An evaluation of the national reassurance policing programme. London: Home Office.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30(1), 283-357.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375-400.
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 231-275.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell-Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In J. Tankebe, & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83-104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counter-terrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law & Society Review, 44(2), 365-402.
Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., Huq, A., & Bradford, B. (2012). Going outside the law: The role of the state in shaping attitudes to private acts of violence (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 372). Retrieved from http://chica-
gounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=public_ law_and_legal_theory Tyler, T. R., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. J. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553-586. Vinod, T. K. (2012). Impact of community policing on public satisfaction and perception of police findings from India. International Criminal Justice Review, 22(4), 397-415.
Weisburd, D., & Britt, C. (2007). Statistics in Criminal Justice (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.
Wright, B. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(2), 180-213.
About the Authors:
Elmedin Muratbegović, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. His research interest consists of crime control and prevention, criminological prognosis, spatial analysis of crime and fear of crime. E-mail: emuratbegovic@fknbih.edu
Srđan Vujović, M.A. in Criminology, is Teaching Assistant (volunteer) at the Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. His main research interests are in areas of corruption, youth and hate crimes. E-mail: srdjan.vujovic@yahoo.com
Adnan Fazlić, M.A. in Criminalistics, is Senior Assistant at the Faculty of Criminal Justice, Criminology and Security Studies, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. His main areas of interest are criminal investigation, criminal procedure, drug-related crimes and hate crimes. E-mail: adnanfazlic85@ gmail.com
Appendix 1
Descriptive analysis of experiences with criminal justice system (n = 583)
Variable	Frequency	%
Role in official contact with criminal justice system		
Hearsay witness	67	11.5
Eyewitness	116	19.9
Person who has committed a minor offence	148	25.4
Suspect of a crime	56	9.6
Someone who reported a crime	139	23.8
Victim of a crime	142	24.4
The way of response of criminal justice system institutions		
No personal communication	279	47.9
Very professional	54	9.3
Mostly professional	172	29.5
Unprofessional	36	6.2
Unprofessional and rude	31	5.3
Cruel and accusatorial	11	1.9
Appendix 2 Descriptive analysis of students' victimizations (n = 583)		
Variable	Frequency	%
Victim of a crime		
Yes	171	29.3
No	412	70.7
Type of a crime		
Theft	436	74.8
Break-in/burglary	386	66.2
Rape/sexual assault	4	0.7
Armed robbery	3	0.5
Arson	60	10.3
Assault	91	15.6
Fraud	89	15.3
Other crime	25	4.3
Type of experienced victimization		
Non-violent	81	13.9
Violent	67	11.5
Incident description		
Bad experience and still suffering	22	3.8
Bad experience and no longer suffering	54	9.3
Not so bad experience	52	8.9
No impact on respondent	55	9.4
Missing	399	68.4
VAnfmz Trust in Criminal Justice and
Justice and tecunty,	,	,
Compliance with the Law in Czech Society: Testing the Normative Hypothesis on 1999 and 2011 Samples1
Pavla Homolovà
Purpose:
Our study is aimed at examining normative and instrumental aspects of compliance with the law in Czech society, namely trust in the police and its perceived legitimacy, personal morality, and perceived risk of sanctions.
Design/Methods/Approach:
The study is rooted in normative theory of compliance and empirically verifies the model of compliance as suggested by Jackson et al. (2011b) within Czech context, assuming an important role of trust in procedural fairness of the police in shaping compliant behaviour. The analysis is based on structural equation modelling with use of two representative datasets (European Social Survey, 2010; Bezpečnostm rizika, 1999).
Findings:
Both datasets revealed low levels of trust and perceived legitimacy of the Czech police. Nevertheless, the analysis indicates trust in police procedural fairness to be - in contrast to the perceived risk of sanctions - a strong factor in predicting compliance. The obligation to obey the law, shaped mainly by trust in procedural fairness, and personal morality appear to be comparatively the most important predictors of legal compliance in the Czech Republic.
Research Limitations/Implications:
The model was not significant for the 1999 dataset, probably due to poor internal consistency of several constructs.
Practical Implications:
Fair and respectful approach of police can substantially fuel its legitimacy and subsequently legitimacy of laws as well.
Originality/Value:
The role of trust in police, its legitimacy, and legal compliance appears salient in the Czech society despite the post-communist context with low levels of trust in institutions.
1 The paper was first time published in the journal Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philosophica et Historica (issue 2/2012).
UDC: 343.2.01:351.74(437.3)
Keywords: criminal justice, procedural fairness, trust, legitimacy, legal compliance, Czech Republic
Zaupanje v kazensko pravosodje in spoštovanje zakonov v češki družbi: testiranje normativne hipoteze na vzorcih iz leta 1999 in 20112
Namen prispevka:
Namen naše študije je preučiti normativne in instrumentalne vidike spoštovanja zakonov v češki družbi, in sicer zaupanja v policijo in zaznave njene legitimnosti, osebne morale in tveganje glede sankcioniranja.
Metode:
Študija temelji na normativni teoriji spoštovanja zakonov in v češkem kontekstu empirično preverja model spoštovanja zakonov, kakršnega so predlagali Jackson in sodelavci (2011b). Pri tem študija predpostavlja, da ima zaupanje v postopkovno pravičnost pomembno vlogo pri oblikovanju skladnega vedenja. Analiza temelji na strukturni enačbi modeliranja z uporabo dveh reprezentativnih nizov podatkov (European Social Survey, 2010; Bezpečnostm rizika, 1999).
Ugotovitve:
Oba nabora podatkov sta razkrila nizko stopnjo zaupanja in zaznane legitimnosti češke policije. Kljub temu analiza kaže na določeno raven zaupanja v postopkovno pravičnost policije, ki je - v nasprotju z ugotovljenim tveganjem sankcioniranja - močan dejavnik pri napovedovanju skladnosti. Obveznost spoštovati zakone, na katero vpliva predvsem zaupanje v postopkovno pravičnost, in osebna morala sta se izkazali kot najpomembnejša prediktorja podrejanja zakonom v Češki republiki.
Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave:
Analiza baze iz leta 1999 ni pokazala na statistično pomembnost preučevanega modela zaradi nizke ravni notranje konsistentnosti več konstruktov.
Praktična uporabnost:
Pošten in spoštljiv odnos policije lahko bistveno oblikuje njeno legitimnost ter posledično legitimnost zakonov.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
Vloga zaupanja v policijo, njena legitimnost in spoštovanje zakonov sta se v češki družbi pokazala kot izstopajoča dejavnika kljub postkomunističnemu kontekstu, kjer je stopnja zaupanja v institucije nizka.
UDK: 343.2.01:351.74(437.3)
Ključne besede: kazensko pravosodje, postopkovna pravičnost, zaupanje, legitimnost, spoštovanje zakonov, Češka
2 Članek je bil prvič objavljen v reviji Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philosophica et Historica (št. 2/2012).
1 INTRODUCTION
The presented study was initiated by a simple question posed by American psychologist T. R. Tyler in the late 1980s and a subsequent answer that he gave in a couple of years later, based on a huge body of research in American context. The question was 'Why people obey the law?' (Tyler, 1990). It redirected the traditional criminological focus from the causes of crime to the causes of compliance or the consensual following of the laws. The given answer is a normative one, considering trust in criminal justice institutions as a significant factor of people's willingness to comply with the law (Tyler, 1990). That accords with the hypothesized nature of the power of institutions in Western societies. In the process of differentiation, institutions became experts whose specialized knowledge and practice cannot be easily controlled anymore (Giddens, 2010; Luhmann, 1973). Thus, it can be assumed that trust of people in postmodern institutions represents an important source of their legitimacy (which is a significant source of compliance with the law). However, there are differences likely to exist in the salience of the effect of trust on compliance depending on the social context.
Our research regards potential normative and instrumental aspects of people's compliance with the law3 in Czech society. Its aim was to empirically verify the model of supposed predictors of compliance proposed by Jackson, Pooler, Hohl, Kuha, Bradford, and Hough (2011b) within the Eurojustis project.4 The structural model inspired by the theory and research on compliance by Tyler (1990) examines effects of personal morality, perceived risk of punishment for crossing the law, and particularly trust in the police and criminal courts, their perceived legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the law in relation to compliance. The subsequent aim of our study was to gain a brief insight in dynamics of the observed relations within Czech society. We used two representative datasets stemming from two research studies on trust in criminal justice in the Czech Republic: European Social Survey 2010,5 Round 5 and Bezpečnostni rizika 1999.6 The quantitative analysis was based on structural equation modelling in order to estimate the relative importance of normative and instrumental predictors in relation to compliant behaviour, which in our eyes can be helpful in finding valuable guidelines making criminal policy in the Czech Republic.
3	The term is understood as one's submission to the external demands placed on him/her by an authority figure (Šikl, 1998). The emphasis is put on voluntariness and proactivity of such behavior, and thus the semantic distinction of compliance and obedience. Compliance should therefore be set apart from non-deviant and conform behavior in general.
4	Research project (2008-2011) funded under the European Commission's 7th Framework Programme for Research. See http://eurojustis.eu/for more information.
5	Czech data for ESS 2010, Round 5, were gathered during 2011.
6	Research project funded under the Ministry of the Interior in the Czech Republic: MVČR 19982000001: "The security risks - Concept, Data, Policy".
2 TYLER'S NORMATIVE THEORY OF COMPLIANCE
The theoretical basis of our research draws on the conclusions of studies on criminal behaviour and attitudes carried out by Tyler, an American social psychologist. His Chicago Study (1984-1985) has provided empirical support for the hypothesis of the dominant influence of normative factors in comparison to instrumental ones in relation to compliance with the law.7 The research results led Tyler to believe that people comply with the law not so much because they fear punishment as because they feel that legal authorities are legitimate and that their actions are generally fair (Tyler, 1990). According to Tyler's model, consensual following of the law and willingness to cooperate with the police and the courts may be strengthened primarily through people's experience with the authorities showing them a procedurally fair approach.8 When people are convinced that the police and the courts treat them with respect and that their behaviour during the process (apart from the potential outcomes) is neutral, they are willing to submit to the decisions of those institutions. They also are more satisfied with the decisions and perceive the institutions as authorized to enforce the law (Tyler, 2003, see Figure 1). The effect of perceived procedural fairness, seemingly present on a long-term scale, was found to be relatively stable across different social arrangements (valid for all types of social situations as defined by Deutsch, in both hierarchical and non-hierarchical layouts and in political, legal, managerial, interpersonal, family and educational contexts). No significant differences in the strength of the effect were found in respect to gender, age, ethnicity, education and income level (Tyler
6	Lind, 2001).
Figure 1: The assumed relations between police behaviour, trust in police procedural fairness and compliance with law
(Tyler in Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012: 122)
7	Upon which we can understand trust and legitimacy of an institution in general (especially when compared to fear of sanctions) or more precisely only trust in procedural fairness and perceived moral alignment with the institution.
8	The first systematic studies on procedural justice were carried out during the 1970s by Thibaut and Walker, when it became clear that distributive justice (fairness of the outcomes) does not always yield a decisive influence on satisfaction with interaction and its results, and hence nor for successful conflict resolution. In a series of in vitro experiments, the authors found that the perceived fairness of procedures has an impact on satisfaction with the outcome of a decision made by a third party and the willingness to accept that decision
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975).	_
Procedural elements
■	quality of decision-making
■	quality of treatment
Supportive	
values	
{legitimacy}	
Process-based judgments ■ procedural justice • motive-based trust
I/
General cooperation •compliance -cooperation •empowerment
Immediate		Long-term
decision	m	decision
acceptance		acceptance
Tyler interprets the effect of perceived procedural fairness mainly by referring to psychic phenomena. According to him, people consider the institutional procedural fairness to be a signal of their high social standing within the community, which strengthens their sense of group membership and thus their felt obligation to follow the rules of the group. Due to the heuristic function, fairness of procedures might be subjectively even more important than any potential gains out of the process (Tyler, 2006). Tyler, nevertheless, lists several factors that may affect the salience of the identified effect of perceived procedural fairness on compliance or selection of criteria used for assessment of procedural fairness. Among these, he specifically points out consensus within one's group, stressing that the larger the consensus, the stronger the effect of procedural fairness. He also highlights the effect of social categorization, attesting that the effect of procedural fairness is supposed to be weaker within one's outgroup (a group that is not part of one's identity). Similarly, the lesser is one's identification with an institution, the weaker the effect (Tyler & Lind, 2001). It has been found that the decision of authorities with low legitimacy is accepted rather with respect to favourability of the results of procedures than to the fairness of those procedures (Tyler & Lind, 2001). Brockner et al. (2001) pointed to the influence of cultural values - e.g. members of a society characterized with "low distance from power" (a society without extreme differences in power distribution) take fairness of procedures into account more than members of a society with "high distance from power" (a society with strong hierarchy depending on differences in power allocation).
In our opinion, the above-stated findings suggest the need to examine the strength of the found impact of interactionally built trust in police (and especially trust in its fair procedures) on compliance in other cultural contexts.
3 INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY IN CZECH CONTEXT
Institutional legitimacy represents a multidimensional construct. In our study, we define it in accordance with Jackson, Bradford, Hough, Myhill, Quinton, and Tyler (2012) as a moral alignment with the institution, obligation to obey the institution and legality of the institution.
Theorists of legitimacy usually believe that the concept entails normative as well as instrumental aspects (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Fagan, 2008). There might be differences in the relative importance of legitimacy components depending on the social and political context (Sherman, 2002; Smith, 2007). Inglehart and Welzel (2005) found that in post-communist countries, the perceived legitimacy of the regime might be based more on instrumental factors (its performance/ effectiveness) rather than stemming from faith in the values that it may embody. That could be called ex post evaluation of legitimacy (assessment of actual performance of the system) as opposed to ex ante legitimacy, which encompasses evaluation of the rules of governance (Linek, 2010). This should be reflected in the following analysis of Czech data: it can be expected that especially in the older dataset from 1999 the instrumental factors of trust and legitimacy will not be negligible as we expect that the long period of Communism lead into the
well-described state of "legal cynicism" (Rabušic & Mareš, 1996) and instrumental approach towards authorities in the society and mere 10 years of democracy could not be enough for creating a relationship based on trust in value principles to the new democratic authorities. Even within normative components of institutional legitimacy there might exist substantial differences. As Smith (2007) points out, the way of legitimization of institutions of criminal justice might be quite different across various societies and communities due to their various values.
The legitimacy of the institutions of criminal justice should be seen in a broader framework of the political culture. In this context, the particular impact of corruption, which is a long-term feature of Czech political culture,9 should be taken into account. There is evidence for considerable corruption in the Czech criminal justice system as well (Frič, 2001). According to the study by Grodeland (2007), despite reforms of Czech judiciary after 1989, there persist practices from the Communist period (e.g. using informal networks of contacts) in the Czech system of justice, inferring that no adequate transformation of social norms inside or outside the judicial system occurred. Data from ESS 2010 Round 5 show that conviction of the injustice of the police decisions is believed by approximately 40 percent of Czechs,10 which is the fourth highest proportion among all countries participating in ESS after Russia, Israel and Bulgaria (European Social Survey, 2010).
4 METHODS
The methodology of our study draws on the Eurojustis project (Hough, Jackson, Bradford, Myhill, & Quinton, 2010; Jackson et al., 2011b). The project was aimed at constructing a valid research tool that would make it possible to test the impact of trust on compliance within the European context and compare the strength of factors influencing people's willingness to obey the laws across European countries. This could subsequently help with identifying guidelines for making penal policy at the European Union level as well as identifying evaluative criteria for measuring its effectiveness (Hough et al., 2010). Based on a study of a representative sample of the population of England and Wales in 2010, Hough et al. (2010) suggested a structural model of predictors of compliance, incorporating relations between trust in the police and the courts, their perceived legitimacy, compliance with the law and cooperation with criminal justice institutions (see Figure 2). The Eurojustis team also proposed a set of questions covering the topic, which was included in the European Social Survey 2011, Round 5 (D module). That makes it possible to verify not only the general impact of trust on compliance but also the Tyler's assumption of procedural fairness effect in 26 European countries,
9	According to the international corruption index CPI based on the evaluation of independent institutions corruption in the Czech Republic in 2011 was comparable to the situation in 2001 (after a slight improvement in the years 2006-2009), the Czech Republic received 4.4 points out of 10, where 10 being the best condition. In the ranking of other evaluated countries (in 2011 there were 183 of them) the Czech Republic holds the 57th-59th place together with Namibia and Saudi Arabia (Transparency International, 2011).
10	A proportion of "never" and "not very often" answers the question, "How often do you think that the police make impartial decisions?"
including the Czech Republic. Czech ESS 2010, Round 5 sample served as the main data source in our study. The other sample used in the study comes from the Bezpečnostni rizika survey taken in 1999. Data were analysed with the use of structural equation modelling.11
In order to compare the data from 2011 and 1999, we attempted to construct similar scales out of items used in 1999 research, though it applied a different questionnaire. For this reason, it was not possible to create fully compatible constructs or models. The analysis of the older data file concerns only the relation of trust in the police and its perceived legitimacy to compliance, operationalized with partly different sets of indicators than in 2011. Therefore, the comparative part of the research should be understood as highly approximative, employing the qualitative more than quantitative point of view.
Figure 2: Basic version of the tested model
(originated from the model by Hough et al., 2010)
4.1 Data Collection
For the purpose of the analysis, two representative datasets were used: a data file from European Social Survey, Round 5, collected from January to March 2011, and a data file from the Czech survey Bezpečnostni rizika, recorded in May 1999.
The data for ESS in the Czech Republic was gathered by the research agency Factum Invenio, s.r.o. which conducted standardized face-to-face interviews recorded by the papi method. Respondents aged 15 and over were selected through a stratified three-stage random sampling. A total of 2,387 valid questionnaires were obtained (a total return rate 70.16 percent). The administered questionnaire consisted of several thematic parts. The Trust in Justice module utilized in this study contains a total of 45 questions (module D - for the full questionnaire see http://ess.nsd.uib.no/ess/round5/).
The collection of the data in Security Risks research was conducted by the research agency Universitas throughout the Czech Republic. In the survey employing standardized interviews recorded by the papi method, respondents
11 All statistical procedures were performed using the trial version of IBM SPSS 20 (structural modeling in IBM SPSS Amos 20).
of age 15 and over were selected with quota sampling (by gender, age, highest education and economic activity). A total of 1,361 valid questionnaires were obtained (a total return rate 66 percent) (Burianek, 2001). The questionnaire consisted of questions on several topics. (For the English version of the items used in the scales of the tested model, see Appendix.)
4.2 The Structure of the Tested Model
The basic model (Figure 2) consists of five constructs: personal morality, the perceived risk of punishment for committing selected offences, trust in the police, the perceived legitimacy of the police, the perceived legitimacy of the law (felt obligation to follow the law) and compliance with the law. Compliance with the law and personal morality appear as manifest variables in the model, while perceived risk of punishment and trust and legitimacy constructs are treated as latent variables estimated by measured indicators. The model was tested separately for data on police in 2011 (1p) and 1999 (2p).
4.2.1	Constructs Based on the ESS Data
In the 2011 sample, trust in the police was derived from three indicators: trust in its effectiveness, procedural fairness12 and distributive fairness.13 Perceived legitimacy of the police was also derived from three indicators: felt obligation to obey the police, sense of shared values with the police and beliefs about its legality. Compliance was operationalized through non-compliant behaviour, based on self-reported frequency of committing insurance fraud, buying goods that might have been stolen and committing a traffic offence in the previous five years. The perceived risk of punishment was measured with questions on the perceived likelihood of apprehension in the event these offences were committed in the Czech Republic. Personal morality was measured with questions on assessment of the level of morality of each of those three acts.
4.2.2	Constructs Based on the 1999 Data
Trust in the police in the data file from 1999 was derived from trust in police effectiveness (questions 44a, 45c, 45f),14 its procedural fairness (44f, 45j) and its distributive fairness (44c) in accordance with the ESS theoretical model. The items quite overlap semantically with the ESS items; however, there are fewer of them. The perceived legitimacy of the police was estimated according to the perception of shared values with the police (44e) and its perceived legality (45m). None of the questions in the 1999 survey was suitable for operationalization
12	Procedural fairness was operationalized in accordance to Tyler's theory as respectful, neutral and transparent conduct on the part of police. It is aimed at fairness of the procedure, not at the fairness of the outcomes.
13	Distributive fairness was operationalized in accordance to Tyler's theory as beliefs that regardless of one's race or wealth, police grants for the same chance for fair outcomes of the procedure.
14	See Appendix for the 1999 questionnaire.
of the obligation to obey the police. The obligation to follow the law was compiled from the 55a and 55b items. Thus, there were several changes in the operationalization of legitimacy in comparison to the ESS model - the scale of police legality was lacking, and the number of items for the constructs was lower. The noncompliance scale was created as a summary index out of questions on self-reported probabilities of committing five selected offences by the respondent (traffic offence, environmentally unsound behaviour etc., items 56a-56e). These offences are different than those included in the ESS questionnaire. Moreover, the respondents were asked only about hypothetical committing (Imagine yourself as a car driver (no matter how real it is). Do you think you could become one of those who without much hesitation stop at "No stopping" sign in the city? etc.). The perceived risk of sanctions was estimated by asking the s about the likelihood of apprehension and punishment of perpetrators of selected offences (theft of a bicycle, a wallet or a car, 53a-53c). Compared to the ESS questionnaire, the selected offences differ from those enrolled in the scales of noncompliance and personal morality. The personal morality scale consists of items 57-6 (moral evaluation of undocumented employing), 57-13 (moral evaluation of purchasing goods that might have been stolen), and 57-14 (moral evaluation of taking bribes or service in return). The items were selected out of 10 items with the aim to choose relatively consistent ones that would also be compatible with the items used in ESS. The items have been estimated by Cronbach's coefficient of internal consistency of the scale. The coefficient of the final selection is 0.78.
4.3 Theoretical Basis for the Model Structure
The model comprises both instrumental and normative factors, which corresponds to the twofold conception of compliant respectively conform behaviour in criminology. On the one side, there is a cluster of instrumental theories holding the notion that people act with free will and seek utmost gain from their actions. That is ensured by rational calculation of expected costs and benefits of certain behaviour. Therefore, classically oriented criminal policy emphasizes the repressive strategy of deterrence and general and situational prevention, with the aim to increase the perceived risk of illegal actions. As a result, there is a growing demand on institutions of criminal justice in regard to its efficacy, coercive force, etc. (Hough et al., 2010).15 The strategy of crime fighting (crime-control model), however, is costly and can lead to the alienation of individuals from institutions. Normative theories of, on the other side, consider values as the key attribute in the interpretation of human motivation and action. Compliance with the law is then explained with reference to internal moral or ethical obligation to obey the law and follow the decisions of the institutions of criminal justice. That stems from the personal belief that such behaviour is right and responsible. The main assumption of theorists in this group is that the majority of the population follows the law if such behaviour embodies an internalized value for them, regardless of whether
15 In relation to that we consider trust in effectiveness, trust in distributive fairness, obligation to obey the police as rather instrumental in their core.
or not it brings explicit advantages.16 Thus, in comparison to the instrumental approaches emphasizing formal social control processes, the normative theories ascribe more importance to self-regulation.
5	HYPOTHESES
A. The proposed revised model of compliance with the law will be generally acceptable for Czech data and both normative (trust in procedural fairness, police legality, moral alignment with the police, personal morality) and instrumental (perceived risk of sanctions, trust in effectiveness, trust in distributive fairness, obligation to obey the police) factors will be significant in relation to compliance.
It can be assumed that the basic factors of compliance in the model as factors derived from the main types of motives of human agency, based on the hedonistic and value principles, cover the main potential aspects of compliance. Moreover, the power of the model to explain the differences in levels of compliance was empirically verified in many social contexts (Jackson et al., 2012; Schulhofer, Tyler,
6	Huq, 2011). Furthermore, given the observed benevolent morality of the Czechs, low trust in procedural fairness of the police and its low perceived legitimacy (European Social Survey, 2010), it can be expected that normative factors alone cannot explain the compliance with the law. In addition, instrumental factors (trust in effectiveness) have been identified as relevant to legitimize institutions within the cluster of post-communist societies (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005).
B. The effect of procedural fairness will be less salient in Czech data than in British pilot data and less salient in the 1999 Czech sample in comparison to the 2011 Czech ESS sample.
The current data obtained through ESS 2010 Round 5 point to the relatively low satisfaction of the Czechs with the work of the police compared to other participating countries as well as to lower overall confidence in these authorities. In 1999, trust in the police was even lower than in 2011 (Centrum pro vyzkum verejného minem [CVVM], 2012). In 1995 approximately one-third of the population showed signs of social frustration and of alienation from the institutions (Rabušic & Mareš, 1996). It is expected that in such a situation normative factors would be of less importance. Furthermore, given the assumption of a higher PDI index in the Czech Republic (Hofstede & Rose, 2001) (for countries with higher PDI, a weaker effect of procedural justice was detected (Brockner et al., 2001)) and the low legitimacy of the police in the Czech Republic (for institutions with low perceived legitimacy a weaker effect of procedural justice is assumed (Tyler & Lind, 2001)), we suggest that trust in procedural fairness will not bear more importance than other components of trust in the police for its perceived legitimacy and for compliance.
16 In relation to that we consider trust in procedural fairness, police legality and moral alignment with the police as rather normative in their core.
6 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
6.1 Internal Consistency of the Scales
For the results of internal reliability analysis of all the main scales of the model, assessed with Cronbach's alpha, see Table 1. Although most of the scales yielded satisfactory estimates, the analysis showed some shortcomings. The low internal consistency of some of the constructs is likely due to a small number of items used. Considering the functioning of the trust and legitimacy constructs in the model only as of their individual components (assuming rather loose reciprocal links (Jackson et al., 2011a)), their overall low internal consistency does not pose any serious problems. What could be more problematic is the low internal consistency of the compliance scale, the perceived legitimacy of the law, and the perceived legality of the police in 2011. The comparison of averages achieved at the subscales of compliance shows a relatively large difference in the frequency of committing. Traffic offences are committed relatively more frequently than insurance fraud or buying goods that might have been stolen. In this sense, the scale is not uniform, which leads to its low internal reliability. (Nevertheless, the items are at a similar level in terms of moral evaluation.) It would therefore be appropriate to extend the range of the compliance scale with more items. For further work with the compliance scale, weighted values were used.
Table 1: Internal consistency of the scales and subscales of the model (Cronbach's alpha)
		2011		1999	
Main scale	Subscale	N of items	a	N of items	a
Trust in the police		8	0.77	6	0.73
	Trust in police effectiveness	3	0.77	3	0.57
	Trust in police distributive fairness	2	0.62	1	x
	Trust in police procedural fairness	3	0.80	2	0.56
Perceived legitimacy of the police		8	0.77	2	0.56
	Obligation to obey the police	3	0.94	x	x
	Moral alignment with the police	3	0.85	1	x
	Perceived police legality	2	0.31	1	x
Perceived law legitimacy		2	0.31	2	0.46
Perceived risk of sanctions		3	0.82	3	0.72
Personal morality		3	0.79	3	0.78
Noncompliance		3	0.36	5	0.68
6.2 Attitudes of the Czechs Toward Police in 2011 and 1999
For distribution of the attitudes in both years see Tables 2 and 3. The most interesting find is probably the paradox between the moderately strong obligation to obey (the police, the law) and the relatively high noncompliance. According to the final report of ESS 2010 Round 5 (European Social Survey, 2010), the Czech position is beyond the general trend of the somewhat linear relationship between the obligation to obey and noncompliance (Jackson et al., 2011b). It seems that the commitment to obey the law may not be a significant predictor of compliant behaviour in the Czech environment. Czechs consider the police activities to be rather negative, with the exception of trust in effectiveness in 2011. There seems to be a stable low level of trust in procedural and distributive fairness of the police as well as low perceived moral alignment and their low perceived legality.17 Thus, we might expect that compliance will be positively affected rather by perceived risk of sanctions and trust in the effectiveness of the police, though the original assumptions make them comparatively less important (Jackson et al., 2012). The strongest predictor of compliance according to Jackson et al. should be personal morality. Czech society, however, seems rather benevolent in regard to morals, according to the data from both samples. The preliminary assessment of the data thus indicates that the proposed theoretical model for the Czech population may not be very functional, in that the included predictors would not explain the variance in compliance to a satisfactory extent.
D4-6. How likely is it that you would be caught and punished in the Czech Republic if you ...	Not at all likely	Not very likely	Likely	Very likely	Don't know
... made an exaggerated or false insurance claim	16.5	21	36.3	21.9	4.1
... bought something you thought might be stolen	19.7	33.7	27.7	14.3	4.4
... committed a traffic offence like speeding or crossing a red light	12.5	27.3	35.7	21	3.3
D1-3. How wrong do you consider these ways of behaving to be ...	Not wrong at all	A bit wrong	Wrong	Seriously wrong	Don't know
... make an exaggerated or false insurance claim	6.3	14.8	39	38.7	1.2
... buy something you thought might be stolen	5.6	19.7	41.2	31.8	1.6
... commit a traffic offence like speeding or crossing a red light	3.7	24.3	42.3	28.4	1.3
D43-46. How often have you done each of these things in the last five years?	Never	Once	Twice	3x-4x	5x and more
... made an exaggerated or false insurance claim	93.6	3.2	0.9	0.4	0.04
... bought something you thought might be stolen	81.3	8.5	2.8	1.2	0.4
... committed a traffic offence like speeding or crossing a red light	57.3	12.4	10.4	6.2	8.4
Table 2: Perceived risk of sanctions, personal morality and self-reported frequency of committing selected offences in the Czech sample in 2011 (in %)18
Source: European Social Survey (2010)
17	Though we cannot rely on comparing attitudes on single items in both years, because of the inconsistencies in measurement discussed in section 4.2.2.
18	The rest of 100 percent are missing values and responses "don't know" (if those are not stated in the table).
Table 3: Perceived risk of sanctions, personal morality and self-reported likelihood of potential committing selected offences in the Czech sample in 1999 (in %)
Q. 53 How likely is it in the Czech Rep. that the offender will be tracked down and surrendered to be punished for ...					Average likelihood in %	Don't know
... theft of a bicycle at the house where you live					22.5	0
... theft of a wallet on the street, in a shop					17.4	0
... theft of a car					22.7	0
Q. 57 How do you assess the following behavior ...	Not at all bad (9,10)	Not very bad (7,8)	Rather bad (5,6)	Bad (3,4)	Very bad (1,2)	Don't know
... undocumented employing (without paying for employees' insurance)	3.5	7.3	17.4	27.2	43.4	1.2
... buying an item that might have been stolen	6.5	13.9	27.7	24.4	25.6	2.0
... taking bribes or service in return	2.9	10.1	20.0	24.5	41.0	1.5
Q. 56 Imagine yourself as a driver (no matter how real it is) - do you think that you could became one of those who .	No	Rarely	Yes	x	x	Don't know
a. ... without much hesitation stop at "No stopping" sign in the city and go get something	45.8	43.6	10.3			0.3
b. ... exceed the speed limit wherever controls cannot be assumed	40.1	42.4	17.3			0.2
c. ... if caught after committing an offence, offer a bribe to the police officer for a "reasonable solution"	74.7	19.1	5.9			0.3
d. ... get rid of an old tire by leaving it at a pile of rubbish in their surroundings	80.2	15.9	3.5			0.3
e. . having damaged another car when parking nearby, they would try to disappear before the owner comes	69.0	23.9	6.8			0.3
Source: Bezpečnostm rizika, 1999
6.3 Correlation Analysis
Despite the revealed specifics in Czech attitudes toward the criminal justice system discussed in the previous chapter, the analysis of correlations between the constructs (see Tables 4 and 5), confirmed a number of theoretical assumptions. In particular, we observed a connection between trust in police procedural fairness and its perceived legitimacy and also a connection between personal morality and the obligation to obey the law to noncompliance. However, the correlation analysis
shows weak links of several components of police legitimacy to the obligation to obey the law and to noncompliance, which is contradicting the conclusions of Jackson et al. (2012). Remarkably, the correlation matrices for the data from both studied years are very similar, despite different indicators constituting the respective constructs in both samples. This could indicate achieving suitable conditions for the mutual comparison of the structural models in both years.
				s s	-		y		y
	ty	of		e rn	is ds	nt	e b		e b
	ral or 6	k is	e ic s ls О tv о. с	e ir O rt "li	e ne u С "о '5	ee 6 £ с о № ^	o to	ty M	o to 3
	al n o s er P	Perceive sanction	e in eiv st ct ue ru ff Te	■sš 1л <V 3 О H о,	•5 £ 'S з 2 £ н	3 Я 2 л о .-й S iS	Obligati the polic	le e ic ol P	Obligati the law
Noncompliance	-.326**	-.086"	-.105"	-.042	-.087""	-.107""	-.093""	-.009	-.215""
Personal morality	1.000	.278"	.192"	.131"	.119""	.203""	.132""	.067"	.276""
Perceived risk of sanctions		1.000	.123"	.073"	.071"	.073"	.116""	.021	.113""
Trust in police effectiveness			1.000	.520"	.315""	.479""	.182""	.273""	.153""
Trust in police procedural fairness				1.000	.411""	.552""	.215""	.351""	.173""
Trust in police distributive fairness					1.000	.360""	.115""	.237""	.149""
Moral alignment with the police						1.000	.315""	.232""	.240""
Obligation to obey the police							1.000	.058"	.185""
Police legality								1.000	.118""
Table 4: Correlations between scales of the model for the police (Czech datafile ESS 2010, n = 1198, Spearman correlation coefficient, bootstrapped values)
	ty ral or 6 al n so		of k is ds en .> о ш '.С cc	e ic s ls О щ ^ с e in eiv st ct	-ro prs J ё о -й • S 2 Is 3	-s is ds e e "о 'й pe •5 'S 3	nt e 6 "Č3 "о al p 2 JS	ty № le e ic	y e b o to 3 "ё is igla
	er P		Ps	ue ru ffe Te	ud H 8	3 -2 £	о .-й S iS	ol P	OJ О £
Noncompliance	-.420""	.009		-.023	-127""	-.143""	-.086""	-.046	-.207""
Personal morality	1.000	-.004		.016	.099""	.034	.055"	.073""	.247""
Perceived risk of sanctions		1.000		-.295""	-197""	-.160""	-279""	-.193»»	-.004
Trust in police effectiveness				1.000	.475""	.373""	.508""	.332""	.018
Trust in police procedural fairness					1.000	.385""	.567""	.316""	.106""
Trust in police distributive fairness						1.000	.441""	.267""	.052
Moral alignment with police							1.000	.389""	.062"
Police legality								1.000	.025
Table 5: Correlations between scales of the model for the police (Czech datafile Bezpečnostm rizika 1999, n = 1297, Spearman correlation coefficient, bootstrapped values)
6.4	Data Adjustment
Prior to the analysis several transformations were made in order to adjust the data to a form suitable for applying the structural modelling procedures. The data in "noncompliance" and "personal morality" variables were not evenly distributed (which is understandable if we consider the nature of the variables) and measured at four- and three-point scales. Therefore, the "personal morality" variable was dichotomized before entering the structural analysis. In the category labelled as "moral" (marked "1") 78.5 percent of the respondents were included; the "immoral" group (marked "0") counted as 21.5 percent of the respondents. In 1999, the "moral" group after dichotomizing was made up of 73.4 percent of the respondents while 24.2 percent of the respondents can be designated as the "immoral" group. The dichotomization of the variable "noncompliance" was not performed because structural analysis in AMOS software does not allow for the response variable of binary character. For model fit calculation and estimating the significance of the relations, a bootstrapping procedure that utilizes abnormally distributed data was used.
Overall, at 11.7 percent of the sample that included 280 people in the 2011 sample and at 4.7 percent involving 64 people in the 1999 sample, at least one answer was missing. In the analysis of missing values, there were no significant specific patterns found. For the purpose of structural modelling with applying bootstrapping procedures, the missing values in 2011were replaced by using the EM method, available in the Multiple Value Analysis in SPSS. Missing values in 1999 were replaced with the median of the two nearest values.
6.5	Structural Analysis
Model 1p: Trust in police and compliance in 2011
According to the value of the chi-square test, the model 1p (for the final 1p model of compliance see Figure 3 and for the complete list of significant standardized regression coefficients of the 1p model see Table 6) appeared not to be very suitable for the given data (the null hypothesis of concordance of the covariance matrices was rejected at the level of p lower than 0.005). A similar result was achieved with Bollen-Stine test (p lower than 0.005) used due to the uneven distribution of the data of the individual variables. Nevertheless, regarding a large sample size in which the statistical power of the chi-square test is strongly manifested, it is advisable to take into account other indicators of model quality, such as the relative x2, RMSEA, CFI and TLI measures (Urbanek, 2000). Those indicate relatively good quality of the model in this case (relative x2 = 4.81, the RMSEA index = 0.04, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95). Noncompliance was in 2011 sample directly predicted by personal morality (-0.15) and especially by legitimacy of law (-0.38). Trust in police procedural fairness proved to be an important factor in predicting noncompliance as well. However, it probably influences noncompliance indirectly: people believing in fair and respectful treatment of police perceive police and, consequently, the law as more legitimate. Thus they also do not cross the law. All other estimated dimensions of trust seem to be also partly contributing to the legitimacy of police
and the law, but the link is less strong and only with one dimension of police legitimacy: moral alignment with police (0.11 for trust in distributive fairness and 0.21 for trust in effectiveness). There was no evidence of a direct or indirect influence of perceived risk of sanctions and the perceived legality of the police on noncompliance with the law, which is consistent with the assumptions of Tyler and Lind (2001) and the pilot study of Jackson et al. (2012). According to the final model, it seems that beliefs about how police itself abides the law do not influence people's decision to violate the law much, nor do the beliefs about how risky it is to cross the law. The perceived legality of the police and the perceived risk of sanctions were therefore excluded from the final 1p model. Thus, obligation to follow the law (influenced mainly by trust in procedural fairness of the police) and personal morality seem to be comparatively the most important predictors of compliance with the law in Czech society in 2011.
Model 2p: Trust in police and compliance in 1999
The model 2p for data from 1999 (for the final 2p model of compliance see Figure 4 and for the complete list of significant standardized regression coefficients see Table 7) was not confirmed regarding the poor statistical fit (relative x2 = 882, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.73, TLI = 0.57), which means that the suggested predictors and their relations cannot much explain variance in noncompliance. Still, regarding the observed relations, we tend to think that the poor fit of the 1999 data in the model might be caused by the low internal consistency of several scales discussed in previous sections, rather than by an incomplete pattern of predictors.
As in the 2011 data, the perceived risk of sanctions and the perceived legality of the police were not significant in relation to noncompliance or any of its predictors. Personal morality and law legitimacy affect noncompliance most strongly (-0.26 for both links). We can observe somewhat stronger involvement of personal morality in comparison to the 2011 sample - regarding the direct and indirect links it seems to be the strongest predictor of noncompliance. On the other side, trust related constructs are connected to compliance only directly (without any influence on law legitimacy) and only loosely (trust in effectiveness -0.09, trust in procedural fairness -0.08 and trust in distributive fairness -0.14). Thus, a relatively lower importance of procedural fairness over distributive fairness was found in the data from 1999 compared to the data from 2011 and overall more importance of personal morality and lesser importance of quality of police treatment and its legitimacy. These findings would, nevertheless, need further examining considering the poor quality of the model.
Figure 3: Final model 1p of relations*
*Final model 1p of relations between trust in the police and noncompliance with the law, including the standardized regression coefficients (European Social Survey, 2010) relative x2 = 737, df = 156, p < 0.0005, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04
Table 6: Standardized regression coefficients in the final model 1p significant at 0.005 level (Czech data file ESS 2010, Round 5)
moral alignment with police	——	trust in police procedural fairness	0.480
obligation to obey police	——	trust in police procedural fairness	0.260
moral alignment with police	——	trust in police distributive fairness	0.114
moral alignment with police	——	trust in police effectiveness	0.213
moral alignment with police	——	age	0.084
moral alignment with police	——	personal morality (dichot.)	0.038
obligation to obey police	——	personal morality (dichot.)	0.074
obligation to obey the law	——	obligation to obey police	0.261
obligation to obey the law	——	moral alignment with police	0.369
obligation to obey the law	——	age	0.141
obligation to obey the law	——	gender	0.170
obligation to obey the law	——	personal morality (dichot.)	0.251
noncompliance	——	personal morality (dichot.)	-0.151
noncompliance	——	obligation to obey the law	-0.379
noncompliance	——	obligation to obey police	0.068
Figure 4: Final model 2p of relations*
*Final model 2p of relations between trust in the police and noncompliance with the law, including the standardized regression coefficients (Czech datafile Bezpečnostn rizika 1999) relative x2 = 882, df = 56, p < 0.0005, CFI = 0.73, TLI = 0.57, RMSEA = 0.10
noncompliance	——	trust in police procedural fairness	-0.083
noncompliance	——	trust in police distributive fairness	-0.145
noncompliance	——	trust in police effectiveness	-0.094
obligation to obey the law	——	personal morality (dichot.)	0.324
noncompliance	——	personal morality (dichot.)	-0.261
noncompliance	——	obligation to obey the law	-0.257
Table 7: Standardized regression coefficients*
*Standardized regression coefficients* in the final model 2p (Czech datafile Bezpečnostm rizika) significant at 0.005 level
6.6 Comparison of Czech Data to British Findings
In the Czech samples from both years, the observed direct effect of trust in police procedural fairness on the moral alignment with the police was weaker than in the England and Wales pilot study (Jackson et al., 2012), and at the same time there was a greater effect of trust in police distributive fairness in Czech samples. Furthermore, the effect of the obligation to obey the law on noncompliance seems to be of greater importance in the Czech than in the British context. In addition, it transmits the effect of personal morality (in both years) and the effect of sense of shared values with the police (in 2011), which in the UK sample affects noncompliance mainly directly, even as its most important predictor. The significance of obligation to obey the law corresponds with a relatively strong orientation of Czechs on following rules.19
19 This factor was identified in ESS 2010,5th Round (according to a comparison of countries on one item from the Schwark battery of value orientations, based on weighted values through Nesstar Web View, http:// nesstar.ess.nsd.uib.no/webview/).
7 DISCUSSION
The assumptions were confirmed only partially, which, however, should be viewed positively. The results of the analysis suggest a greater importance of procedural fairness and normative factors in general on compliance with the law in Czech society than was expected, especially with regard to the low perceived legitimacy of criminal justice institutions in Czech society. That might give the impression that the effect is fairly universal across different social contexts. However, with regard to the overall analysis results, we incline to accept the assumption that the effect of procedural fairness is indispensably influenced by the social context. A weaker direct effect of trust in police procedural fairness on moral alignment with the police and a greater effect of trust in police distributive justice were observed in the Czech samples from both years compared to the England and Wales pilot data. We also found a lower importance of procedural fairness in 1999 compared to 2011.
However, even if we accepted the model of compliance with the law regarding the police in the 2011 sample as it was designed by Jackson et al. (2012), it worked worse when tested on the data from 1999. There the factors of police perceived legitimacy had no significant effect on compliance. This inadequacy, however, could point to certain methodological shortcomings rather than to inappropriateness of the normative hypothesis itself. Specifically, there may be an inadequate or inaccurate coverage of several constructs, e.g. of perceived police legitimacy in 1999. The problems with legitimacy indicators correspond to the low internal consistency of those scales.
The main limit of this study in our view lies primarily in different operationalization of the constructs in the data from 1999 and 2011, which impedes drawing unambiguous conclusions from their comparison. Besides this, there is another deficiency that regards the operationalization of noncompliance with a rather narrow range of indicators. Apart from that, the under-representation of the items on police legitimacy in 1999 can be considered to be rather restraining.
Despite these facts, the analysis succeeded in bringing basic answers to the questions set out and provoked a number of inspiring ideas for further study of compliance with the law. It would be possible to follow up with a comparative analysis of the relations for various social groups and strata in Czech society. That could lead to a specification of the model of compliance with the law, strengthening its explanatory value within Czech context. For this purpose, it would be appropriate to elaborate the noncompliance scale and extend the perceived legitimacy scales. It might also be revealing to address the implied issue of the role of general attitudes in contrast to interactionally built trust in Czech context. We suppose that a general orientation toward abiding by the rules - an orientation that seems to be strong in Czech society - might play a significant role in the perception of the institutional legitimacy and in compliant behaviour, quite independently of their actual performance.
8 CONCLUSION
With regard to the results of the analysis, we incline to accept the assumption that in the Czech environment the procedural fairness effect on the perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system and on compliance with the law is valid. However, it is likely that its strength might vary according to the context. The effect seems to be weaker in 1999 than in 2011, probably largely due to the lower levels of trust in the police and its lower perceived legitimacy connected to a high level of perceived corruption within the criminal justice system. Despite the stated shortcomings of our work, we believe that the results make it possible to accept the assumption that normatively oriented criminal policy aimed at fair procedures of the police may substantially affect public trust in the police, its perceived legitimacy, and a long-term willingness to follow the law in the Czech Republic.
REFERENCES
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119-170.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300-315.
Burianek, J. (2001). Bezpečnostm rizika a jejich percepce českou verejnostì [The security risks and their perception in Czech society]. Sociologicky časopis, 37(1), 43-64.
Centrum pro vyzkum verejného minem [Public opinion research center]. (2012). Dùvera nekterym institucm verejného života - brezen 2012 [Trust in selected public institutions - March 2012]. Retrieved from http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/ upl/zpravy/101268s_ov120411a.pdf European Social Survey. (2010). ESS Round 5. Retrieved from http://www.europe-
ansocialsurvey.org/search?q=round+5 Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and criminal justice. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 123-145.
Frič, P. (2001). Korupce - deviantm chovam, nebo socialni dezorganizace? Pnpad české policie [Corruption - deviant behavior, or social disorganization? The case of Czech police]. Sociologicky časopis, 37(1), 65-72. Giddens, A. (2010). Dùsledky modernity [Consequences of modernity]. Praha: So-
ciologické nakladatelstvL Grodeland, A. B. (2007). Informality, legal institutions and social norms. In Transparency International Global corruption report 2007: Corruption in judicial systems (pp. 306-309). London: Pluto. Hofstede, G., & Rose, R. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30-62.
Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010). Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(3), 203-210.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, Ch. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy:
The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S. R., Widdop, S., et al. (2011). Developing European indicators of trust in justice. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 267-285. Jackson, J., Pooler, T., Hohl, K., Kuha, J., Bradford, B., & Hough, M. (2011). Trust in justice: Topline results from Round 5 of the European Social Survey (ESS top line results series 1). Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/ findings/ESS5_toplinesJssue_1_trustJn_justice.pdf Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051-1071. Linek, L. (2010). Zrazeni snu? struktura a dynamika postojü k politickému režimu a jeho institucm a jejich dùsledky [A betrayed dream? Structure and dynamics of attitudes towards the political regime and its institutions and their consequences]. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelstvL Luhmann, N. (1973). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität Komplexität [Trust: A mechanism for the reduction of social complexity] (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag. Rabušic, L., & Mareš, P. (1996). Je česka společnost anomicka? [Is Czech society
anomic?]. Sociologicky časopis, 32(2), 175-187. Schulhofer, S. J., Tyler, T. R., & Huq, A. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(2), 335-374. Retrieved from http://scholarlycom-mons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7392&context=jclc Sherman, L. W. (2002). Trust and confidence in criminal justice. National Institute of Justice Journal, 248, 22-31. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/189106-1.pdf?q=ideas-in-american-policing Smith, D. J. (2007). The foundations of legitimacy. In T. R. Tyler (Ed.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: International perspectives (pp. 30-60). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Šikl, R. (1998). Faktory ovlivnujici konformni jednàni [Factors of conform behavior].
Brno: Akademie ved České republiky, Psychologicky ustav. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates. Transparency International. (2011). Corruption perceptions index. Retrieved from
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 431-505). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, A. (2001). Procedural justice. In J. Sanders, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 65-92). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Urbanek, T. (2000). Strukturalni modelovàni v psychologii [Structural modeling in psychology]. Brno: Pavel Krepela.
About the Author:
Pavla Homolova, Ph.D. student of sociology at the Department of Sociology at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. She is also finishing psychology studies at the Department of Psychology, Charles University. Her research focuses on social deviance, institutional legitimacy and motives of justice. E-mail: homolova.pavla@centrum.cz
Appendix
"Bezpečnostm rizika" [Security Risks] Survey Questionnaire 1999 (selected items)
Trust in police procedural fairness
45. Try to assess the following police behaviour.
(1 = almost always, 2 = very often, 3 = from time to time, 4 = not very often, 5 = almost never)
45f. The police treat victims of crime seriously and help them. 45j. The police try to behave politely and decently.
Trust in police distributive fairness
44. I will now read several statements on police monitoring of obeying the laws in your municipality. State how much you agree or disagree with the statements. (1 = strongly agree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = do not know, 4 = somewhat disagree, 5 = strongly disagree)
44c. The police treat everyone the same, irrespective of who it is. Trust in police effectiveness
44a. I am satisfied with the way the police protect my residence neighbourhood.
45c. The police try to prevent crime.
45d. Help from the police is quick and accessible.
Police legitimacy: moral alignment with the police
44e. The police is a real "friend and assistant" to the citizens. Police legitimacy: police legality
45m. There often arose doubts about the trustworthiness and incorruptibility of the police.
Obligation to obey the law
55. Please state your personal opinion (agreement or disagreement) with the following statements.
(1 = totally agree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = totally disagree) 55a. People like me have to follow the law even if it does not correspond to their personal belief.
55b. For people like me there are only a few reasons for following the laws.
Perceived risk of sanctions
53. Yet we are interested in your ideas about the success of the police in fighting crime. Please try to estimate the likelihood that the offender will be tracked down and surrendered to be punished for the selected offences: (A rough estimate in percentage from 1 to 99%, meaning from the minimum to the maximum likelihood, is enough.)
a.	The theft of a bicycle at the house where you live
b.	The theft of a wallet on the street or in a shop
c.	The theft of a car
Personal morality
57. How do you assess the following behaviour? (1 = very bad ... 10 = not bad at all)
6. Undocumented employing (without paying for insurance of the employees)
13.	Buying something that might have been stolen
14.	Taking bribes or service in return
Noncompliance
And now try to imagine yourself as a car driver (no matter how real it is). Do you think you could become one of those who... (1 = yes, 2 = rarely, 3 = no)
a.	stop without much hesitation at a "No stopping" sign in the city and go get something
b.	exceed the speed limit wherever controls cannot be assumed
c.	offer a bribe to the police officer for a "reasonable solution" if caught after committing an offence
d.	get rid of an old tire by leaving it at a pile of other rubbish in their surroundings
e.	having damaged another car when parking nearby, they would try to disappear before the owner comes
Students' Views on the Police in the Republic of Macedonia
Gordana Buzarovska, Oliver Bachanovic, Gordan Kalajdziev, Aleksandra Gruevska Drakulevski, Boban Misoski, Bogdancho Gogov, Divna Ilic, Natasa Jovanova
Purpose:
Although the issues of police legitimacy and police trust are very important for creation of the general level of trust in governmental institutions, there is a lack of research on the topic in the Republic of Macedonia. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to understand the students' experience with the criminal-justice system and possible victimization.
Design/Methods/Approach:
The national survey using a structured questionnaire was conducted in the Republic of Macedonia in February 2013 with respondents from Faculty of Law and Faculty of Security. After the factors analysis was performed to verify the questionnaire, a correlation matrix was produced and two regression analyses were done to uncover the factors that significantly affect both trust and obligation to obey as aspects of legitimacy of the police.
Findings:
The findings point to the importance of procedural justice and police effectiveness for trust in the police, but only police effectiveness has a statistically significant effect on the obligation to obey.
Originality/Value:
This is one among the first papers in Macedonia that draws a conclusion based on opinions expressed by students of law and security studies. The implications of this research can be used to help the national police in drafting policies that should focus on improving effectiveness and procedural justice. Future studies should focus their attention on how to accomplish those important aspects of police work.
UDC: 351.74/76(497.7)
Keywords: police, police authority, police trust, police cooperation, legal compliance, criminal victimization
VARSTVOSLOVJE, Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, year 16 no. 4 pp. 435-452
Stališča študentov do policije v Republiki Makedoniji
Namen:
Čeprav so vprašanja o legitimnosti policije in zaupanja v policijo zelo pomembna za oblikovanje splošne ravni zaupanja v vladne institucije, v Republiki Makedoniji na to temo primanjkuje raziskav. Namen študije je oceniti izkušnje študentov s kazenskopravnim sistemom in morebitno viktimizacijo.
Metode:
Nacionalna raziskava, v kateri je bil uporabljen strukturiran vprašalnik, je bila februarja 2013 izvedena na Pravni fakulteti in Fakulteti za varnostne vede v Republiki Makedoniji. Po opravljeni faktorski analizi z namenom preverjanja veljavnosti vprašalnika je bila izdelana korelacijska matrika. Zatem sta bili izvedeni dve regresijski analizi z namenom identifikacije spremenljivk, ki pomembno vplivajo na obe dimenziji legitimnosti policije, in sicer na zaupanje in na dolžnost spoštovanja zakonov.
Ugotovitve:
Ugotovitve opozarjajo na pomen postopkovne pravičnosti in učinkovitosti policije za zaupanje v policijo. Toda le učinkovitost policije je imela statistično pomemben vpliv na dolžnost spoštovanja zakonov.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
To je ena izmed prvih študij v Makedoniji, ki temeljijo na mnenjih študentov prava in varnostnih ved. Rezultate je mogoče uporabiti kot pomoč nacionalni policiji pri pripravi politik, ki bi se morale osredotočiti na izboljšanje učinkovitosti policije in postopkovne pravičnosti. Prihodnje študije morajo svojo pozornost osredotočiti na načine za doseganje teh pomembnih vidikov policijskega dela.
UDK: 351.74/76(497.7)
Ključne besede: policija, avtoriteta policije, zaupanje v policijo, sodelovanje s policijo, spoštovanje zakonov, kriminalna viktimizacija
1 INTRODUCTION
The issue of police legitimacy is one of the most important ones when it comes to public perception of the police as one of the most visible governmental entities in a country. We can even go further and say that the perception of the police in most of the cases is a benchmark for citizens to evaluate the level of democracy in the state. For these reasons, police legitimacy in recent years has become a leading factor that determines the level of public trust and confidence in state institutions.
However, regardless of the importance of the police trust and police legitimacy for the creation of the general level of trust in the government institutions in the state, only a handful of research efforts have been conducted in the Republic of Macedonia. Needless to say, as a young democratic country, the Republic of Macedonia has just recently completed the process of transformation and transition, accepting the bedrocks of democratic societies, which is why we think
it is of utmost interest, particularly to Macedonian institutions, to conduct such surveys regarding trust in state institutions and to develop, above all, relevant studies measuring police legitimacy, as these would facilitate decision-making processes and, in particular, help police chiefs and officers carrying out specific actions aimed at enhancing the public's perceptions and general acceptance of and support to their everyday work.
What is interesting about this paper is that the conclusions related to police legitimacy have a certain added value, as they were drawn from the opinions elicited from students of law and security studies and reflect the fact that they are not uninformed people or the general public. On the contrary, they the aspiring active members of society who can contribute to enhancing police legitimacy or decreasing it through their future professional activities. Furthermore, it is important to have these so-to-say professionalized opinions on police legitimacy because most of the students are well-informed and trained in theoretical and positive legal aspects of the state's respect for and protection of human rights, organization, and function of legal, political and social systems. For these reasons, we can expect a higher threshold in the evaluation of police legitimacy by these respondents.
Another important fact giving additional credit to this paper is the fact that its empirical foundation stems in a broader study regarding the legitimacy of the police as provided by the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, the University of Maribor, Slovenia, allowing for the results regarding the police legitimacy in the Republic of Macedonia can be evaluated and monitored against other comparable results of the multinational study.
Nevertheless, the present study does not encourage the authors to harbour unrealistic expectations that a single study is sufficient and grounds enough to fill the gap in empirical and theoretical evaluation of police legitimacy in this region, or that it provides sufficient data for improvement of police legitimacy in the Republic of Macedonia. We also strongly believe that these research efforts are far from being comprehensive, and the number of already performed research activities in this region is lagging far behind the amount of research conducted so far, particularly in the USA (Kääriäinen, 2007). However, we hope these results can and do provide sufficient information which can serve as an effective tool to increase police legitimacy in the region, particularly in the Republic of Macedonia.
The article is composed of two main parts. One deals with police legitimacy on a theoretical level, while the second one brings a statistical analysis of the data gathered from the students in regard to police legitimacy and taken into account in generating several factors affecting police legitimacy. These factors can serve the decision-makers in taking additional steps towards improvement of police legitimacy in the Republic of Macedonia.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LEGITIMACY 2.1 Legitimacy in its Broadest Sense
In general, legitimacy can be defined as governance of political elites based upon the principles that are generally acceptable in one specific political community.
Having legitimate political power implies that individuals do not accept this political order because it is close to their moral habits or simply because it fulfils their individual interest, or even because they would fear that very same political power. It is quite the opposite, individuals accept certain political power and consider it legitimate due to the fact that they share the same beliefs justified and based upon the same and mutual system of values (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012).
Legitimacy of political power in contemporary European states is closely related to the ideas of natural law which are accepted as a basis for the European ethics and philosophy underpinning the mutual European legal tradition. The essence of the natural law is based upon the concept of human dignity and human ratio existing in every individual and determining that in our society the latter is the internal force behind progressive changes of the human species. This philosophical standpoint articulates that a person is subordinated to a reasonable sense of their ratio (as human nature) and their ability to control and humanize human nature, needs, and interests. Furthermore, the natural law theory notes that human communities are transformed into political ones through democratic means of reaching a mutual agreement and a contractual type of election of the sovereign (Bentham, 1998).
Legitimacy, therefore, denotes compliance by the majority of citizens with the existing legal order (lege in timus). Legitimacy of political power is a key issue raising immense interest in every society where the governing power is concentrated within a certain group of people and where political representatives enact laws in the name of the general electorate. On the other hand, absolute legitimacy is impossible, for when political power uses violence on the electorate, it denies common social values and becomes illegitimate. Professor Kambovski (1995) states that legitimacy is a value category which cannot be reduced only to mere general compliance with the laws, because compliance with and/or obeying of the laws by the citizens can be achieved through force or mass manipulation of the people. If legitimacy is not considered a value of political power, particularly as a value characterising the relations between the state and the citizens, this idea can be manipulated and considered an instrument of creating false support to political power, or a tool providing for strict obedience of the enacted laws. The most important elements in determining the essential meaning of legitimacy are citizens' rights and position in society, strict respect for the citizens' property, and nurturing of the civil society by the state. These are the only criteria that can be perceived as real limitations of legitimacy as a value (Kambovski, 1995).
Complexity of the modern state and dilemmas faced by the governing elites require a new evaluation of the instruments creating legitimacy of the political power. This leads to the requirement of additional consent from the citizens for the establishing of new and improved governing procedures. For these reasons, the basic policy type in modern societies is the one that implies a decision-making process aiming at reducing, to a minimum, every issue that could lead to abating or reducing capacity of the same political decision-making process (Tyler, 2006). Therefore, an effective political decision-making process is possible only if this process is unconstrained by the collective values and motives of the members of the political community. A political power cannot hold power unless it is
based upon an administrative adjustment of political structures and upon the political and administrative system apparatus. Procedural legitimacy is possible only if there are possibilities within the political system for the citizen to gain essential material goods, if there is a prevailing political communication, and if the sustainable support of the cultural subsystem is obvious. A precondition for a political system to be considered democratic is for procedural legitimacy of that system to be foreseen as universal, formalized, and specific. This means that the political system should provide an expression of the principles of the political community as a totality of the citizens' interests. The democratic state can achieve and maintain its legitimacy only if it re-establishes its legitimacy through consensual resolution of conflicts on a daily basis (Levi, Sacks, & Tyler, 2009).
2.2 Police Legitimacy
Research into procedural justice was first initiated in the mid 1970-ties. Thibaut and Walker (1978) were among the pioneers studying procedural outcomes and among the first theoreticians to have used the expression "procedural justice" (MacCoun, 2005) as a value of a criminal procedure system. They analysed the criminal procedure against the citizens' satisfaction level in two major legal systems: the US/UK adversarial criminal procedure and the continental/mixed or inquisitorial criminal procedure in continental Europe. Through interviews, they reached a conclusion that the adversarial criminal procedure has more advantages than the continental mixed/inquisitorial one. Thibaut and Walker (1978) see the reasons for this in the fact that during the adversarial trial the judge has a mediator role between the parties and establishes the terrain for fair "battle" between them, with the jury being the entity deciding about the actual guilt of the defendants. On the other hand, in the continental mixed criminal procedure, the role of the judge includes both functions, the one of the mediator and that of a person ruling on the defendant's guilt. This means that in the criminal trial in continental Europe the distributive justice and the procedural one are not clearly allocated either to the parties or the court. In their further research, Thibaut and Walker (1978) conclude that one of the factors impacting the deliberation of a just verdict by the criminal court rests upon the opportunity of the parties in a trial to have equal possibilities to explain their side of the story, which means that both parties should enjoy the benefit of equality of arms and legal rights during the criminal trial. Thibaut and Walker's (1978) work is important because they were among the first theoreticians addressing the issue of legitimacy of the criminal trial by comparing, on a general level, both types of criminal procedure. Furthermore, they have concluded that legitimacy of the criminal-justice system is evident through its ability to allow the parties, particularly the defendant, to exercise their right to open discussion of the facts in the court, on the one hand, and the right to freely challenge the other party's evidence through questioning it in an open court hearing (Thibaut & Walker, 1978), on the other.
During the 1960-ties, in the USA, increasing crime control was feasible through higher professionalization of the police. The police had been organizationally standardized on as a homogenous and autonomous structure
through the development of its independent position in regard to the political influence and effective distance from the communities which they served and protected. Legitimacy of the police had been identified through establishment of professional norms and provisions of conduct, through an army style of governing, and by creating a proactive model of conduct in those cases when police officers were called to help local community members. This model of professionalism of the police created a form of democratic legitimacy (independent of political influences) but undermined one other type of legitimacy, that based upon citizens' needs and desires. For these reasons, the police force began to be seen as elite service for crime control in the historical period when both in the USA and in the Western European states massive social disturbances occurred as a result of the civil sector's activism to end the war in Vietnam and to increase the liberty of the people while enhancing accountability of the governments. Through these social movements, civil activism became a facet or an eminent characteristic of liberal democratic regimes. Due to these social reactions, elitism of the police had an adverse effect on police legitimacy (Schulhofer, Tyler, & Huq, 2011).
Another status indicator of legitimacy is the level of fairness of communication among group leaders and group members. In one experiment conducted by Lind, Canfer, and Early in 1990 (in Van den Bos, & Van Prooijen, 2001), several respondents had an opportunity of being evaluated with regard to their participation in the group leader's decision-making process. The first group of respondents expressed their opinions before the group leader's decision was reached, the second group commented the group leader's decision after it was made, and the third group did not have the chance to express their opinion of the group leader's decision at all. The results from this experiment noted that group members consider it more rightful and fair to be able to express a personal opinion even after the decision is made than not to be able to express a personal opinion at all. Naturally, the most rightful scenario was the one where the individuals had the opportunity of expressing their opinion before the decision was made. However, even though the outcome from the scenario envisaging a possibility to express a personal opinion after the decision is made has the same effect as the scenario where the individual does not have the right to express their personal opinion (since either way the people cannot influence the decision-making process of the group leader), the possibility of expressing an opinion post festum was considered as more just and rightful, simply because it existed. The conclusions of this experiment have influenced the development of a group values model as a specific model referring to group authorities, which has also explained the importance of the procedural rights to the legitimacy issues.
Van den Bos (Van den Bos & Van Prooijen, 2001) confirmed that the influence of the information noted to the participants earlier has a greater value than the information served later, meaning that when evaluating police legitimacy and fairness, the respondents were keener on focusing on the information served first and often disregarded or forgot the subsequently communicated information (Klaming & Giesen, 2008).
Müller (2012) focuses on the issue of relevance of the procedural justice to conflict resolution. He evaluates the relation between procedural justice and
cooperative behaviour. He stated that in conflicts people do not make profit-driven decisions only but also consider their personal relations and future relations with other people. In this sense, fair treatment is an important tool for preventing any future conflicts and preventing current ones. This is the reason why in many social conflict situations the key question is how a fair and rightful negotiating procedure of a negotiator can help reduce the difficulties in the negotiation process. In this case, the author concludes, in order to have a successful conflict resolution through a negotiation process, the negotiator, essentially, must apply negotiating procedures based upon the procedural justice (Müller, 2012).
Police performance satisfaction is bound to several factors including the type of police communication with the community; the level of assistance and help provided by the police to the community; the quality of this assistance, and the police sincere commitment to resolution of community problems. It is understandable that a community is more satisfied when the police are successful in their performance, appropriately addressing the problems of the community members, resolving crimes, and successfully protecting the citizens' property. However, the citizens/members of the community also expect that, besides their efficient performance, the police should be particularly careful with the community members, be polite and fair, and provide enough time to explain its actions to the members of the community and address citizens' needs.
The simplest solution to trigger an increase in the police performance satisfaction is the establishment of a communication model with the citizens, based upon mutual respect and respect for the citizens' dignity. Throughout their performance, the police should demonstrate appropriate and fair conduct, but even more so be able to show the individuals that the police officers are concerned about their opinion, that they respect the individual as a person, and that individuals really matter to them. These ideas are essential to the understanding of the procedural justice model, particularly in the direct relations or contacts between police officers and community members. Establishing this type of communication when a person is informed of the reasons for the stopping of their vehicle, for example, provides an opportunity for the police to demonstrate that police officers follow the regulations and procedures and treat citizens with respect.
Some other research has shown sufficient arguments with regard to the influence of the police standpoint towards the readiness of the citizens to cooperate with police officers. This means that citizens are keener on cooperating with police officers if they express respect for their individual rights and if they demonstrate respect for them as persons. This means that they are more willing to report crime or appear and stand as eye witnesses during a trial if police officers demonstrate the abovementioned attitude and characteristics. According to Tyler (2003), the type of police communication and the general police attitude affects the citizens' readiness to obey the law even at times when the police officers are not present. He further states that the police can do much to increase their reputation in the community, and even if sometimes they cannot reach desired standards in crime control, police officers must always treat citizens fairly and respectfully. In personal contacts with the police, citizens expect to have an
opportunity to express their opinion and have a chance to explain the reasons that have led them to appear in a critical situation. They expect to face an impartial and neutral police that reaches its decisions objectively and police officers who treat them with respect and dignity, showing that they care for their wellbeing. The quality of the communication between the police and community members is very important for perception of police legitimacy. This conclusion has risen from the individual-level empirical data used from the interview data collected in connection with the European Social Survey (ESS) in September 2005 data across 16 countries among a population aged 15 and above (Kääriäinen, 2007). This survey confirmed the correlation between the police trust and the perception of police corruption. This means that the higher the perception about police corruption, the more police-trust and police-confidence levels are reduced, proportionally.
The reasons why surveys measuring citizens' attitude towards the police are important include their willingness level to participate in the initiatives for improving community safety, their readiness to cooperate with the police, and for measuring police legitimacy.
3 POLICE AND POLICING IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Having gained independency in 1991, the Republic of Macedonia as a transition society had to build effective and legitimate security systems without which there cannot be sustained development or any progress towards democracy. To reach this goal, every society must achieve a minimum level of social order, political stability, economic well-being, and a sense of human dignity. The police is one of the state agencies that can help create and sustain these conditions. Security is important to the development of democracy, and the police are important to the character of that security (Bayley, 2002).
At the same time, in order to meet the needs for education in human rights in policing training, a series of courses related to human rights and democratic policing were developed. The training curriculum is based on European policing and international human rights standards and covers a wide variety of skills required for policing in a democratic society.
Despite great public interest, the reform of the police did not receive any greater scientific interest. The only relevant research regarding policing has been conducted biannually by OSCE mission in Skopje since 2002. The results of these surveys show that the citizens evaluate the attitude of the police towards them negatively, and so do they evaluate police professionalism.
3.1 Survey on the Position of Students as Regards the Police in the Republic of Macedonia
3.1.1 Methods
This paper presents findings from a national survey that was conducted on students from the Faculty of Law - Skopje and students from the Faculty of
Security - Skopje, the Republic of Macedonia, in April and May 2013. The aim of the survey was to determine the factors that impact police legitimacy.
The survey was conducted by distributing a questionnaire for the students to fill in electronically. A non-random sample included 487 respondents, all students attending classes when the data was gathered. The total population of the students at the Faculty of Law roughly consisted of 2,700 students approximately equally distributed in five years of study (550 per year), while that at the Faculty of Security was estimated to 380 regular students (171 freshmen, 78 sophomores, 69 juniors, and 62 seniors. The sample consisted of more participants who attended the Faculty of Law (71.9%; n = 350) than the Faculty of Security (28.1%; n = 137). As to the year of studies, juniors dominate with 58.6% (n = 285); 23.7% are sophomores, (n = 115), and 10.9% of the respondents are freshmen (n = 53); 5.3% are seniors (n = 17), and only 1.4% are master-degree students (n = 7). The sample is dominated by female respondents, amounting to 68.3% (n = 332), with only 31.7% (154) represented by their male counterparts.
3.1.2 Measures
This study investigated the main factors that shape perceptions of police legitimacy or have an impact on public cooperation with the police in Macedonia. Police legitimacy was viewed as a two-dimensional concept consisting of 1) an obligation to obey, and 2) trust in police. On the other hand, cooperation with the police was conceptualized through procedural justice and police effectiveness.
In order to perform the necessary analyses and check the hypotheses, a factor analysis was conducted by way of 25 questions yielding six factors, only five of which were taken into account in further analysis (the sixth one not being significant enough): obligation to respect; trust in the police; procedural justice; police efficiency, and cooperation with the police (Table 1).
Table 1: Descriptive statistics
	n	Min	Max	M	SD
Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?	486	1	4	3.01	.951
If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?	485	1	4	3.15	.955
Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this behaviour to the police?	486	1	4	2.72	1.086
How likely would you be to call the police if you saw someone break into a house or car?	484	1	4	3.57	.748
How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed?	486	1	4	2.72	.965
You should do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree.	485	1	4	2.35	.966
You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong.	487	1	4	2.23	1.034
The police in my community are trustworthy.	487	1	4	2.48	.955
I am proud of the police in this community.	485	1	4	2.19	.939
The police are usually honest.	485	1	4	2.33	.917
People's basic rights are well protected by the police.	486	1	4	2.22	.878
The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community.	486	1	4	2.13	.838
The police treat citizens with respect.	485	1	4	2.17	.821
The police treat people fairly.	486	1	4	2.23	.792
The police respect citizens' rights.	484	1	4	2.29	.810
The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with.	485	1	4	2.22	.799
The police treat everyone with dignity.	485	1	4	2.18	.790
The police make decisions based on the facts.	483	1	4	2.34	.839
The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with.	485	1	4	2.32	.851
The police make decisions to handle problems fairly.	485	1	4	2.38	.844
Crime levels in my neighbourhood have changed for the better in the last year.	482	1	4	2.33	.882
There is not much crime in my neighbourhood.	481	1	4	2.50	.915
The police respond promptly to calls about crime.	481	1	4	2.40	.880
The police are doing a good job preventing crime in my neighbourhood.	480	1	4	2.44	.869
The police do a good job maintaining order in my neighbourhood.	480	1	4	2.49	.909
3.1.3	Police Legitimacy
The starting point in considering legitimacy is that it should be viewed as a two-dimensional concept consisting of obligation to obey and trust. The results of the factor analysis generated the third and the fifth factor: the obligation to obey (Л = 1.610) and trust (Л = 1.185). The obligation factor consists of two questions (items): "You should do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree" and "You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong", while the trust-in-the- police factor consists of three questions: "The police in my community are trustworthy", "I am proud of the police in this community", and "The police are usually honest".
Cooperation with the police refers to readiness and willingness of people to cooperate with the police and help its work. On the basis of the factor analysis, a second factor was generated, cooperation with the police (Л = 1.624). Five questions constructed this factor: "If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?", "How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed?", "Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?", "Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this behaviour to the police?", and "How likely would you be call the police if you saw someone break into a house or car?". The close-ended responses to these survey items ranged from 1 (very unlikely) to 4 (very likely).
3.1.4	Procedural Justice
Procedural justice concerns personal views on the manner in which the police treat people and is used as a variable derived from the factor analysis showing this factor being constructed of 10 statements (Л = 6.198): "The police respect citizens> rights", "The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with", "The police treat citizens with respect", "The police treat people fairly", "The police treat everyone with dignity", "The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community", "The police make decisions based on the facts", "People's basic rights are well protected by the police", "The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with", and "The police make decisions to handle problems fairly". The close-ended response set to these items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
3.1.5	Police Efficiency
In theory, police efficiency is often associated with police legitimacy and refers to the positions of the public regarding police performance in dealing with crime. The factor analysis has shown that five statements constructed the fifth factor (Л = 1.471), called police efficiency: "The police are doing a good job preventing crime in my neighbourhood", "The police do a good job maintaining order in my neighbourhood", "The police respond promptly to calls about crime", "Crime levels in my neighbourhood have changed for the better in the last year", and
"There is not much crime in my neighbourhood".
Two demographic variables are included in the analyses: gender (1 = female, 2 = male), and family social status ranging from 1 (far above the average) to 5 (far below the average). The year of studies was also included in the analyses, ranging from 1 (first year) - 5 (master), study field 1 (law) and 2 (criminal justice), and prior victimization 1 (yes) and 2 (no).
4 RESULTS
In order to verify the hypothesis existing in the literature on procedural justice and police legitimacy, we should first determine the factor loadings of the variables (derived from the factor analysis) (Table 2).
Table 2: Factor analysis
Structure Matrix						
	Factor					
	1	2	3	4	5	6
The police respect citizens' rights.	.721	.165		.420	.512	
The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with.	.701	.173		.403	.361	
The police treat citizens with respect.	.677			.337	.587	
The police treat people fairly.	.676	.170		.331	.484	
The police treat everyone with dignity.	.664			.341	.269	.127
The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community.	.656	.187	-.112	.326	.585	.244
The police make decisions based on the facts.	.564	.185		.318	.283	.196
People's basic rights are well protected by the police.	.547	.182		.334	.523	
The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with.	.537	.120		.250	.182	.345
The police make decisions to handle problems fairly.	.428			.252	.326	.314
If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?	.123	.722	-.114			-.146
How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed?	.129	.608				
Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?	.140	.558				
Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this behaviour to the police?		.498				.233
How likely would you be to call the police if you saw someone break into a house or car?		.490				
You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong.			.830			
You should do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree.	.117		.569		.232	
The police are doing a good job preventing crime in my neighbourhood.	.266			.610	.198	.168
The police do a good job maintaining order in my neighbourhood.	.353			.554	.179	
The police respond promptly to calls about crime.	.256			.541	.235	
Crime levels in my neighbourhood have changed for the better in the last year.	.382			.512	.340	
There is not much crime in my neighbourhood.	.138		.155	.490	.218	-.171
The police in my community are trustworthy.	.332		.122	.298	.669	
I am proud of the police in this community.	.375		.238	.363	.616	
The police are usually honest.	.322		.246	.318	.608	.151
Table 2: continuation
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring
The results of the correlation show that the positions of students on procedural justice are strongly associated with those on confidence in the police (as one of the dimensions by which legitimacy of the police is measured; r = 0.625) but not with the positions regarding the second dimension of legitimacy, i.e., obligation to obey (which was also proved in previous studies). This brings into question whether legitimacy can be measured by the obligation to obey the laws or does it require other parameters defining whether the police have legitimacy among the public.
Likewise, the correlation shows a strong connection between the respondents' positions regarding the effectiveness of the police and the confidence in this body (r = 0.508), though lacking a strong association with the obligation to obey (r = 0.146).
The results on the relationship of the two dimensions of legitimacy with the positions of students about willingness to cooperate with the police is interesting. They do not confirm the thesis that willingness to cooperate with the police is linked to the positions of students about legitimacy (trust and obligation to obey) and, perhaps, indicate that this population is ready to cooperate with the police, but their willingness might not be based only on the confidence they have in the
police but also on certain moral values they hold and are motivated by for such cooperation.
In order to determine which factors in inter/correlation as a model affect the legitimacy of the police, a regression is made separately for both dimensions.
The results from the regression made for the first dimension of police legitimacy show that procedural justice has the strongest influence on trust (these results are confirmed in the correlation, as well). They are in line with what has been previously confirmed in numerous studies, i.e., that police legitimacy is based on perceptions of procedural justice. In addition, efficiency of the police is closely related to the trust in the police. Other variables included in the model, such as Field of study and Year of study, have a statistically significant impact on confidence in the police (Table 3).
Table 3: Trust
Trust					
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	P
	B	SE	Beta		
(Constant)	(.436)	.255		(1.707)	.088
Field of study	.196	.081	.102	2.427	.016
Procedural justice	.458	.042	.482	10.797	.000
Police effectiveness	.211	.046	.203	4.624	.000
Economic-financial status	(.020)	.055	(.014)	(.368)	.713
Year of study	.096	.043	.087	2.216	.027
Gender	.121	.067	.066	1.801	.072
Prior victimization	.007	.082	.003	.082	.934
R2	.416				
Adjusted R2	.407				
From the regression made for the second dimension of legitimacy (Obligation to obey), one can notice that there is no statistically significant effect of procedural justice. These results can be explained in the same direction with the above-mentioned correlation (Table 4).
Obligation to obey the law					
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	P
	B	SE	Beta		
(Constant)	.151	.320		.472	.637
Field of study	(.548)	.101	(.281)	(5.408)	.000
Procedural justice	(.032)	.053	(.034)	(.611)	.541
Police effectiveness	.219	.057	.208	3.823	.000
Economic-financial status	(.044)	.069	(.029)	(.634)	.526
Year of study	(.030)	.054	(.027)	(.560)	.576
Gender	.053	.085	.028	.628	.530
Prior victimization	.051	.103	.023	.498	.619
R2	.104				
Adjusted R2	.090				
Table 4: Obligation to obey the law
5 DISCUSSION
The findings suggest the importance of understanding of the factors that shape public judgments about legitimacy of the police. In this study, two models of antecedents of legitimacy were contrasted: an instrumental performance model and a non-instrumental procedural justice model. A performance model of policing links public views about cooperation to their judgments about effectiveness of police performance in fighting crime. It suggests that in order to be viewed as legitimate, the police need to communicate with those in the community. Procedural justice was the potential normative base for the evaluation of legal authorities, suggesting that the public evaluates legal authorities primarily against criteria of procedural justice.
Drawing on psychological models of procedural justice, two dimensions were distinguished: judgments about the justice of the decision-making aspects of procedures, on the one hand, and judgments about the justice of the interpersonal treatment that people receive from the authorities, on the other. Justice involving the decision-making element in procedures links procedural justice to issues such as the degree of neutrality and the absence of personal bias or prejudice. Justice in interpersonal treatment links procedural justice to the respect for people's rights and dignity and to consideration of their needs and concerns. The relationship between the procedural justice of police policies and practices and public evaluations of legitimacy of the police was tested using regression analysis. Results of previous analyses indicated that public evaluations of justice of police decision-making and justice of the manner in which the police treat members of the public both shaped police legitimacy.
The results of our study suggest that in Macedonia the willingness to cooperate with the police is linked to the perceptions of students about legitimacy (trust and_
obligation to obey). The results stress that legitimacy of Macedonian police does not rest solely upon the two above-mentioned values. Even more, the results have shown that this population is ready to cooperate with the police. However, the willingness for cooperation may not be based only upon the confidence they have in the police but also on certain moral values they hold and are motivated by in such cooperation.
Some of the reasons for the perception of the police depicted trough this analysis could be attributed to several societal factors present in Macedonia. The first and maybe the most important factor is that the general public perceives Macedonian society as strongly influenced by the political parties. This perception is specifically characteristic of the police and the courts. This might be one of the reasons that students show lack of obligation to obey or to report crime, since they think that reporting crime will make no difference or that their criminals are "above" the law. This public opinion is particularly created through the media which, in most of the cases when reporting of the Governmental performance, are biased and politically incorrect. These conclusions may stem in the fact that most of the respondents in our study did not have any previous contact with the police and that they developed their perception of the police largely through the media. Another dimension might be that some of the respondents are identifying themselves with the police, since they are students at the Faculty of Security and they feel as a part of the police.
An additional factor that might influence the police perception is that the data gathering in Macedonia coincided with the ongoing local self-government elections campaign, meaning that during this period most of the students were under a strong influence of the political parties' election campaigns. This milieu may have resulted in a biased students' perception of legitimacy of the police, the most exposed part of a government in the eyes of the general population.
However, even if these societal factors may not be the most significant influence shaping the results of this study, and setting aside a particularly low interest of Macedonian students in the obligation to obey the police, this study should serve as a starting point for subsequent research in order to determine the specific factors influencing Macedonian students' attitudes in regard to police legitimacy, and the obligation to obey the police, in particular, as one of the key factors for police legitimacy in general.
Finally, we can conclude that these results, particularly those related to the obligation to obey, should be treated as extremely important, particularly by the Macedonian police, as they are a strong point of reference for every subsequent enhancement of the Macedonian police legitimacy as perceived by the citizens.
For these reasons, we consider that this analysis should only be the first indicator for the Macedonian police to take additional steps to improve the level of its legitimacy. Furthermore, it might also serve as an initial step to carry out additional research aimed at identifying and determining other factors that may influence legitimacy of the Macedonian police, drawing sufficient attention to addressing these factors. Namely, as widely suggested in policing-related theories, when people think that the police make decisions following fair procedures, they regard the police as a more legitimate institution, and when the police are regarded
as a more legitimate institution, people tend to respect their decisions more. These findings reinforce the argument that the police can best regulate public conduct by engaging prevalent social values such as legitimacy, which leads to higher self-regulation in most of the public.
REFERENCES
Bayley, D. H. (2002). Law enforcement and the rule of law: Is there a trade-off?
Criminology & Public Policy, 2(1), 133-154. Bentham, J. (1998). Anarchical fallacies: Being an examination of the Declaration of
Rights issued during the French Revolution. New York: University Press. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Criminology: Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119-170. Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354-375. Kääriäinen, J. T. (2007). Trust in the police in 16 European countries: A multilevel
analysis. European Journal of Criminology, 4(4), 409-435. Kambovski, V. (1995). Principle of legality, legitimacy and justice. In N. Matovski (Ed.), Zbornik vo chest na prof. Ljupcho Arnaudovski [Proceedings in honour of prof. Ljupcho Arnaudovski] (pp. 15-43). Skopje: Faculty of Law. Klaming, L., & Giesen, I. (2008). Access to justice: The quality of the procedure (TIS-CO Working paper series on civil law and conflict resolution systems, No. 002/2008). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1091105
MacCoun, R. J. (2005). Voice, control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of
procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 171-201. Müller, M. M. (2012). Justice as a framework for the solution of environmental conflicts. In E. Kals, & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 239-250). New York: Springer. Schulhofer, S. J., Tyler, T. R., & Huq, A. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101(2), 335-374. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66(3), 541-566.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 431-505). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. Van den Bos, K., & Van Prooijen, J. W. (2001). Referent cognitions theory: The role of closeness of reference points in the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 616-626.
About the Authors:
Gordana Buzarovska, Ph.D., Professor, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje.
Oliver Bachanovic, Ph.D., Professor, St. Kliment Ohridski University in Bitola, Faculty of Security in Skopje.
Gordan Kalajdziev, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje.
Aleksandra Gruevska Drakulevski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje.
Boban Misoski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje.
Bogdancho Gogov, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, St. Kliment Ohridski University in Bitola, Faculty of Security in Skopje.
Divna Ilic, Ph.D., teaching and research assistant, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje.
Natasa Jovanova, Ph.D., teaching and research assistant, St. Kliment Ohridski University in Bitola, Faculty of Security in Skopje.
Police Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Cooperation with the Police: A Polish Perspective
Janina Czapska, Ewa Radomska, Daria Wójcik
Purpose:
The paper presents the key findings of the research conducted in Poland in 2013 within the framework of the international project titled "Legitimacy Policing and Criminal Justice in Central and Eastern Europe". The main purpose of the study was to investigate whether and to what extent the process-based models of policing research hypotheses were supported in the Polish context. More specifically, the research examined influences of the main factors that shape the perception of police legitimacy and the impact of police legitimacy on public cooperation with the police.
Design/Methods/Approach:
The study uses data from a web-survey conducted among 506 students of law, security, and administration from 11 higher-education institutions in Poland. A series of correlation coefficients and regression models were used in order to examine the relations between all variables and test the research hypothesis derived from the process-based model of policing.
Findings:
The analyses showed that procedural fairness of the police has the largest impact on police legitimacy. Furthermore, the attitude towards procedural justice has the strongest influence on the students' trust in the police. Less equivocal are the connections between police legitimacy and cooperation with the police. Regression models proved only the influences of police effectiveness and an obligation to obey the law on the willingness to cooperate with the police.
Practical Implications:
The results of the study can offer recommendations for the Polish police, which may be a starting point for promoting fair and just practices, as well as for improving cooperation with the police and other law-related behaviour.
Originality/Value:
The current study extends prior research in two ways. First, the presented research significantly contributes to a growing body of literature that tests the process-based model of a policing hypothesis in research settings outside the United States of America. Second, this study may lead to the redefining of the concept of (police) legitimacy.
UDC: 343.2.01:351.74(438)
VARSTVOSLOVJE, Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, year 16 no. 4 pp. 453-470
Keywords: procedural justice, police legitimacy, cooperation with the police, process-based model, Poland
Legitimnost policije, postopkovna pravičnost in sodelovanje s policijo: poljska perspektiva
Namen prispevka:
Prispevek predstavlja ključne ugotovitve raziskave, opravljene na Poljskem v letu 2013 v okviru mednarodnega projekta z naslovom "Legitimnost policijske dejavnosti in kazenskega pravosodja v srednji in vzhodni Evropi". Glavni namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti, ali in v kolikšni meri so bile raziskovalne hipoteze o na procesu temelječem modelu policijske dejavnosti potrjene v poljskem kontekstu. Natančneje, raziskava je preučila vplive glavnih dejavnikov, ki oblikujejo dojemanje legitimnosti policije, in vpliv legitimnosti policije na sodelovanje javnosti s policijo.
Metode:
Študija uporablja podatke iz spletne ankete, izvedene med 506 študenti prava, varnostnih in administrativnih ved z 11 visokošolskih zavodov na Poljskem. Avtorji so uporabili niz koeficientov korelacije in regresijskih modelov, da bi preučili odnose med vsemi spremenljivkami in preverili raziskovalno hipotezo, ki izhaja iz modela na procesu temelječe policijske dejavnosti.
Ugotovitve:
Analize so pokazale, da ima postopkovna pravičnost policije največji vpliv na legitimnost policije. Poleg tega ima odnos do postopkovne pravičnosti najmočnejši vpliv na zaupanje študentov v policijo. Manj dvoumne so povezave med legitimnostjo policije in sodelovanjem s policijo. Regresijski modeli so pokazali le vpliv učinkovitosti policije in obveznosti spoštovati zakone na pripravljenost sodelovati s policijo.
Praktična uporabnost:
Rezultati študije lahko ponudijo priporočila poljski policiji, ki so lahko izhodišče za spodbujanje poštene in pravične prakse ter za izboljšanje sodelovanja s policijo in drugega s pravnimi normami povezanega vedenja.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
Sedanja študija podaljšuje predhodne raziskave na dva načina. Prvič, predstavljena raziskava pomembno prispeva k obsegu literature, ki testira hipoteze o na procesu temelječem modelu policijske dejavnosti v raziskovalnih okoljih zunaj Združenih držav Amerike. Drugič, ta študija lahko vodi do redefiniranja pojma legitimnosti policije.
UDK: 343.2.01:351.74(438)
Ključne besede: postopkovna pravičnost, legitimnost policije, sodelovanje s policijo, na procesu temelječ model, Poljska
1 INTRODUCTION
Issues related to the topic of police legitimacy and procedural justice have been the object of increasing interest in criminological research around the world for many years. Previous studies have shown that perceived police legitimacy plays a major role in the perception of law, acceptance of police decisions, and cooperation with the police in crime prevention. Studies have also shown that the perceived police legitimacy is significantly determined by the level of the abidance of procedural justice rules by the police during the application of the law (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
In this paper, the first empirical test of T. R. Tyler's process-based model in Poland is presented. The main purpose of this study was to verify whether and to what extent the process-based model research hypotheses are supported in the Polish context. The current study assesses two main hypotheses about (1) the influence of procedural justice on police legitimacy, and (2) the influence of the perceived police legitimacy on a willingness to cooperate with the police. To test these hypotheses a number of regression models were conducted using web-survey data from a university sample of 506 Polish students.
2 POLISH BACKGROUND
A review of Polish literature indicates that legitimacy has been a subject of interest to many academic fields. Among them, we can distinguish many theories of legitimacy which, in the simplest terms, can be divided into legalistic, normative and behavioural theories. However, none of them were applied to the legitimization of the police. It is even more surprising that the scope of Polish definitions of "legitimacy" is very broad. It covers not only the issues of authorities and the law, but also the problems of the political system and the entire social order (Swi^tkiewicz, 1993). This is partially related to a range of political, social, and cultural changes that the Polish society has been going through in recent years due to the system transformation which took place in Poland in the 1990s. They caused, inter alia, a need to focus on the deficiencies of legitimacy and the factors enabling the process of legitimation. Thereby, the issue of "quality" of legitimation remained on the margins of theoretical considerations. Another important feature specific to the Polish approach to legitimacy is the variety of definitions, with regard to the object of legitimation. In the case of the legitimacy of law, which is related to police legitimacy, attention is focused primarily on its justification, mainly by a reference to socially important systems of values (Skopska & Stelmach, 1988-1989). At the same time, with regard to legitimation of specific public institutions, the importance of trust as a basis for assessing these institutions is crucial (Rychard, 2010). Finally, in the context of the relationship between legitimation and procedural justice considered in this article, it is worth mentioning that procedural justice is very rarely described or discussed by Polish authors. The exceptions are the works by Borucka-Arctowa (1997, 1998) from the late 1990s on the role of procedural fairness in the application of law.
In Poland, a theoretical concept of police legitimacy has not yet been empirically verified, and the attitude of Poles towards the police may be assessed only based on the public opinion polls conducted by the Public Opinion Research Center. In a study that runs every six months, a representative sample of adult residents in Poland is asked about their views on trust in public institutions, and, according to its findings, the Polish police obtain relatively high ratings. For instance, in the study from September 2013, the police received 66% positive and 23% negative grades. In comparison, in the same study, the Sejm (the lower house of parliament) received 20% positive and 65% negative grades, while the Catholic Church 56% good and 32% bad opinions (Public Opinion Research Center, 2013). In the latest study, conducted in March 2014, 67% of Poles evaluated the activities of the police positively. Only the media and the country's president received better results than the police (Public Opinion Research Center, 2014).
3 THE PROCESS-BASED MODEL
The main concept of the process-based model of policing is police legitimacy. Undoubtedly, any discussion of legitimacy cannot start without a reference to M. Weber, who distinguished three forms of legitimate power (traditional, legal rational, charismatic) and asserted that, in the modern state, legality is the dominant ground for claims to legitimacy (Weber, 1978). Weber's works became subject to criticism. For example, Beetham (1991) argued that Weber (1978) placed an unnecessary emphasis on people's subjective beliefs. According to Beetham (1991), legitimacy should focus on the objective compatibility between legal validity of power and the manner in which that power is exercised, as well as the shared values of society. Despite criticism, the process-based model refers to citizens' subjective beliefs, it assumes that law-related behaviour and cooperation with legal authorities are mainly shaped by the perception that the legal authorities are legitimate, and a variation of perceived legitimacy is explained by fairness judgments in the process through which legal officials exercise their authority (Tyler, 1990, 2003). The level of the authorities' legitimacy is higher in the eyes of a public opinion when the latter believes that the authorities are respectful, polite, and make fair decisions when dealing with community residents (Reisig, Bratton, & Gerte, 2007).
Many studies in the USA have examined procedural justice, police legitimacy, and cooperation with the police, using the process-based model of policing. Sunshine and Tyler (2003) carried out a study in New York City in two time periods: before and after September 11th, 2001, and they observed that the residents' perceptions of police legitimacy were mostly based on procedural justice judgments, less on police activity in maintaining law and order. During both periods, procedural justice was the main indicator of police legitimacy. In the study conducted by Reisig et al. (2007), procedural justice and distributive justice correlated the strongest with police legitimacy. The authors also reported that the trust in the police predicted cooperation with the police, but an obligation to obey the police played an insignificant role. Only a few researchers have tested the process-based model of policing outside the USA. The first one was
the study Hinds and Murphy (2007) conducted among adult Australian residents. The authors observed that procedural justice had the greatest influence on police legitimacy and smaller on police effectiveness. The research of Reisig and Lloyd (2009) carried out among Jamaican school children has shown that procedural justice influenced the willingness to cooperate with the police, whereas Tankebe's (2009) study conducted in Ghana found that legitimacy did not explain cooperation with the police. Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and cooperation with the police were also studied by Reisig, Tankebe, and Meško (2012) among students in Slovenia. The authors reported that trust in the police is a significant factor influencing students' willingness to cooperate with the police. They found a strong correlation between police legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with the police as well as that police legitimacy did not change across various forms of cooperation.
4 METHODS 4.1 Data and Sample
The study uses data from a web-survey administered to a sample of law, administration and security students attending 11 higher-education institutions in Poland.1 To generate the sample, letters were sent to many university officials explaining the study and requesting permission to survey the students. The universities having accepted the invitation sent their students' e-mails containing an explanation of the study and a link to the web-survey. The survey was administered between April and May 2013.2 The sample consisted of 506 students, including female (322) and male (184) respondents aged 19 to 30.3 The students studied: law (75%), administration (10%), and security (17%) and were mostly in the first (40%) and the second (22%) year of study. The students' victimization experiences show that 42% (163) respondents, who reported that they were a victim of crime, were victimized by theft (55%), street robbery (21%), fraud (17%), burglary (17%), assault (10%), sexual assault (4%) and such other minor crimes (12%) as stalking, bullying and slandering. Most of them experienced victimization once (74%), but there were also those who experienced it twice (17%) or even three or four times (9%). Among the students who reported victimization, 7% indicated that this experience did not have any effect on them, 11% students reported that they handled their victimization well, 13% felt that their victimization was bad but they are not suffering any more, and 4% were still suffering the consequences. The students had experiences with police and the criminal justice system mostly as a person who committed a minor crime (35%), as a victim (26%), an eyewitness
1	See Appendix A for detailed characteristics of the sample.
2	The Polish research was conducted at the Department of the Sociology of Law of the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Jagiellonian University by Professor Janina Czapska, Ewa Radomska M.A., and Daria Wójcik, M.A.
3	The survey completed 804 students, but the analysis does not include 298 questionnaires in which vast majority of questions were not answered and which were filled out by respondents over 30 years of age.
(21%) or a hearsay witness (21%), and a person who reported a crime (18%), rarely as a person suspected of committing a crime (3%). The perception of police and criminal justice professionalism of 295 students who have had experiences with the police and criminal justice system can be divided into to three groups: professional (69%), unprofessional (29%), and extremely unprofessional (2%).
4.2 Measures
Police legitimacy has been conceptualized as a two-dimensional concept (Tyler, 2003; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003):4 trust in the police and an obligation to obey the police, and this contention is supported by empirical research (Reisig et al., 2007). The first dimension, trust in the police, was constructed using two survey items: "The police in my community are trustworthy" and "I am proud of the police in my community". The second dimension, obligation to obey the police, was also represented by two survey items: "You should do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree" and "You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong". The alpha coefficient for the police legitimacy scale was 0.672 and the scale was coded so that higher scores reflected a higher level of the perceived police legitimacy (M = 13.70, SD = 2.771). The factor analyses did not confirm that trust in the police is a distinct empirical variable; its items loaded the strongest on police effectiveness and procedural justice.
Procedural justice. Prior research has conceptualized procedural justice as a four-dimensional concept (Tyler, 2008). The first one, neutrality of the police, was constructed using four survey items: "The police enforce the law consistently when dealing with all people", "The police provide the same quality of service to all citizens", "The police provide better services to wealthier citizens" (reverse scored), and "The police give minorities less help because of their race" (reverse scored). The second dimension, preservation of citizens' dignity by the police, was constructed using three items: "The police treat everyone with dignity", "The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with", and "The police respect the citizens' rights". The third dimension, trustworthy motives of the police activities, was constructed using four survey items: "The police make decisions to handle problems fairly", "The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community", "The police follow through on their decisions and promises they make", and "The police make decisions based on the facts". Listening to the public, the fourth dimension, was constructed using three items: "The police don't often listen to all the citizens involved before deciding what to do" (reverse scored), "The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with", and "The police take time to listen to people". The level of internal consistency for procedural justice was very high (Cronbach's a = 0.902, r = 0.404). The scale was coded so that higher scores reflected more positive procedural justice judgments (M = 33.78, SD = 6.644).
Cooperation with the police. Five survey items were used to construct the cooperation with the police scale. The items referred to participants' willingness
4 See Appendix B for a complete list of all survey items and corresponding summary statistics used in analyses.
to cooperate with the police in the various situations, including instances of: minor theft ("Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?" and "If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?"), government corruption ("Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this behaviour to the police?"), a house or car being broken into ("How likely would you be to call the police if you saw someone break into a house or a car?" and "How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed?"). The alpha coefficient of the scale cooperation with the police was 0.777 (r = 0.422). The scale was coded so that higher scores reflected a greater willingness to cooperate with legal authorities (M = 15.92, SD = 2.955).
Police effectiveness. Four survey items, focusing on the participants' judgments of how well the police deal with crime and disorder, were used to construct the police effectiveness scale: "The police do a good job preventing crime in my neighbourhood", "The police do a good job maintaining order in my neighbourhood", "The police respond promptly to calls about crime", "The police do a good job controlling violent crime". The alpha coefficient for this summate scale was 0.795 (r = 0.496). The police effectiveness scale was coded so that higher scores reflected more positive judgments regarding police effectiveness in dealing with crime and disorder (M = 9.50, SD = 2.279).
Obligation to obey the law. The three items-scale of obligation to obey the law was adopted from Sampson and Bartusch (1998): "It is okay to do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone", "To make money, there are no right or wrong ways anymore, only easy ways and hard ways", "Laws were made to be broken". The alpha coefficient for this summate scale was 0.720 (r = 0.478). The scale was coded so that higher scores reflected higher levels of obligation to obey the law (M = 9.56, SD = 1.671).
Demographic variables. Two demographic variables were used in the analyses. Age was coded using categories ranging from 1 (19 years) to 12 (30 years). Male was a dichotomous measure (1 = yes). Both variables were included because the international literature and prior research show a gender gap in criminal offending (Heimer, 2000) and a relationship between age and criminal activity (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
Variables	n	M	SD	Min	Max	a	r
Police legitimacy	494	13.70	2.771	7	22	0.672	0.254
Procedural justice	489	33.78	6.644	15	56	0.902	0.404
Cooperation with the police	504	15.92	2.955	5	20	0.777	0.422
Police effectiveness	492	9.50	2.279	4	16	0.795	0.496
Obligation to obey the law	496	9.56	1.671	1	3	0.720	0.478
Male	506	0.36	0.482	0	1	---	---
Age	506	4.24	2.147	1	12	---	---
Table 1: Summary statistics for variables used in the analyses
4.3 Analytical Strategy
With the purpose of separating the analyses connected with two most important nexuses, (1) the nexus between procedural justice and police legitimacy and (2) the nexus between police legitimacy and cooperation with the police, two empirical models were created. The first model was made up of four variables (trust in the police, obligation to obey the police, police effectiveness and procedural justice) and was used to estimate the influence of the theoretically founded dependent variables on police legitimacy. Within the second model composed of five variables (cooperation with the police, trust in the police, obligation to obey the police, police effectiveness and obligation to obey the law), the scale of cooperation with the police was regressed onto factors which, according to prior research, influence this theoretical and empirical construction.
The analyses proceeded in three stages. In the first stage, a factor analysis was used in order to construct complex variables (scales) based on theoretical considerations and prior research (Table 1). In the second stage, a series of Pearson's correlation coefficients were generated in order to examine the relations between all variables used in the analyses (Table 2). In the third part, regression models were created to enable testing of the hypothesis derived from the processed-based model of policing (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Since every dependent variable included in this study can be treated as interval scale measures, the Pearson's correlation coefficients and ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression were used.
5 RESULTS
An evaluation of the Pearson's correlation coefficients allowed to create an initial empirical verification of the assumed hypothesis. Regarding the first part of the process-based model of policing adopted in this study, the results from the Pearson's coefficients exhibit that perceptions of procedural justice co-vary with police legitimacy judgments in the hypothesized direction (r = 0.561). What is more, this correlation was stronger in the case of trust in the police (r = 0.756) than in the case of obligation to obey the police (r = 0.242). The assumed connection between police effectiveness and police legitimacy was confirmed (r = 0.474). In this case, trust in the police is also confirmed as the legitimacy component which correlates the strongest (r = 0.652). The relations between the views on the police legitimacy and declared willingness to cooperate with the police were much less clear. Although bivariate correlations show that the police legitimacy and the cooperation with the police scales were empirically linked, the magnitude of the coefficient was relatively weak (r = 0.173). Moreover, the variables which indicate a stronger correlation with the public cooperation than police legitimacy are police effectiveness (r = 0.240) and obligation to obey the law (r = 0.186). Nevertheless, these observations support the second main hypothesis derived from the process-based model. Mentioned dependencies were statistically significant at the 0.01 level.
Variables	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6. 7.
1. Police legitimacy	1.00					
2. Trust in police	—	1.00				
3. Obligation to obey the police	---	0.25"	1.00			
4. Procedural justice	0.56"	0.75"	0.24"	1.00		
5. Cooperation with the police	0.17"	0.20"	0.10'	0.27"	1.00	
6. Police effectiveness	0.47"	0.65"	0.19"	0.66"	0.24"	1.00
7. Obligation to obey the law	0.17"	0.09'	0.17"	0.08	0.18"	0.04 1.00
"p < 0.05 (two-tailed test), "p < 0.01 (two-tailed test)
Besides testing the assumptions made by the researchers, the correlation coefficients matrix provides a brief look at the relations between the independent variables. Firstly, it should be noted that the value of one of these coefficients was very high and close to the conventional threshold for detecting harmful levels of collinearity (0.70). Secondly, regarding the strength of the correlation between the procedural justice and the police effectiveness (r = 0.668) it should be emphasized that these two variables happen to be empirically more similar than it was assumed, and what is more, both of them were found to be strongly correlated with trust in the police. The last observation will be brought up and interpreted later (see Discussion).
The first regression model (Table 3) indicated that the perceived procedural justice was the strongest determinant of police legitimacy. In addition, there was quite clear evidence that police effectiveness as well as an obligation to obey the law also influenced the police legitimacy declared by the surveyed. According to the coefficient of multiple determination (R2), this five-variable model (age and gender were also included) explains only 37% of the variation associated with the police legitimacy; however, the joint association test (F-test) showed that it offered more explanatory power than would be expected by chance. Also, the test statistic (t-ratio) for partial regression coefficients was statistically significant at the 0.01 level for four out of the five variables taken into account. Similar findings were revealed by separate analyses for each variable from which the procedural justice scale turned out to be the one accounted for the largest portion (32%) of the explained variation. Inclusion of the police effectiveness and obligation to obey the law in the police legitimacy model attenuated very slightly the effect of procedural justice (about 1% and 2% reduction). It proved that police legitimacy was influenced the most by fair and interpersonal treatment by the police which is consistent with one of the process-based model tenets.
Variables	B	SE	Beta	t-ratio	VIF
Police effectiveness	0.186	0.061	0.152	3.042'	1.842
Procedural justice	0.197	0.021	0.469	9.381'	1.851
Police legitimacy	—	—	—	—	—
Obligation to obey the law	0.228	0.062	0.136	3.686'	1.015
Age	0.072	0.048	0.056	1.510	1.015
Male	0.562	0.215	0.097	2.615'	1.011
Constant	2.590	0.812	—	3.191	—
F-test	54.929'				
R2	0.370				
Table 2: Pearson's correlation coefficients
Table 3: Police legitimacy OLS regression model
"p < 0.01
with the
Variables	B	SE	Beta	t-ratio	VIF
Police effectiveness	0.297	0.064	0.232	4.626"	1.316
Procedural justice — — — — —					
Police legitimacy	0.045	0.053	0.043	0.847	1.347
Obligation to obey the law	0.289	0.078	0.164	3.690"	1.042
Age	0.103	0.060	0.076	1.732	1.018
Male	-0.080	0.269	-0.013	-0.297	1.014
Constant	9.294	0.990	—	9.392	---
f-test	10.635"				
R2	0.101				
*p < 0.01
Much more surprising were the results from the second regression model (Table 4), whose aim was to examine how particular variables influence the declared willingness to cooperate with the police. Based on the OLS equation for public cooperation with the police, it could be concluded that only police effectiveness and an obligation to obey the law had a statistically significant influence on the cooperation with the police. However, this model explained a very modest amount of variation (10%) associated with the dependent variable. What is more, separate analyses reveal that two of the mentioned independent variables account only for a small amount (20% and 6%) of the explained variation. Nevertheless, the F-test indicated that the five-variable model was superior as compared to the constant-only model. To sum up, the results did not support the process-based model hypothesis whereby police legitimacy and public cooperation co-vary in the same direction. Thus, the analyses should be continued with an emphasis on why the effect of police legitimacy on cooperating with the police was not empirically verified in the Polish study. Such consideration can shed light on the different legitimacy operationalization (see Discussion).
Trust in the police OLS
Variables	B	SE	Beta	t-ratio	VIF
Police effectiveness	0.159	0.024	0.258	6.631"	1.834
Procedural justice	0.124	0.008	0.585	14.983"	1.842
Obligation to obey the law	0.025	0.024	0.030	1.042	0.025
Age	0.026	0.019	0.040	1.397	0.026
Male	-0.013	0.085	-0.004	-0.155	-0.013
Constant	-1.153	0.320	---	-3.600	---
F-test	148.114"				
R2	0.613				
*p < 0.05
Variables	B	SE	Beta	t-ratio	VIF
Police effectiveness	0.026	0.053	0.028	0.481	1.842
Procedural justice	0.074	0.018	0.239	4.049*	1.651
Obligation to obey the law	0.199	0.054	0.161	3.681*	1.014
Age	0.048	0.042	0.050	1.139	0.048
Male	0.558	0.188	0.130	2.976*	0.558
Constant	3.750	0.711	---	5.278	---
F-test	11.871*				
R2	0.112				
Variables	B	SE	Beta	t-ratio	VIF
Police effectiveness	0.253	0.075	0.197	0.197*	1.784
Trust in police	0.173	0.123	0.083	0.083	1.842
Obligation to obey the police	0.001	0.066	0.000	0.000	1.126
Obligation to obey the law	0.291	0.078	0.166	0.166*	1.043
Age	0.102	0.060	0.075	0.075	1.018
Male	-0.047	0.270	-0.008	-0.008	1.025
Constant	9.447	0.998	---	9.464	---
F-test	9.087*				
R2	0.104				
Table 6: Obligation to obey the police OLS regression model
p < 0.05
Because the evaluation of the Pearson's correlation coefficients indicated that trust in the police has a much stronger influence on considered variables than an obligation to obey the police, additional regression models were created in order to confirm this observation. Tables 5, 6, 7 present three OLS equations for two elements of police legitimacy (trust in the police and an obligation to obey the law), as well as a willingness to cooperate with the police. The first one exhibited that in the case of trust in the police only police effectiveness and procedural justice have statistically significant influence. According to the second regression model procedural justice, an obligation to obey the police and gender were statistically significant factors determining an obligation to obey the police. The third model indicated that none of the police legitimacy elements had a visible impact on the cooperation with the police. With regard to the explanatory power, it is also worth mentioning that the trust in the police model accounted for the most amount of variation (61%), which is consistent with the previously noted importance of trust in the police in elucidating students' attitudes to this law enforcement institution.
Table 7: Cooperation with the police OLS regression model 2
p < 0.05
6 DISCUSSION
The presented results show that the greatest impact on the legitimacy of the police among Polish students is made by the perceived procedural justice of police activities, and what is more, the latter has a particularly strong influence on the trust in the police declared by the students. On the other hand, the relationship between the perceived police legitimacy and cooperation with the police assumed by the creators of the process-based model of policing is confirmed to a much lesser extent. Although the correlation coefficients indicate this dependency, it is not confirmed by the regression model which proves only the influences of police effectiveness and an obligation to obey the law on the declared willingness to cooperate with the police. What is worth mentioning, the former (police effectiveness) operationalized as judgment for how well the police deal with crime and disorder also has a visible impact on police legitimacy. These empirically founded conclusions, besides their practical ramifications, can be treated as an important contribution to the ongoing international discussions about the generality of the process-based model of policing and the various ways of conceptualizing and operationalizing police legitimacy and trust in the police. Broadly speaking, the findings from this study bear three main issues that require further discussion.
The first issue relates to the fact that it is still necessary to debate how to conceptualize and operationalize legitimacy, especially one of its components -trust in the police. In accordance with not only the presented findings but also the Polish understanding of legitimacy (see Polish Background) and new definitions of legitimacy which can be found in the literature (Jackson et al., 2012; Tyler & Jackson, 2013), it seems to be necessary to consider and confirm empirically different ways of defining police legitimacy and trust in the police. First, it is important to note that there are fundamental conceptual and measurement problems with the current approach. The existing literature about legitimacy and empirical analyses of this construction are heavily influenced by psychological theories and, consequently, rely mostly on the data from people's subjective evaluations. As a result, some theorists, often referring to Beetham (1991) and the earlier mentioned importance of compatibility between the legal validity of power and the shared values of society, stress the necessity to take into account also objective indicators of legitimacy (Peršak, 2014). More importantly, there are also some arguments for separating the two components of the classical definition of legitimacy. For example, Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) believe that trust tends to be future-oriented and that legitimacy is a concept focused on the present. Putting aside the theoretical explanation, the findings definitely support the alternative conceptual approach to legitimacy and trust. Drawing on the latest work by Jackson et al. (2012), there is a contention that police legitimacy should be operationalized with questions about the extent to which the directives of the police have to be obeyed and whether police officers reflect the values of the society while trust in the police ought to be identified with the perception of police effectiveness and procedural justice. These deliberations are beyond the scope of the present article, but addressing them empirically is a matter of urgency.
The second point concerns general applicability of the process-based model of policing. As it was noted at the outset, the vast majority of research on different aspects of this model have been conducted in the United States. The Polish study expands these research projects and confirms one of the two key hypotheses derived from the findings reported from the US-based studies. Namely, the results from the regression models support the contention that procedural justice judgments shape people's perception of police legitimacy. However, the question remains as to whether procedural justice and police legitimacy have similar effects in other European countries. Future researchers who conduct studies similar to the one presented here could provide more insight into the generality of this tenet associated with the process-based model of policing. These studies could also help explain the impact of police effectiveness not only on police legitimacy but also on cooperation with the police, whose impact is indicated by this research. Moreover, the Polish study raises questions regarding the role of legitimacy in shaping a willingness to cooperate with the police. Most often the conclusions drawn about the legitimacy-cooperation link portray the process-based model as a general theory, capable of explaining a willingness to cooperate declared by people all over the world. The findings reported above fail to support this nexus. In combination with other studies on public cooperation with the police (Reisig et al., 2012), it becomes evident that a more cautious approach should be adopted in order to avoid treating the process-based model as a set of general tenets, but rather as a middle-range theory with a limited explanatory scope. In other words, it might be assumed that there are some limitations in applying the process-based model of regulation to a post-socialist country such as Poland. It is not excluded that these limitations are referred to the fact that, according to the Polish study, trust in the police was not confirmed as a distinct empirical variable composing the police legitimacy scale (see Measures).
Finally, the findings from this study support and inform police policy and practice. As long as it is assumed that the police should focus on such correlates of crime as concentrated poverty, family pathology and genetic predisposition to crime while deterrence-based policing strategies are overrated, the notion of common sense according to which the police is not able to do much to reduce crime rates will not change. The presented study proves that if the police cultivate legitimacy by promoting fair practices and exercising their authority effectively, they will be able to rely more on local communities. Indeed, the research indicates that citizens who perceive the police to behave in effective and procedurally just ways are more likely to perceive them as legitimate and are also more willing to participate in crime prevention programs (Reisig, 2007). In spite of the fact that the Polish research does not confirm entirely the second tendency, the systematic support of prior studies (see The Process-Based Model) clearly shows that police officials in Poland should start developing training curricula that teach fair and effective practices. Although the process-based model is not a universal solution, policing activities perceived as just and effective will be more powerful when integrated into broader policing strategies such as community policing. In the case of the Polish society, an application of police-based model tenets could be particularly helpful in taking into consideration a broader context of law-oriented
behaviours compounded, inter alia, by trust in public institutions and socially important values. Polish sociologist, Sztompka (1999) believes that these are the crucial determinants of political and social transformation which, of course, also concern police policy and particular practices provided by police authorities.
REFERENCES
Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. London: Macmillan. Borucka-Arctowa, M. (1997). Koncepcja sprawiedliwosci proceduralnej i jej rola w okresie przemian systemu prawa - analiza teoretyczna i funkcjonalna [The concept of procedural justice and its role in the legal system transitions - theoretical and functional analysis]. In K. Palecki (Ed.), Dynamika wartosci w prawie [Dynamics of values in law] (pp. 29-57). Kraków: Ksi^garnia Akademicka. Borucka-Arctowa, M. (1998). Zaufanie do prawa jako wartosc spoleczna i rola sprawiedliwosci proceduralnej [Trust in law as a social value, and a role of procedural justice]. In M. Kocol, & W. Lang (Eds.), Teoria prawa, filozofia prawa, wspóìczesne prawo i prawoznawstwo [Legal theory, legal philosphy, contemporary law and jurisprudence] (pp. 15-28). Torun: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu M. Kopernika w Toruniu. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119-170.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(4), 27-43. Heimer, K. (2000). Changes in the gender gap in crime and women's economic marginalization. In G. LaFree (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 1). The nature of crime: Continuity and change (pp. 427-483). Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051-1071. Peršak, N. (2014). Legitimacy and trust in criminal law, policy and justice: Norms, pro-
cedures, outcomes. Farnham: Ashgate. Public Opinion Research Center. (2013). Oceny instytucji publicznych [Assessment
of public institutions]. Warszawa: Public Opinion Research Center. Public Opinion Research Center. (2014). Oceny instytucji publicznych [Assessment
of public institutions]. Warszawa: Public Opinion Research Center. Reisig, M. D. (2007). Procedural justice and community policing: What shapes residents' willingness to participate in crime prevention programs? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(3), 356-369. Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Political Quarterly, 12(1), 42-62.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gerte, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 34(7), 1005-1028.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Varstvoslovje, 14(2), 147-164.
Rychard, A. (2010). Stare i nowe hipotezy o legitymizacji i zaufaniu [Old and new hypotheses about legitimacy and trust]. In A. Rychard, & H. Domanski (Eds.), Legitymizacja w Polsce: Nieustajqcy kryzys w zmieniajqcych sie warunkach? [Legitimacy in Poland: Incessant crisis in a changing environment?] (pp. 219— 232). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN.
Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighbourhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 777-804.
Skopska, G., & Stelmach, J. (1988-1989). Wspófczesne problemy i modele legitymizacji prawa [Contemporary issues and models of law legitimacy]. Colloquia Communia, 41-42(6-1), 5-18.
Sztompka, P. (1999). Kulturowe imponderabilia szybkich przemian spofecznych: zaufanie, lojalnosć, solidarnosć [The cultural imponderabilia of rapid social changes: Trust, loyalty, solidarity]. In P. Sztompka (Ed.), Imponderabilia wiel-kiej zmiany: mentalnosć, wartosci i wiezi spoteczne czasów transformacji [Impon-derabilia of the great change: Mentality, values, and social relationships of the transformation times] (pp. 265-282). Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.
Swi^tkiewicz, W. (1993). Wprowadzenie. Legitymizacja: zagadnienia podstawowe [Introduction. Legitimacy: Basic issues]. In W. Swi^tkiewicz (Ed.), Spoteczny swiat i jego legitymizacje [The social world and its legitimacy] (pp. 7-11). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Sl^skiego.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: An empirical appraisal. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(2), 185-202.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 283-357.
Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review, 44(1-2), 30-31.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In J. Tankebe, & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83-104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
About the Authors:
Janina Czapska, Ph.D., Head of the Department of the Sociology of Law,
Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland.
E-mail: janina.czapska@uj.edu.pl
Ewa Radomska, Ph.D. Student in Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy and Law Graduate Student, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland. E-mail: ewa.radomska@uj.edu.pl
Daria Wójcik, Master in Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Sociology Student, Faculty of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland. E-mail: daria.wojcik@uj.edu.pl
Appendix A
Characteristics of the sample
Variables		n	%
Gender	Female	322	63.6
	Male	184	36.4
Age	19-20	129	25.5
	21-22	158	31.2
	23-24	154	30.2
	25-30	66	13.0
Universitya	University in Gdansk	205	40.5
	Warsaw University	85	16.8
	Jagiellonian University	63	12.5
	Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Academy in Krakow	37	7.3
	Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan	33	6.5
	University in Szczecin	29	5.7
	Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun	26	5.2
	Police Academy in Szczytno	15	3.0
	Naval Academy in Gdynia	6	1.2
	National Defence University of Warsaw	1	0.2
	University of Silesia in Katowice	1	0.2
Facultyb	Law	374	74.9
	Administration	49	9.8
	Security	84	16.8
Year of study	I	148	39.9
	II	107	21.6
	III	87	17.6
	IV	74	14.9
	V	79	16.0
Marital status	Single	248	49.0
	Single, but in a stable relationship	234	46.2
Married
24 4.7
Varibles
Economic status Own income
Income from the family Grant
Income from another source or person Living arrangement1 Living alone	37 7.3
	Living with a partner	82	16.2
	Living with parents	217	43.0
	Living with roomate(s)	141	27.9
	Living dormitory	28	5.5
Parents' education	Primary school	3	0.6
	Vacational school	56	11.1
	High school	168	33.3
	University degree	259	51.3
	PhD	19	3.8
Social status	Far above the average	39	7.7
	Above average	195	38.7
	Average	233	46.2
	Below average	36	7.1
	Far below average	1	0.2
ab Added to the polish survey,	' Modified in the polish survey		
я % Table 8:
113 22.4
continuation
329 65.1
40 7.9
23 4.6
Appendix B
Scale	Items	M	SD
Procedural justice3	The police enforce the law consistently when dealing with all people	2.16	0.723
	The police provide the same quality of service to all citizens	2.43	0.742
	The police provide better services to wealthier citizens*	2.28	0.781
	The police give minorities less help because of their race*	2.62	0.734
	The police treat everyone with dignity	2.11	0.652
	The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with	2.35	0.715
	The police respect the citizens' rights	2.56	0.683
	The police make decisions to handle problems fairly	2.53	0.655
	The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community	2.59	0.735
	The police follow through on their decisions and promises they make	2.54	0.696
	The police make decisions based on the facts	2.53	0.070
	The police don't often listen to all of the citizens involved before deciding what to do	2.56	0.736
	The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with	2.39	0.710
	The police take time to listen to people	2.25	0.726
Table 9: Summary statistic for scale items
Table 9: continuation
Scale	Items	M	SD
Police	I have confidence in the police	2.42	0.797
legitimacy3	You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong	3.47	0.658
	You should do what the police tell you to do even if you	2.58	0.815
	disagree		
	You should do what the police tell you to do only if you understand the reasons for the directives*	2.42	0.658
	You should obey the directives of the police only if you consider their actions lawful*	1.53	0.815
Cooperation with	Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?	2.76	0.933
the policeb	If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?	3.22	0.821
	Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this behaviour to the police?	3.15	0.894
	How likely would you be to call the police if you saw someone break into a house or car?	3.76	0.533
	How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed?	3.03	0.821
Police effectiveness11	The police do a good job preventing crime in my neighbourhood	2.36	0.685
	The police do a good job maintaining order in my neighbourhood	2.60	0.712
	The police respond promptly to calls about crime	2.24	0.785
	The police do a good job controlling violent crime	2.30	0.715
Obligation to obey the	It is okay to do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone*	2.68	0.933
lawb	To make money, there are no right or wrong ways anymore, only easy ways and hard ways*	3.18	0.819
	Laws were made to be broken*	3.67	0.558
a 1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Agree, 4 - Strongly agree;b 1 - Very unlikely, 2 - Unlikely, 3 - Likely, 4 - Very likely; "Reverse scored
Trust in Police by Slovenian
VARSTVOSLOVJE, Journal of Criminal Justice and Security,
Law and Criminal Justice and rot
pp. 471-491
Security Students
Gorazd Meško, Rok Hacin, Katja Eman
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to explore criminal justice students' and law students' trust in the police and factors related to trusting the police.
Design/Methods/Approach:
The data were collected using a web-survey on a convenient sample of law students and criminal justice and security students. The data were analysed by descriptive and multivariate statistical methods.
Findings:
The findings imply that variables procedural justice, police effectiveness, police authority and legal cynicism have impact on trust in police. Furthermore, regression analysis shows that for law students the variables police authority, procedural justice, police effectiveness, distributive justice, deterrence and legal cynicism significantly predict trust in police. Regression analysis for criminal justice students implies that variables police authority, police effectiveness, and procedural justice significantly predict trust in police. Results of discriminant analysis imply that law students more positively respond on variables about life goals and moral credibility. Mean values of the variables police authority, trust in police, legal cynicism, and procedural justice by criminal justice students are higher than those by law students.
Research Limitations/Implications:
Due to the convenience sample (law students and criminal justice and security students), the results are not generalizable, but the results do provide insights into trust in the Slovenian police of potential future professionals in (criminal) justice system.
Practical Implications:
The results imply that the police should put more efforts in their relationship with students, especially in the fields of police authority, procedural justice, police effectiveness, distributive justice, deterrence and legal cynicism to improve the level of police justice and law students' trust in the police.
Originality/Value:
The article presents the foundation for further research on student's perception of trust in the police in Slovenia and includes several suggestions on how to improve their trust in police.
UDC: 351.74(479.4)
Keywords: trust in police, police, law students, criminal justice, security, students, Slovenia
Zaupanje v policijo pri slovenskih študentih prava in varstvoslovja
Namen prispevka:
Namen prispevka je raziskati zaupanje študentov varstvoslovja in prava v policijo in s tem povezane dejavnike.
Metode:
Podatke smo zbrali s pomočjo spletne ankete na priložnostnem vzorcu študentov prava in varstvoslovja. Podatke smo analizirali z uporabo opisnih in multivariatnih statističnih metod.
Ugotovitve:
Ugotovitve kažejo, da spremenljivke postopkovna pravičnost, učinkovitost policije, avtoriteta policije in pravni cinizem vplivajo na zaupanje v policijo. Poleg tega regresijska analiza kaže, da so pri študentih prava spremenljivke avtoriteta policije, postopkovna pravičnost, učinkovitost policije, distributivna pravičnost, odvračanje in pravni cinizem pomembne za napovedovanje zaupanja v policijo, za študente varstvoslovja pa to velja za spremenljivke avtoriteta policije, učinkovitost policije in postopkovna pravičnost. Rezultati diskriminantne analize kažejo, da študenti prava bolj pozitivno ocenjujejo življenjske cilje in moralno kredibilnost. Pri spremenljivkah avtoriteta policije, zaupanje v policijo, pravni cinizem in postopkovna pravičnost so povprečne vrednosti pri študentih varstvoslovja višje kot pri študentih prava.
Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave:
Zaradi priložnostnega vzorca (študenti prava in varstvoslovja) rezultatov ni mogoče posploševati, vendar ti kljub temu zagotavljajo vpogled v zaupanje do slovenske policije med potencialnimi bodočimi strokovnjaki (kazensko)pravnega sistema.
Praktična uporabnost:
Izhajajoč iz študije ugotavljamo, da bi bilo treba povečati avtoriteto policije, postopkovno pravičnost, učinkovitost, distributivno pravičnost policije, zastraševalni učinek kazenskih sankcij in zmanjšati pravni cinizem.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
Članek predstavlja izhodišče za nadaljnje raziskovanje dojemanja zaupanja v policijo pri študentih v Sloveniji in vključuje predloge, kako povečati zaupanje študentov v policijo.
UDK: 351.74(497.4)
Ključne besede: zaupanje v policijo, policija, pravo, kazensko pravosodje, varstvoslovje, študenti, Slovenija
1 INTRODUCTION
Understanding trust in the police and legitimacy became one of the leading research topics among criminologists in the 21st century. As demonstrated by Hinds and Murphy (2007: 30), "[...] in modern, democratic societies, police legitimacy rests on public consent". In other words, police are legitimate when public feels obligated to obey them and their orders. Besides, an individual's decision to accept the power of police authority and to accept its justification cannot be ignored. Hinsch (in Jackson & Bradford, 2010: 3) stresses that moral alignment between people and the criminal system is set in the forefront of the discussion: "If one follows this criteria, then judgements among individuals about the legitimacy of an institution must be based to some degree on assessments of the congruence between its goals, practises and behaviours and their own."
Legitimacy is more than merely an excuse for power - it is also a justification of the power, known also as 'moral alignment' between individuals and the criminal justice system they use (Jackson, 2010); therefore, when considering legitimacy, researchers have to take into consideration a normative, ideological, or moral element of legitimacy. The fact that legitimacy is based on expression of common shared values should not be ignored. Thus, Jackson (2010: 10-11) founded his framework of legitimacy on the cognition that "an individual confers legitimacy on the justice system when that individual feels: a) an obligation to obey the authority; b) that the authority expresses shared morals; and c) that the justice system follows its own internal rules". It is almost unavoidable that people trust the justice system.
Trust refers to public beliefs about the trustworthiness of the authorities (usually police and courts) to act effectively and fairly. Jackson (2010: 1) emphasizes that the importance of people's belief that police (and courts) possess the right to govern and dictate appropriate behaviour. Generally, trust in police is studied from three perspectives: 1) trust in police compliance; 2) trust in police procedural fairness; and 3) trust in police distributive fairness.
It is generally known that people change with age and that experiences shape their opinions. It is the same with attitudes towards authority - young people have less knowledge and experiences, which is why their trust in police is lower. Moreover, attitudes of youth (e.g. students) towards the police can be specific, if compared with their attitudes towards other social institutions (e.g., schools, social centres), described as an "anti-authority syndrome". Previous studies on attitudes of young people towards the police (Chow, 2012; Reisig, Tankebe, & Meško, 2013, for example) show that 1) contextual factors and individual characteristics influence perceptions of the police by young people; 2) in general, young females have more positive attitudes toward the police than men; and 3) the quality of the contacts young people have had with the police is correlated with their attitudes towards the police. Based on past cognitions, the aim of the paper is to study students' perceptions of police authority and trust in policing in Slovenia. The section on policing and police legitimacy presents the theoretical basis for the research on perception of trust and legitimacy of policing in Slovenia and is followed by the results of the study. The authors are aware that the results
are based on self-reported perceptions of trust and legitimacy of the Slovenian police. It is necessary to test and discuss how students would behave towards the police and cooperate with them in real situations.
2 POLICING AND TRUST IN POLICE
In last two decades, new approaches to policing focusing on police legitimacy, public compliance with the law, acceptance of police authority and cooperation with the police in responding to crime began to develop. Thus, Tyler (2011) emphasizes their value, especially the connection between trust and legitimacy. He acknowledges that professionalization of the police has influenced the growth in quality of policing, but the public support for the police, also known as 'trust and confidence' in the police, must also be taken into consideration, especially those factors that shape public views about police legitimacy:
"If public trust and confidence in the police are not linked to objective performance, the nature of trust and confidence needs to be addressed as a distinct question in and of itself. The issue is: 'What is the basis of perceived police legitimacy?' Understanding how public views about police legitimacy form and change can provide us with a new framework through which to evaluate policing policies and practices." (Tyler, 2011: 255)
Tyler (2011: 258) believes that the way and quality of a police officer's performance and his attitude towards the people in legal procedures has an important impact on public opinion and feelings about the police. For this reason, the police must implement policies that encourage an approach to communities in which public views are central, thus focusing on the way that people evaluate the police and police actions. Tyler (2011: 263) is certain that these public views shape how people behave in reaction to the police. Moreover, public trust in policing is important and needed because of its influence on attitudes to and public cooperation with justice. Furthermore, public trust in justice has an important impact on institutional legitimacy and public compliance with the law. In this way, Jackson, Bradford, Hough, and Murray (2012: 30) define police legitimacy as "obligation to obey and moral alignment" and link it to legal legitimacy, cynicism, and compliance with the law.
Bradford, Jackson, and Hough (2013) presented a model of policing based on the procedural justice theory and the theory about policing by consent. The origin was Tyler's (2006a, 2006b) argument that "if the normative route to compliance with the law can be achieved, it is likely to be more durable and less costly than the coercive route that requires a credible deterrent threat" (Bradford et al., 2013: 80). The model predicts that if police officers treat people with respect and dignity, the basis for fair decision-making processes is created, allowing police officers to have a voice in the interaction. This communication must reflect an officers' respectful behaviour and messages of status and worth to the individual concerned. Furthermore, this way police officers show people that the power they have in the process is balanced and that they are acting in accordance with values of legality and propriety. Sunshine and Tyler (2003) described such behaviour as a 'procedurally fair way' that leads to the belief that the police are legitimate
_and that their power is justified (Bradford et al., 2013: 82). The authors conclude
that the police should invest more in the policies that clearly promote procedural fairness as a core aspect of police work. Police leaders need to explain intelligibly that "improvements in trust and legitimacy have to be earned, and not simply claimed" (Bradford et al., 2013: 95). Nevertheless, police officers must retain a certain degree of distance from individuals to be able efficiently and fairly to resolve conflicts in the communities. When dealing with young adults (i.e., adolescents), the police have to be even more cautious and indubitable in their performance and attitude, as presented in the following section.
3 YOUNG PEOPLE AND TRUST IN POLICE
Young people's attitudes towards legal institutions (e.g., police, courts) are similar to their attitudes towards other social institutions (e.g., schools, social centres), suggesting an "anti-authority syndrome" orientation during adolescence (Clark & Wenninger, 1964: 488). Easton and Dennis (1969) emphasized that behaviour, formed during adolescence, can have a lasting influence on their judgements of police as adults. In addition, young people usually form their beliefs according to direct experiences (Nelsen, Eisenberg, & Carroll, 1982). From the perspective of the relationship between youth and the police, this means that "the treatment received from police in direct contact or encounters with police officers, rather than more global attitudes formed about policing in abstract, or policing as an institution" (Hinds, 2009: 12).
Cunneen and White (1996), Loader (1996) and Hinds (2009) emphasize that contacts between young people and the police are anything but rare, because as noted by White (1994), police officers are often the only agents of the criminal justice system in daily contact with young people. Moreover, young people are extensive users of public spaces and thereby often the subjects of involuntary and generally negatively experienced contacts with the police (Cunneen & White, 1996; Hinds, 2009; Loader, 1996; White, 1994). Similarly, Brown, Benedict, and Wilkinson (2006) tackled the issue of public perceptions of the police in Mexico. The survey was conducted among law students in Tampico, Mexico, during the summer of 2003, and the results revealed that the majority of the students have negative experiences with municipal, state and federal police in Mexico. The comparison between police forces revealed that municipal police is viewed most negatively and the federal police less negatively. Furthermore, the younger people are, the less favourably they view the police.
Taylor, Turner, Esbensen, and Winfree (2001: 295) found out that criminal justice practitioners, researchers, and policymakers began to study citizens' attitudes toward the police in 1960. The general perception based on observations and research results was that poor people, especially minority groups, have less favourable attitudes toward the police as compared to other groups of people. Moreover, young people reported less favourable attitudes towards the police than older social groups. Leiber, Nalla, and Farnworth (1998) emphasized in 1998 that juveniles present a relatively large percentage of the population that is subjected to police contacts and arrests. Walker (1992) focused on police perspectives of juveniles and deviance and discovered that juveniles are seen by
police officers as a 'special set of problems', forcing them to become involved with the school system and cooperate with other social service agencies. Furthermore, in more than forty years of study of attitudes towards the police, criminologists have learned the following (Taylor et al., 2001: 296-298):
•	race is the most studied demographic variable in surveys on peoples' attitudes towards the police;
•	in the 1960s, the majority of citizens in the USA reported about their favourable attitudes towards the police: white citizens' attitudes were far more positive than those by African Americans;
•	ethnic groups differ significantly in their attitude towards the police;
•	people in the US cities view (their) local police more positive compared to state police;
•	gender - usually females rate police more positively compared to males, irrespective of the age group;
•	possible reasons of a difference in attitudes towards the police between boys and girls include: different socialization processes, prejudicial social control and parental supervision, and different role expectations and limitations associated with males and females;
•	girls have far fewer contacts with police than boys; therefore, compared to males, females are likely to show more positive attitudes toward the police;
•	police officers act differently towards youth female and male suspects during police procedures - police officers exercise discretionary powers more often with girls than boys; and
•	city of residence is one of the demographic factors that can influence citizens' attitudes towards the police: studies in American cities showed that the social context has to be included and considered when attitudes of (young) people towards the police are discusse.
Eller, Abrams, Viki, and Imara (2007) studied youth perceptions of contact with the police (e.g., the impact of the quantity and the quality of people's contact with the police) and focused on the possible differences among white and black university students. The survey was conducted in universities in Southeast England and one university in South London, Great Britain. Results show that black university students had lower-quality contacts with the police, experienced more police racism and, as a result, expressed lower propensities to cooperate with the police. In addition, the comparison between white and black students revealed that black students have "higher-quantity and lower-quality contacts with police, stronger racial identification, a less positive view of police, and showed less desire for closeness" (Eller et al., 2007: 221). The authors concluded that higher quality and lower quantity of contacts correlate with a more positive view of the police. In addition, respondents expressed higher desired closeness. Furthermore, the analysis revealed the effects of race on the quantity of contact, the view of the police, and desired closeness, with negative effects driven by high identification (Eller et al., 2007: 213).
With the aim to find out just how strong is the influence of public attitudes on criminal justice institutions, e.g., police, and the policies that guide them, Chow
(2012) studied the attitudes of university students towards the police in Canada. The study was conducted in 2007 and 2008 among university students in Regina, Canada. Results show that respondents held moderately positive attitudes toward the police and that socio-economic status, location of residence, personal safety, criminal victimization, contact with the police, and police harassment or mistreatment experiences have an important impact on respondents' evaluation of the police (Chow, 2012: 508).
Machura, Love, and Dwight (2014) examined trust of law students' in courts of law and the police in Bangor (Bangor University) in the United Kingdom. The authors assume that views of students could be influenced by the faculty (i.e., curriculum and attitudes of lecturers towards the police), media, personal experience and factors such as past victimization and cooperation with the police and having a police officer as a relative, etc. Based on the results of previous studies, the authors believe that students are becoming more critical towards the police and courts over the course of their studies. They compared the views of 2012 final-year undergraduate law students with the same cohort from 2010 starting their studies and with those of the 2010 final-year law students. Results revealed that the final year law students showed more trust in courts and the police than their predecessors. They concluded that in addition to the study of law, personal experiences together with secondary experiences of family and friends, and the media do influence students' trust in the institutions (Machura et al., 2014).
The aforementioned studies emphasize the importance of age, gender, race or ethnicity, education and prior experiences with the police in creating their attitudes towards the police.
3.1 Slovenian Research on Trust in Police
A study on Slovenian public opinion of the police (Uhan, Toš, Kurdija, Kovačič, Filej, & Falle, 2002) pointed out that 56% of the public trust the police and that higher trust was recorded in rural areas. A subsequent study in 2003 showed that 50% of the respondents reported a high level of trust in police. Uhan, Toš, Kurdija, Vovk, and Bešter Falle (2004) conducted the Slovenian public opinion survey on police in 2004, and results showed that more than 50% of the population reported high trust in the police. The results also pointed out a distinction based on demographics, such as gender, age and place of residents of respondents. A public opinion research project about police work conducted by the Public Opinion and Mass Communication Research Centre at the Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana reported that 45% of respondents highly trusted the police. That puts, with regard to the degree of trust, the police above the military, the courts, the president of the country, the media, the prime minister, the parliament, and political parties. In addition, a high degree of trust of the police puts it in the upper half of the trusted institutions in Slovenia, along with the media and the trade unions (Kurdija & Vovk, 2006).
Černič, Makarovič, and Macur (2009) conducted a study on Slovenian public opinion of the police in 2009 and find out that 50% of the representative sample of the Slovenian population reported trust in the police. A project measuring
residents' opinion about the police in 2012 pointed out that approximately half (53%) of the respondents trusted the police (Meško, Lobnikar, Jere, & Sotlar, 2013). In these studies, the percentage of trust in the police in Slovenia varies between 50 and 60 percent of the respondents.
The European Social Survey in 28 European countries was conducted at the end of 2010 and included 45 questions about justice and trust in it. Jackson et al. (2011) found out that personal contact with police officers is a key predictor of trust, where significant variation in the proportion experiencing a police-initiated contact was detected across the 20 countries. Respondents in Slovenia reported a low level of trust in public institutions, especially the police. Slovenia ranked seventeenth out of twenty-eight countries included in the study (European Social Survey, 2010).
In the European Social Survey, trust in police was examined from three perspectives: 1) trust in police compliance; 2) trust in police procedural fairness; and 3) trust in police distributive fairness. Results show that opinions regarding the procedural fairness of the police vary widely across Europe (Jackson et al., 2011: 5). People in Israel, the Russian Federation, and Bulgaria have the most negative opinions about the way the police treat people, while people in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Spain have the most positive opinions. Furthermore, people trust the police least in Russia, Israel, Bulgaria, Portugal, and Poland. In Slovenia, approximately 30 percent of respondents believed that police officers did not often make fair and impartial decisions (Jackson et al., 2011: 5-6). They concluded that trust and legitimacy have a multi-dimensional nature. They assumed that trust is revealed by public assessments of the trustworthiness of public institutions along three dimensions: effectiveness, procedural fairness, and distributive fairness, and likewise, legitimacy is expressed by their consent to power and their sense of the normative justifiability of power (Jackson et al., 2011: 8, 10).
Meško and Klemenčič (2007) studied the transition of Slovenian police from an ex-Yugoslav militia to professional police similar to its Western counterparts. They found that the public "approval rating", through the public surveys, was unusually high at the beginning of the transition from a socialist system to democracy. Positive opinions about the police decreased until 2001, when it stabilized. Further research identified problems of police professionalism, such as para-military leadership and chain of command, unsuccessful changing of mentality of street police officers, lack of specialized skills in police ranks, violation of human rights, and excessive use of force by the police, especially against members of ethnic minorities. Despite a lack of professionalism in certain areas, the Slovenian police have adopted strategic aims in the form of community policing, which was believed to contribute to police professionalism and higher trust in police.
Reisig, Tankebe, and Meško (2012) explored the effect of procedural justice, perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with the police among adult students in secondary schools in Ljubljana and Maribor. The results showed that procedural justice strongly correlates with police legitimacy, which has a major impact on the public's willingness to cooperate with the police.
Meško, Fields, Šifrer, and Eman (in press) analysed law students' perceptions
of police authority and trust in the police in the eight countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including Slovenia. The results show that law students, in general, question their willingness to comply with laws and cooperate with the police. The results indicated that police authority and procedural justice are related to trust in the police in all countries, and police effectiveness in Slovenia, Russia, Romania, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. The authors suggested that if the police wish to improve trust and legitimacy in policing, they should strive primarily to improve their effectiveness, authority, and procedural justice (Meško et al., in press).
The goal of this paper is, therefore, to learn about students' trust in the police and the factors that influence this trust in Slovenia among law and criminal justice students. Furthermore, our aim is also to identify differences between the two groups of students and reflect upon possible differences.
4 THE PRESENT STUDY
This study presents the findings from a national student survey on trust of policing conducted in Slovenia in autumn 2012 and spring 2013. The analysis includes law and criminal justice and security students' trust in police in relation to police authority, police effectiveness, procedural justice, distributive justice, cooperation with police, moral credibility, deterrence, obligation to obey, legal cynicism, legal compliance and selected demographic variables.
4.1 Method 4.1.1 Data Collection
The survey previously used by Reisig et al. (2012) was translated from English into the native language, and presented to students of the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security at the University of Maribor, the Faculty of Law at the University of Maribor, and Faculty of Law at the University of Ljubljana. After preliminary tests, the survey was published on the web (https://www.1ka.si/), and the students who were enrolled in criminal law and criminology courses during the academic year of 2012/13 were given a certain period of time in which to complete the online survey. The web survey was administered in autumn 2012 and spring 2013 and was accessible only to those students who received a web address provided by their criminal law and criminology lecturers.
Students were selected due to the nature of their studies and their interest in becoming professionals in law enforcement or criminal justice agencies. Data collected on a sample of undergraduate law and criminal justice and security studies students (n = 442) were used for the analysis (160 law students, 282 criminal justice and security students). A response rate of 10.5% (students of Faculty of law - 5.4% and students of Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security - 22.6%) was determined for the entire student population in both faculties included in the study. The sample consisted of 293 female and 149 male respondents, with a modal age of 21 years (n = 89), and the majority were enrolled in the third year of the law
programmes (n = 142). Three hundred and eighteen students have already had some experience with the police and criminal justice system, either as someone who reported a crime (n = 110), was an eye witness (n = 113), a hearsay witness (n = 126), someone who committed a minor offence (n = 177), a crime suspect (n = 23) or a crime victim (n = 118). Some respondents appeared in several different roles (e.g., as someone who reported a crime, was a victim and also a hearsay witness), and some were victimized by theft (78), fraud (13), burglary (28), assault (48), armed robbery (1), sexual assault (5), and other minor crimes (28). Some students reported more than one criminal victimization; of 147 students who reported criminal victimization, 54 indicated that this victimization did not have any effect on them, 22 students reported that they handled their victimization well, 53 of them felt that their victimization was bad but they are not suffering any more, and 18 victimized students are still suffering the consequences of their victimization. Perceptions of police and criminal justice professionalism of those law and criminal justice and security students who have already had experience with the police and criminal justice (n = 273) divided into three groups: those who perceived police and criminal justice professionals as 'professional' (n = 238), 'unprofessional' (n = 32), and 'extremely unprofessional/abusive' (n = 3).
4.1.2 Variables
Factor analysis was used (maximum likelihood) to test all constructs (scales). The reliability test by Cronbach's alpha and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) tests of sampling adequacy were calculated for each factor, new variables (factors) were computed after factor analysis, and descriptive statistics for each factor (means with standard deviations and median) and percentages of agreement/ disagreement with each variable are also presented in the Table 1.
Factor analysis
Factors ranked by a	KMO &		n	M	SD	Me	Agree/
	Cronbach's alpha						Disagree %
Procedural justice"	(KMO = 0.93; a =	0.90)	442	2.57	0.49	2.62	16.3/83.7
Police effectiveness"	(KMO = 0.86; a =	0.85)	442	2.61	0.51	2.65	21.1/78.9
Police authoritya	(KMO = 0.71; a =	0.82)	442	2.37	0.57	2.49	21.1/78.9
Obligation to obeya	(KMO = 0.64; a =	0.78)	442	2.59	0.67	2.63	37.6/62.4
Cooperation with policeb (KMO = 0.76; a =		0.76)	442	3.38	0.56	3.57	75.8/24.2
Distributive justice"	(KMO = 0.74; a =	0.75)	442	2.34	0.57	2.19	17.6/82.4
Trust in police"	(KMO = 0.90; a =	0.74)	440	2.71	0.57	2.85	39.5/61.5
Detterencec	(KMO = 0.77; a =	0.72)	442	2.62	0,58	2.65	29.0/71.0
Legal cynicism"	(KMO = 0.73; a =	0.65)	442	1.96	0,54	1.98	4.8/95.2
Moral credibility"	(KMO = 0.64; a =	0.64)	442	1.98	0,57	2.00	7.1/92.9
Legal complianced	(KMO = 0.68; a =	0.51)	442	2.46	0.36	2.49	90.0/10.0
a. 1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Agree, 4 - Strongly agree; b. 1 - Never, 2 - Rarely, 3 - Occasionally, 4 - Frequently; c. 1 - Very unlikely, 2 - Unlikely, 3 - Likely, 4 - Very likely, d. 1 - Not wrong, 2 - Somewhat wrong, 3 - Very wrong;
The primary outcome measure, trust in police, is a seven-item factor. Specifically, survey respondents were asked to report their opinions on how much trust they have in the police and what their opinions towards police and police work are, such as: 1) The police in my community are trustworthy; 2) The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community; 3) I am proud of the police in this community; 4) I have confidence in the police; 5) People's basic rights are well protected by the police; 6) The police in this community are often dishonest; and 7) The police are usually honest. Each item featured a close-ended response set ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The level of internal consistency exhibited by the scale is acceptable (KMO = 0.90, Cronbach's a = 0.74, var. = 64.3%). This factor is coded so that higher scores reflect higher levels of trust in police.
Deterrence is a five-item factor where respondents are asked to report how often they are caught and punished if they commit a variety of six legal infractions: 1) used marihuana or some other drug; 2) stole a car; 3) broke traffic laws; 4) bought something you thought might be stolen; and 5) made a lot of noise at night. Each item featured a close-ended response set ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 4 (very likely). The level of internal consistency exhibited by the scale is acceptable (KMO = 0.77, Cronbach's a = 0.72, var. = 47.8%).
A process-based measure, procedural justice, is a ten-item factor that consists of two components: quality of interpersonal treatment (e.g. "The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with" and "The police treat everyone with dignity") and quality of decision-making (e.g. "The police make decisions based on facts" and "The police explain their decisions to the people they deal with"). The operationalization of this process-based scale is consistent with prior research (see, e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). The process-based items featured a closed-ended response set ranging from "strongly disagree" (coded 1) to "strongly agree" (coded 4). The level of internal consistency for procedural justice (KMO = 0.93, Cronbach's a = 0.90, var. = 53.9%) is acceptable.
Police authority (1. The police act in ways that are consistent with my own moral values, 2. When the police deal with people, they always behave according to the law; 3. The police always obey the law; and 4. If I were to talk to police officers in my community, I would find their values to be very similar to my own) and obligation to obey (1. You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong; 2. You should do what the police tell you to do even if you disagree; and 3. People like me have no choice but to obey the directives of the police) are four- and three- item factors. The levels of internal consistency exhibited by the scales are acceptable (KMO = 0.71, Cronbach's a = 0.82, var. = 64.7%) for police authority and (KMO = 0.64, Cronbach's a = 0.78, var. = 69.4%) for obligation to obey.
An instrumental variable was created to address concerns with endogeneity bias. It is always preferred that the number of instruments (i.e., exogenous variables that are correlated with the endogenous regressor) exceed the number of potentially problematic variables (e.g., police legitimacy). Accordingly, two instruments were used in this study. Research shows that perceptions of how well the police handle crime are linked to legitimacy perceptions (Sunshine & Tyler 2003; Tankebe, 2008).
Police effectiveness is an eight-item factor (e.g. "The police are doing well in controlling violent crime" and "The police do a good job maintaining order in my neighbourhood"). The level of internal consistency exhibited by the scale is acceptable (KMO = 0.86, Cronbach's a = 0.84, var. = 49.2%).
Cooperation with police is a five-item factor: 1) If the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone's wallet was stolen, how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft; 2) How likely would you be to volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you witnessed; 3) Imagine that you were out and saw someone steal a wallet. How likely would you be to call the police; 4) How likely would you be to call the police if you saw someone break into a house or car; and 5) Imagine you had evidence that someone bribed a government official. How likely would you be to report this form of behaviour? The level of internal consistency exhibited by the scale is acceptable (KMO = 0.76, Cronbach's a = 0.76, var. = 51.7%).
Moral credibility (1. Most people in my community believe that the law punishes criminals the amount they deserve; 2. The law does a good job making sure that criminals get the punishment they deserve regardless of how much money they have and 3. Innocent people who are accused of crimes are always protected by the law) and legal cynicism (1. To make money, there are no right or wrong ways anymore, only easy ways and hard ways; 2. Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself; 3. Fighting between friends or within family is nobody else's business; 4. Laws were made to be broken; and 5. It is okay to do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone) are three- and five-item factors, and distributive justice (1. The police enforce the law consistently when dealing with ALL people; 2. The police provide the same quality of service to all citizens; 3. The police provide better services to wealthier citizens; and 4. The police make sure citizens receive the outcomes they deserve under the law) is a four-item factor. The closed-ended response sets that accompanied the survey items used to create the instrumental variable ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The level of internal consistency for moral credibility (KMO = 0.64, Cronbach's a = 0.60, var. = 56.0%), legal cynicism (KMO = 0.73, Cronbach's a = 0.65, var. = 42.4%) and distributive justice (KMO = 0.74, Cronbach's a = 0.75, var. = 57.9%) is acceptable. These variables are coded so that higher scores reflect more positive evaluations of police effectiveness and more favourable moral credibility judgments.
Life goals (such as having a high social status, dressing according to the latest fashion, having comfortable standard of living, and having a rewarding job) is a four-item factor. Items featured a closed-ended response set ranging from "unimportant" (coded 1) to "somewhat important" (coded 3). The level of internal consistency for life goals (KMO = 0.71, Cronbach's a = 0.65, var. = 51.8%) is acceptable.
Legal compliance is a four-item factor. Items featured a closed-ended response set ranging from "not wrong" (coded 1) to "very wrong" (coded 4). Since the level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) is not acceptable (KMO = 0.68, Cronbach's a = 0.51, var. = 42.3%), legal compliance was not included in further analyses.
4.2 Results
We tried to identify which of the following variables predict trust in police: 1) family social status; 2) obligation to obey; 3) deterrence; 4) cooperation with police; 5) moral credibility; 6) gender; 7) legal cynicism; 8) parent's education; 9) age; 10) police effectiveness; 11) police authority; 12) distributive justice; and 13) procedural justice. Regression analysis accounts for 66.6% of variance of trust in police, of which statistically significant are procedural justice, police effectiveness, police authority, and legal cynicism, ranked from the highest to lowest value. The results of regression analysis (trust as a dependent variable) and others as independents are presented in Table 2. Studying in criminal justice or law (major area of study) was not found to be statistically significant.
Table 2: Regression analysis of trust in police
Variables	B	SE	p	VIF
Cooperation with police	0.02	0.03	0.45	1.01
Police authority	0.27	0.04	0.00	2.49
Obligation to obey	-0.02	0.02	0.50	1.07
Deterrence	0.01	0.03	0.73	1.03
Moral credibility	-0.02	0.03	0.61	1.46
Legal cynicism	-0.07	0.03	0.04	1.18
Police effectiveness	0.31	0.04	0.00	1.99
Distributive justice	0.02	0.04	0.67	2.20
Procedural justice	0.39	0.06	0.00	3.20
Age	0.00	0.00	0.70	1.24
Gender	0.04	0.04	0.26	1.13
Parents education	0.03	0.02	0.13	1.18
Family social status	-0.04	0.03	0.13	1.17
Major area of study	0.03	0.04	0.43	1.12
Dependent variable: Trust in police
Our results partly resemble those of other studies, especially the findings of Jackson et al. (2011) who believe that trust in police and their fairness are very important factors of police legitimacy in Europe. Therefore, to improve trust in police, reforms of the police and the government should focus on increasing (1) procedural justice, (2) police effectiveness, (3) police authority, and (4) decreasing legal cynicism among young people. Furthermore, age revealed a limited variation in the sample because it consisted of university students with average age of 23 years (the majority of sample represents young people aged from 19-25). In a comparative study, Meško et al. (in press) came to similar conclusions. Furthermore, we are presenting separate regression analyses for each group of the students (Table 3 and 4).
The results of regression analyses for law students (Table 3) show that six variables: 1) police authority, 2) procedural justice, 3) police effectiveness, 4)
distributive justice, 5) deterrence and 6) legal cynicism significantly predict trust in police. Among them, police authority has the greatest impact on trust in police.
Table 3: Regression analysis of trust in police by law students
Variables	B	SE	p	VIF
Cooperation with police	0.03	0.05	0.60	1.13
Police authority	0.33	0.06	0.00	2.55
Obligation to obey	0.05	0.04	0.20	1.11
Deterrence	0.14	0.05	0.00	1.07
Moral credibility	-0.09	0.05	0.64	1.51
Legal cynicism	-0.13	0.06	0.02	1.24
Police effectiveness	0.26	0.06	0.00	2.25
Distributive justice	0.15	0.06	0.02	2.33
Procedural justice	0.31	0.08	0.00	2.89
Age	0.00	0.01	0.54	1.33
Gender	0.07	0.05	0.22	1.12
Parents education	0.05	0.03	0.12	1.31
Family social status	-0.01	0.04	0.83	1.29
Dependent variable: Trust in police
The results of regression analysis for criminal justice students (Table 4) show that variables 1) police authority, 2) police effectiveness, and 3) procedural justice significantly predict trust in police. Among them, procedural justice has the greatest impact on trust in police.
Table 4: Regression analysis of trust in police by criminal justice students
Variables	B	SE	p	VIF
Cooperation with police	0.01	0.04	0.78	1.10
Police authority	0.21	0.06	0.00	2.59
Obligation to obey	-0.05	0.03	0.11	1.09
Deterrence	-0.05	0.03	0.15	1.06
Moral credibility	0.22	0.04	0.59	1.41
Legal cynicism	-0.06	0.04	0.13	1.15
Police effectiveness	0.35	0.06	0.00	1.91
Distributive justice	-0.03	0.05	0.49	2.23
Procedural justice	0.45	0.08	0.00	3.35
Age	0.00	0.00	0.70	1.27
Gender	0.02	0.04	0.73	1.18
Parents education	0.03	0.02	0.24	1.10
Family social status	-0.07	0.04	0.06	1.09
Dependent variable: Trust in police
Wilks' Lambda (0.854) of discriminant function (Table 5) revealed that there are statistically significant differences between the groups of law students _and criminal justice and security students (p < 0.001). Correlations between
discriminating variables and discriminant function show that variables legal cynicism (0.558; p < 0.001), procedural justice (0.667; p < 0.001), life goals (-0.311; p < 0.01), moral credibility (-0.651; p < 0.01) and trust in police (0.145; p < 0.01) have the greatest impact on the distinction between groups. Another statistically significant variable at p < 0.05 is police authority (0.107).
To learn how many students in the samples share common characteristics and how many of them differ in their responses, we conducted discriminant analysis and classification of responses to get an additional insight into their responses and group characteristics.
Table 5: Discriminant analysis
Variables	Law	Criminal justice	Wilks' Lambda	p	Correlations between discriminating variables and discriminant function
	M/SD	M/SD			
Cooperation with policeb	3.41/0.54	3.37/0.58	0.999	0.479	-0.115
Police authoritya	2.29/0.59	2.43/0.55	0.986	0.013	0.107
Obligation to obey3	2.55/0.69	2.62/0.66	0.998	0.307	0.075
Life goalsd	3.09/0.51	2.92/0.51	0.973	0.001	-0.311
Trust in policee	2.62/0.62	2.76/0.53	0.984	0.008	0.145
Deterrence0	2.63/0.54	2.62/0.60	1.000	0.827	-0.103
Moral credibilitya	2.08/0.60	1.91/0.54	0.978	0.002	-0.651
Legal cynicisma	1.83/0.48	2.03/0.55	0.966	0.000	0.558
Police effectiveness8	2.55/0.56	2.64/0.48	0.993	0.071	0.025
Distributive justice"	2.33/0.57	2.35/0.58	1.000	0.726	-0.148
Procedural justicea	2.45/0.52	2.63/0.46	0.969	0.000	0.667
Wilks' Lambda	0.854				
P	0.000				
a. 1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Agree, 4 - Strongly agree; b. 1 - Never, 2 - Rarely, 3 - Occasionally, 4 - Frequently; c. 1 - Very unlikely, 2 - Unlikely, 3 - Likely, 4 - Very likely; d. 1 - Unimportant, 2 - Somewhat unimportant, 3 - Somewhat important;
A comparison between criminal justice students and law students shows (Table 5) that law students have more positive views on life goals and moral credibility. In the case of police authority, trust in police, legal cynicism, and procedural justice, the mean values of criminal justice students are higher than those of the law students.
In the case of variable moral credibility, law students expressed a higher support to the statements: 1) that criminals should be punished according to the law, 2) that law does a good job making sure that criminals get the punishment they deserve regardless of how much money they have and, 3) that innocent people who are accused of crimes are always protected by the law. With regard to the factor mentioned, criminal justice students have expressed a stronger support to the statement "Lots of people I know think the law often punishes people who DO NOT deserve it."
On variable life goals, law students expressed higher values in a high social status, enjoyment of life, possibilities to afford clothes according to the latest fashion, rewarding job, comfortable standard of living and involvement with non-profit organisations. Criminal justice students expressed higher values in a close network of friends and involvement in special-interest groups.
Classification of responses shows that 70.7% of originally grouped cases were correctly classified (39.0% of law and 88.6% of criminal justice students). Based on the classification of the results, we can conclude that the views of the criminal justice students are more unified and that 61% of the law students have similar views as the criminal justice students. On the other hand, only 11.4% of the criminal justice students have similar views as the law students.
101 out of 160 law students who completed the web survey reported that they had previous experience with the criminal justice system (hereinafter referred to CJS): 1) in the role of hearsay witness, 41; 2) in the role of an eyewitness, 44; 3) in the role of a person who committed a minor offence, 58; 4) in the role of someone who reported a crime, 43; 5) in the role of someone who was a victim, 52; and 6) in the role of someone who was a suspect of a crime, 22.
193 out of 282 criminal justice students who completed the web survey have reported that they had previous experience with the CjS: 1) in the role of hearsay witness, 85; 2) in the role of an eyewitness, 69; 3) in the role of a person who committed a minor offence, 119; 4) in the role of someone who reported a crime, 67; 5) in the role of someone who was a victim, 66; and 6) in the role of someone who was a suspect of a crime, 15.
Results show that law students who had previous experience with the CJS generally reflect higher mean values with regard to variables 1) cooperation with police, 2) deterrence, and 3) moral credibility than the law students who did not have any previous experience with CJS. In regard to criminal justice students, the results show that, as to variables 1) cooperation with police, 2) police authority, 3) trust in police, 4) distributive justice, and 5) procedural justice, those who had previous experience with the CJS generally reflect higher mean values than the criminal justice students who did not have previous experiences with CJS. Furthermore, our results show that criminal justice students and law students who had committed a minor offence or were victims of a crime in general reflect lower mean values. The largest differences in reflection between the groups of students are seen in the field where students had previous experience with the CJS in the role of someone who was suspect of a crime.
Moreover, we compared criminal justice and law students that had previous experience with CJS as to which group reflects higher mean values in which variables. The results revealed that, in general, criminal justice students reflect higher mean values regarding 1) police authority, 2) obligation to obey, 3) trust in police, 4) legal cynicism, 5) procedural justice, 6) distributive justice, and 7) police effectiveness.
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Our results are similar to Tyler's (2011: 258) statement that the manner and quality of a police officer's performance and attitude towards the public during the
procedures has an impact on their opinion and feelings (i.e., trust) about the police. Thus, the results of regression analysis show that variables (1) procedural justice,
(2)	police effectiveness, (3) police authority, and (4) legal cynicism predict trust in police by both groups of students. Procedural justice has the greatest impact on trust in police and points out the importance of the treatment of the student by the police in a direct contact or encounters with police officers, as determined by Hinds (2009) and Cunneen and White (1996). Furthermore, Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, and Hohl (2013) confirmed the impact of procedural justice on trust in police. Further analysis revealed that for law students, six variables (police authority, procedural justice, police effectiveness, distributive justice, deterrence and legal cynicism) significantly predict trust in police, whereby police authority has the greatest impact on trust in police. On the other hand, for criminal justice students only three variables (police authority, police effectiveness, and procedural justice) significantly predict trust in police, with procedural justice having the greatest impact on trust.
We further compared both groups using discriminant analysis, and our aim was to find out how many students share common characteristics and how many differ in their responses. Results showed statistically significant differences between the law students and criminal justice and security students. The groups of students differ the most in their opinions relative to variables legal cynicism, procedural justice, life goals, moral credibility, and trust in police. At this point, it is important to stress that if police chiefs want to improve trust in police, their reforms should focus on increasing (1) procedural justice, (2) police effectiveness,
(3)	police authority, and (4) decreasing legal cynicism of young people.
A comparison between criminal justice students and law students reveals that variables life goals and moral credibility are more positively perceived by law students. On the other hand, police authority, trust in police, legal cynicism, and procedural justice are more positively perceived by criminal justice students. One of the possible reasons for the differences between trust in police by law students and that by students of criminal justice and security could be the difference in their study programmes and in (personal) characteristics of both groups (e.g., life goals, social background, curriculum, among others). The students who choose to study law are different from the students who choose to study criminal justice and security (i.e., legal aspects and police aspects). For example, Machura et al. (2014, based on the results of their study in 2010, point to an increase in scepticism of law students during the study, which is influenced by political events and personal experiences with the police and media. In general, criminal justice students express high punitive attitudes. Mitar and Meško (2008) pointed to higher punitive attitudes of criminal justice students in relation to law students. The reasons for the differences between law students and criminal justice students can be also seen in the nature of their studies. We assume that the results of our study and, consequently, responses of the students were affected by the protests against corruption and the government taking place during data collection.
As regards previous experience with CJS in general, results also show that law students who had previous experience as compared to the law students without such experience more positively perceive variables cooperation with
police, deterrence and moral credibility. In the case of criminal justice students, variables cooperation with police, police authority, trust in police, distributive justice and procedural justice are more positively perceived by the students with previous CJS experience than by those without it.
Reisig et al. (2012) found out that procedural justice judgments significantly shape individual perceptions of trust in police and explain self-reported compliance with the law. Results from comparing both criminal justice and law students with previous CJS experiences revealed that law students reflect higher moral credibility and are more willing to cooperate with the police. On the other hand, criminal justice students expressed higher respect for police authority, feel more obligated to obey the police, have higher trust in police, procedural and distributive justice, and see the police as more effective than law students. Is the reason for such a difference hidden in more experience and cooperation with police by criminal justice students during their study and in the differences between the study programmes or previous (personal) experiences?
Perception of the police and criminal justice professionalism of those with experience with the police- and the criminal justice systems breaks into three groups: those who perceived police and criminal justice professionals as 'professional' (n = 238), 'unprofessional' (n = 32), and 'extremely unprofessional/ abusive' (n = 3). Further analysis revealed that, as regards students' previous experience with CJS, both law and criminal justice and security students who were hearsay witnesses, eyewitnesses, or persons that reported a crime, consider the police as a more professional institution. Nevertheless, the result showing that Slovene police officers behaved professionally and offered all the necessary support and help when dealing with a student as a victim confirms the finding about the police as a (very) professional institution.
To conclude, if we want to improve trust in police, we should improve the fairness of their procedures. It needs to be emphasized that police effectiveness shows in the level of quality of their services. Thus the level of success in controlling crimes by the police and police authority shows the legality of the police. What is more, this is also viewed as the ability of the public to identify them with the police morality and general goals of the police. We can conclude, as already emphasized by Meško et al. (in press), that police authority and procedural justice have an impact on trust in police. Despite the fact that the studied sample was specific due to the differences in study programmes (law and criminal justice and security) that include more often 'contacts' with the police, we believe that, to some extent, our results can be generalized and seen as important from the citizens' perspective. We believe that the police in Slovenia, in order to increase public trust, should focus on the improvement of police authority, police effectiveness, and procedural justice, while legal cynicism reflects a general social climate in the society where we conducted the study.
REFERENCES
Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Hough, M. (2013). Police futures and legitimacy: Redefining 'good policing'. In J. Brown (Ed.), Future of policing (pp. 79-99). Oxon:
Routledge.
Brown, B., Benedict, R., & Wilkinson, W. V. (2006). Public perceptions of the police in Mexico: A case study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 29(1), 158-175.
Chow, H. P. H. (2012). Attitudes towards police in Canada: A study of perceptions of university students in a Western Canadian City. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 7(1), 508-523.
Clark, J. P., & Wenninger, E. P. (1964). The attitude of juveniles toward the legal institution. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 55(4), 482-489.
Cunneen, C., & White, R. (1996). Juvenile justice: An Australian perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Černič, M., Makarovič, M., & Macur, M. (2009). Javnomnenjska raziskava o ocenah in stališčih prebivalcev Republike Slovenije o delu policije [Slovene public opinion poll on assessments and attitudes towards police work]. Retrieved from http://www.mnz.gov.si/fileadmin/mnz.gov.si/pageuploads/SOJ/word/JMra-ziskava.pdf
Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1969). Children in the political system: Origins of political legitimacy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eller, A., Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., & Imara, D. A. (2007). When my friend's friend is a police officer: Extended contact, crossed-categorization, and public-police relations of Black and White people. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 783-802.
European Social Survey. (2010). ESS Round 5. Retrieved from http://www.europe-ansocialsurvey.org/
Hinds, K. (2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24(1), 10-21.
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27-42.
Jackson, J. (2010). Trust in justice and the legitimacy of legal authorities: Pilot data from a comparative European analysis. Retrieved from http://www.tasa.org.au/ uploads/2008/12/Jackson-Jonathan.pdf
Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). Police legitimacy: A conceptual review. National Policing Improvement Agency. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=1684507
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., & Murray, K. H. (2012). Compliance with the law and policing by consent. In A. Crawford, & A. Hucklesby (Eds.), Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice (pp. 29-49). New York; London: Rout-ledge.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko B., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jackson, J., Hough, M., Bradford, B., Pooler, T., Hohl, K., & Kuha, J. (2011). Trust in justice: Topline results from Round 5 of the European Social Survey. European Social Survey. Retrieved from http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/32166/ Topline%20Results%20from%20Round%205%20of%20the%20ESS.pdf
Kurdija, S., & Vovk, T. (2006). Raziskava o ocenah in stališčih slovenske javnosti o delu policije [Research on Slovene public opinion and assessments of police work]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
Leiber, M. J., Nalla, M. K., & Farnworth, M. (1998). Explaining juveniles' attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 15(1), 151-173.
Loader, I. (1996). Youth, policing and democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Machura, S., Love, T., & Dwight, A. (2014). Law students' trust in the courts and the police. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 42(4), 287-305.
Meško, G., & Klemenčič, G. (2007). Rebuilding legitimacy and police professionalism in an emerging democracy: The Slovenian experience. In T. R. Tyler (Ed.), Legitimacy and criminal justice (pp. 84-115). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Meško, G., Fields, C. B., Šifrer, J., & Eman, K. (in press). Understanding trust in police and legitimacy: An empirical journey in Central and Eastern Europe. CEPOL Research and Science Bulletin, 15 p.
Meško, G., Lobnikar, B., Jere, M., & Sotlar, A. (2013). Recent development of policing in Slovenia. In G. Meško, C. B Fields, B. Lobnikar, & A. Sotlar (Eds.), Handbook on policing in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 263-286). New York: Springer.
Mitar, M., & Meško, G. (2008). Stališča do smrtne kazni med študenti prava, študenti varstvoslovja in policisti [Attitudes toward the death penalty among law students, students of criminal justice and police]. Varstvoslovje, 10(1), 156-173.
Nelsen, E. A., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. L. (1982). The structure of adolescents' attitudes towards law and crime. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 140(1), 47-58.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Varstvoslovje, 14(2), 147-164.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2013). Compliance with the law in Slovenia: The role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20(2), 259-276.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513-547.
Tankebe, J. (2008). Policing, procedural fairness and public behaviour: A review and critique. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11(1), 8-19.
Taylor, T. J., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree, L. T. (2001). Coppin' an attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(4), 295-305.
Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Legitimacy and legitimating. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375-400.
Tyler, T. R. (2011). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 254-266.
Uhan, S., Toš, N., Kurdija, S., Kovačič, M., Filej, Ž., & Falle, R. (2002). Stališča slovenske javnosti o policiji [Slovene public opinion about the police]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
Uhan, S., Toš, N., Kurdija, S., Vovk, T., & Bešter Falle, R. (2004). Stališča slovenske javnosti o policiji [Slovene public opinion about the police]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Walker, S. (1992). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 19501990. Oxford: Oxford University Press. White, R. (1994). Street life: Police practices and youth behaviour. In R. White, & C. Alder (Eds.), The Police and young people in Australia (pp. 16-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
About the Authors:
Gorazd Meško, Ph.D., is Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor. E-mail: gorazd.mesko@fvv.uni-mb.si Rok Hacin, M.A., is Junior Researcher and Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor. E-mail: rok.hacin@fvv. uni-mb.si
Katja Eman, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor. E-mail: katja.eman@fvv. uni-mb.si
VARSTVOSLOVJE, Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, year 16 no. 4
pp. 492-517
Legal Cynicism among Civically-Engaged Youth
Rachel Swaner, Avi Brisman
Purpose:
This article examines young people's attitudes towards and interactions with the police, as well as the court system and law, more generally - particularly those living in socially and economically disadvantaged communities where cynicism and scepticism about the efficacy and fairness of law enforcement officers tend to run high.
Design/Methods/Approach:
Using survey data from 133 teenagers voluntarily participating in programs at a courthouse in Brooklyn, NY (USA), this study seeks to better understand non-delinquent youths' feelings of fairness of the law, confidence in the court system, and attitudes towards the police.
Findings:
T-tests and multiple regression analyses reveal that legal cynicism among these youth is high, stemming from feelings of discrimination and inequitable enforcement. Having had a recent negative interaction with a police officer is a significant predictor of having more negative attitudes toward the police, though having had a positive interaction was not a statistically significant predictor of more positive attitudes.
Research Limitations/Implications:
This study looks only at a physically disconnected urban area in the United States where crime is high, and the population is predominantly Black and Hispanic. In addition, a more qualitative narrative might help reveal the reasons why young people, especially those in poor, high-crime areas who are affected by saturated policing and those who have negative attitudes towards them, are still interested in working with formal mechanisms of social control.
Practical Implications:
The survey's focus on process and fairness implies that what may be most important in improving public trust and confidence in the system is treating all who come through it with respect. Though negatively disposed towards criminal justice agencies, young people do not exist in a state of normlessness. Much potential exists to meaningfully partner with them for the purpose of achieving greater fairness criminal justice processes. Public policy would benefit by actively involving young people in community-based youth crime-reduction programs.
Originality/Value:
Ours is the first study to look exclusively at nondelinquent youth who have come voluntarily to an institution of formal social control - a court.
UDC: 343(73)
Keywords: attitudes/dispositions toward police, civic engagement, legal cynicism, youth
Pravni cinizem med družbeno-aktivno mladino
Namen prispevka:
Članek preučuje odnos mladih do policije in interakcije z njo ter odnos do sodnega sistema in prava na splošno. Preučuje predvsem tiste mlade, ki živijo v socialno in ekonomsko prikrajšanih skupnostih, kjer cinizem in skepticizem o učinkovitosti in pravičnosti policistov običajno dosegata visoko raven.
Metode:
Z uporabo podatkov iz raziskave, kjer je sodelovalo 133 najstnikov, ki prostovoljno sodelujejo pri programih sodišča v Brooklynu (NY, ZDA), poskuša študija bolje razumeti čustva nedelinkventnih mladostnikov o pravičnosti zakona, zaupanju v sodni sistem in odnosu do policije.
Ugotovitve:
T-testi in multiple regresijske analize kažejo, da je pravni cinizem med anketiranimi mladimi visok in izhaja iz občutkov diskriminacije in neenakega izvrševanja pooblastil. Nedavna negativna izkušnja s policistom je pomemben napovednik za bolj negativen odnos do policije, čeprav pa pozitivna izkušnja ne predstavlja statistično pomembnega napovednika za bolj pozitiven odnos.
Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave:
Študija je bila opravljena zgolj v fizično izločenem urbanem območju v Združenih državah Amerike, kjer je stopnja kriminalitete visoka in kjer pretežno prebivajo Afro- in Latinoameričani. Poleg tega bi lahko bolj kvalitativno naravnana pripoved pomagala razkriti razloge, zakaj so mladi, zlasti tisti iz revnih območij z veliko kriminalitete, zasičenih s policijsko dejavnostjo, ter tisti, ki imajo negativen odnos do policije, še vedno zainteresirani za delo s formalnimi mehanizmi družbenega nadzorstva.
Praktična uporabnost:
Osredotočenost raziskave na proces in pravičnosti pomeni, da je prav spoštljiva obravnava vseh, ki se znajdejo v sistemu, najbolj pomemben dejavnik izboljšanja zaupanja javnosti v sistem. Čeprav so negativno razpoloženi do organov kazenskega pravosodja, mladi ne morejo obstati v stanju brez norm in pravil. Velik potencial predstavlja smiselno partnerstvo z njimi z namenom doseganja večje pravičnosti v postopkih kazenskega pravosodja. Javna politika bi imela koristi z aktivnim vključevanjem mladih v v-skupnost-usmerjene programe za zmanjševanje kriminalitete mladih.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
Naša študija je prva, ki se je usmerila izključno na neprestopniške mlade, ki so prostovoljno prišli do institucije formalnega družbenega nadzorstva - sodišča.
UDK: 343(73)
Ključne besede: odnos do policije, družbeno udejstvovanje, pravni cinizem, mladi
1 INTRODUCTION
"The police will pull you over for your pants hanging down," says Daquan,
who subsequently grabs his pants and yanks them down a bit for effect.1
"They could be walkin' up on you asking you questions for no reason,"
O'karo states.
"Some are jerks," Wilfredo announces.
"They racist," Anquette opines.
"Sometimes [the police] arrest you for no apparent reason," Natasha laments.
The scene is a mock courtroom at the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) - a multi-jurisdictional problem-solving court located in the heart of Red Hook neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY (USA). A group of African-American and Latino/Hispanic teenagers, fourteen-to-eighteen years of age (although most are fifteen or sixteen), have gathered in the courtroom for a group interview. Each is hoping to earn a place in a ten-week long unpaid training program for the Red Hook Youth Court (RHYC) - a juvenile diversion program designed to prevent the formal processing of juvenile offenders (usually first-time offenders) within the juvenile justice system (see Brisman, 2010/2011). The teenagers who are selected from the pool of applicants must complete the training program and pass a "bar exam" in order to serve as RHYC members, where they will help resolve actual cases involving their peers (e.g., assault, fare evasion, truancy, vandalism).
All of the teenagers who have come for the group interview have done so voluntarily. In other words, while some of the teenagers may have been encouraged to apply to the training program by a family member, none of the teenagers in the group interview is there as a result of a court order or pursuant to a threat of punishment from within the criminal justice system. Yet, as the above-quoted statements suggest, many of the teenagers possess less-than-positive views of law enforcement. While a few teenagers express the belief that the police "protect the community" or "solve crimes" and while others offer more qualified or nuanced statements, such as, "the police do help out, but they do bad stuff" and "they protect and enforce the law, but some of them abuse their power", the majority of responses reflect a dislike - and sometimes a strong dislike - for law enforcement.
Research across the social sciences indicates a lack of confidence in the fairness or effectiveness of the judiciary in the United States, and in the criminal justice system and criminal law, more specifically (see, e.g., Fagan, 2008; Tyler, 2004; see also Alexander, 2013; Brisman, 2010/2011; Editorial, 2009, 2011, 2012; cf. Huebner,
1 "Daquan" is a pseudonym, as are all of the names used to identify youth in this article.
Schafer, & Bynum, 2004).2 While this crisis of confidence crosses racial categories and spans the socioeconomic spectrum, a widespread distrust and a lack of faith in the courts and the criminal justice system are particularly pronounced in minority communities (Rottman & Hansen, 2001; see also DeKeseredy, 2011; Editorial, 2007; Hurdle, 2007; Kirk & Matsuda, 2011; Perry, 2009; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler & Waksladk, 2004; cf. Carlson, 2012).3 Indeed, a high level of dissatisfaction with police is common among residents of poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods (Anderson, 1999; Chriss, 2007; Huang & Vaughn, 1996; MacDonald & Stokes, 2006; Sampson & Bartush, 1998; Smith, Graham, & Adams, 1991), and African-Americans and the poor, in particular, are considerably more likely to perceive the criminal system as unjust (Fagan, 2008; Hagan & Shedd, 2005; Nielsen, 2000; Rottman & Hansen, 2001; Scott, 2002; Sherman, 1993; Van Craen, 2013; see also Ewick & Silbey, 1998). For example, Hagan and Albonetti (1982) examined perceptions of "criminal injustice" and found that African Americans and members of the lowest social class were more likely to perceive criminal injustice than Caucasians and members of the upper class, respectively. While this was true for many of the legal system players, such as the court and judges, the relationship between race and perceptions of injustice was particularly strong for items involving the police, substantiating the findings of other studies (e.g., Block, 1971; Hahn, 1971; Smith & Hawkins, 1973) and subsequently confirmed by Huang and Vaughn (1996) and Smith et al. (1991).
While Tyler and Fagan (2008) have found that African-Americans may have even higher levels of distrust of the courts and the criminal justice system than of the police, research has also has demonstrated that: (1) contact with the police and satisfaction with the interaction help shape attitudes and dispositions (see, e.g., Bradford et al., 2014; Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Schuck & Martin, 2013; Worrall, 1999); (2) African Americans have much less favorable attitudes toward the police
2	This is not to suggest that trust in government or a lack of confidence in the fairness or effectiveness of justice systems are problems peculiar to the contemporary United States. For international examples, see, e.g., Fahim (2009); Malkin (2011); Slackman (2009); see generally Associated Press (2012). For studies conducted outside the United States on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of legal authorities and citizens' trust in the police, see, e.g., Bradford, Murphy, and Jackson (2014); Jonathan-Zamir and Weisburd (2013); Kochel, Parks, and Mastrofski (2013); Murphy and Barkworth (2014); Semukhina (2014); Sprott and Doob (2014); Tankebe (2009); Van Craen (2013). For a discussion of concern over the erosion of U.S. citizens' faith in law and the legal system in the early 1900s, see Pound in Ewick and Silbey (1998:238).
3	It bears mention that Sprott and Doob (2014) criticize the Canadian research exploring the differences in levels of confidence that various racial or cultural groups have in the police. According to Sprott and Doob (2014: 368 (citations omitted)), such research "tends to explore differences in views through the lens of visible minorities as a group, compared to non-visible minorities", but that "visible minorities in Canada are not a homogenous group on almost any dimension, including economic well-being and incarceration". Sprott and Doob (2014: 369, 372) stress "the importance of exploring views across various racial/cultural groups more carefully" and assert: "it cannot be said that visible minorities simply do not think as highly of the police as do others. They do not rate the police as highly on some dimensions, but do on others." Their own study finds that "there are clearly important differences across racial groups in their views of various aspects of the police" (e.g., blacks in Quebec and Ontario rate interpersonal interactions with the police more negatively than whites, but are not more negative when rating more technical aspects of policing) and that "there are... important differences across provinces. References to visible minorities end up referring to quite different mixes of racial/cultural groups in different parts of urban Canada, and the manner in which these groups view the police differs somewhat as a function of location" (Sprott & Doob, 2014:375).
than any other group (Hagan & Shedd, 2005: 283-284; Huebner et al., 2004: 124, 125; Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2000: 90-91; but see Schuck & Martin, 2013); and (3) "African-Americans' perceptions of 'unfair, unjust or otherwise unequal treatment from the police' have serious consequences for police/community relations" (Brunson & Miller, 2006: 614; Brandl, Stroshine, & Frank, 2001: 524). In fact, because "[p]ublic cooperation with police and willing compliance with the law are essential for democratic governance" (Kochel et al., 2013: 896) and because law enforcement relies on the voluntary compliance of the citizenry in the performance of its duties and depends on citizens to report crime and criminals and to serve as jurors and witnesses for the courts, citizens' lack of trust in the police can frustrate crime control efforts (Brunson & Miller, 2006: 636-637; Fagan, 2008: 126; Jonathan-Zamir & Weisburd, 2013: 4; Jonathan-Zamir, Mastrofski, & Moyal, in press: 3; Kochel et al., 2013: 896, 901; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014: 179; Tyler, 2003: 284, 290; see generally Scott, 2002: 861; Van Craen, 2013: 1046-1047). For example, aggressive policing practices (such as the search for drugs) that disproportionately target African American residents of a community (Brunson & Miller, 2006: 616; Scott, 2002: 866, 868) can spur citizens to "withdraw from engagement with the legal system in the co-production of justice and security" (Fagan, 2008: 125) and can, over time, lead to opposition and defiance of legal and social norms (Fagan, 2008: 139; see also Bradford et al., 2014: 528, 530, 532, 544; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014: 181). Thus, because attitudes towards and perceptions of the law, in general, criminal law and the criminal justice system, more specifically, and the police, even more particularly, are linked to cooperation with legal authorities and compliance with the law (Tyler, 2004; Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005: 267; see also Bradford et al., 2014: 528, 530, 532, 544; Sprott & Doob, 2014: 368; cf. Tankebe, 2009) - and because some identify a causal (or at least correlative) relationship between perceived injustice and criminal behaviour (see, e.g., Bernard, 1990; Hagan & Shedd, 2005; LaFree, 1998; Mann, 1993; Russell-Brown, 1998; Tyler, 1990) - it is important to continue to study such attitudes and perceptions.
Perceptions of the law, legal authorities, and legal institutions begin in childhood (Piquero et al., 2005; see also Tyler, 2004). Although attitudes towards and perceptions of the law, legal authorities, and legal institutions can grow, develop, and vacillate over time, adolescence is a crucial formative period for the development of political and social beliefs (Flanagan & Sherrod, 1998; Hagan & Shedd, 2005: 267; Niemi & Hepburn, 1995). Indeed, perceptions of justice that form in adolescence often persist through adulthood (Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Hagan & Shedd, 2005; Hagan, Shedd, & Payne, 2005) and early-to-middle adolescence is the period when minority youth are likely to first encounter the police on a regular basis (Hagan & Shedd, 2005; Taylor, Turner, Esbensen, & Winfree, 2001) - so much so that one commentator recently referred to getting stopped and frisked as a "rite of passage" for African-American and Latino youth in New York City. As such, it becomes especially vital to examine young people's attitudes towards and interactions with the police, as well as the court system and law, more generally - particularly those living in socially and economically disadvantaged communities where cynicism and scepticism about the efficacy and fairness of law enforcement officers tends to run high (Nielsen, 2000).
In order to more fully understand young people's attitudes towards and interactions with law, court systems, and law enforcement, as well as the types of experiences that create positive, negative, and mixed dispositions towards law enforcement and the courts, we administered a survey to teenagers entering one of three programs at the RHCJC: the RHYC, noted above, Youth Expanding Community Horizons by Organizing (Youth ECHO), and the Police-Teen Theater Project (PTTP). This article reports on those findings.
We proceed by first describing the relevant terminology and briefly reviewing the overlapping literatures of legal consciousness, legal cynicism, legal socialization, and procedural justice. Next, we turn to a description of the Red Hook neighbourhoods and the programs studied at the RHCJC. From here, we discuss our methods and results. We conclude by situating our findings in the literature on legal cynicism and outlining the implications of our work for future research.
2 TERMINOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Legal consciousness refers to the ways in which people understand, imagine, and use the law, as well as their attitudes towards and feelings about the law, and the nature and extent of their "legal literacy" (Brisman, 2010/2011). As a related and overlapping concept, legal socialization is "the process through which individuals acquire attitudes and beliefs about the law, legal authorities, and legal institutions. This occurs through individuals' interactions, both personal and vicarious, with police, courts, and other legal actors" (Piquero et al., 2005: 267; see also Fagan & Tyler, 2005). While some define legal socialization more narrowly than legal consciousness - as "the process that leads people to embrace the authority of law and their obligation to obey the law" (Buss, 2011: 329) - even the more capacious formulation of legal socialization, as offered by Piquero et al. (2005) and Fagan and Tyler (2005), seems less expansive than legal consciousness, which considers how individuals imagine the law, as well as how they perceive it and what they know about it. In addition to being a more inclusive concept than legal socialization, legal consciousness is the more common and more widely employed concept and term; there also seems to be a bit of a disciplinary divide: legal consciousness appears to be the preferred concept or term in anthropology (specifically legal anthropology or the anthropology of law) and socio-legal studies (see, e.g., Cowan, 2004; Engel, 1984; Ewick & Silbey, 1991/1992; Fleury-Steiner, 2003, 2004; Greenhouse, 1986; Greenhouse, Yngvesson, & Engel, 1994; Hirsch, 2002; Hoffman, 2003; Levine & Mellema, 2001; Marshall, 2005; Merry, 1990; Morrill, Hagan, Harcourt, & Meares, 2005; Mraz, 1997; Nielsen, 2000; Sarat, 1990; Trubek, 1984; White, 1990), whereas legal socialization appears more frequently in criminology and sociology (see, e.g., Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005).
Legal cynicism has been understood as "'anomie' about law (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998: 778) or "the extent to which individuals feel disengaged from legal norms, perceive that others are so disengaged that legal norms have no validity, or perceive legal norms as useless in guiding behaviour in the marketplace" (Karstedt & Farrall, 2006: 1018). Similarly, for Soller, Jackson, and Browing (2014: 568), "[l]
egal cynicism refers to the cultural view that the legal system is illegitimate, inadequately protects against victimization and fails to properly handle (criminal) offenses". The concept and term have had little currency in anthropology, but has attracted the attention of researchers in criminology, sociology, and socio-legal studies, who consider it a "dimension" of legal socialization (see Piquero et al., 2005: 270).
Theorists of the social construction of "legal cynicism" generally fall into two different camps. Those such as Cohen (1955) and Anderson (1999) emphasize "oppositional values". Deriving from Matea (1964), this is a subcultural argument, in which negative dispositions towards the legal system and the police are validated and the "code of the street" is normative and legitimized. Scholars such as Tyler (1988, 1990, 1998, 2002), Tyler and Huo (2002), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), Warner (2003), and Soller at al. (2014), on the other hand, contend that the normative value system is not wholly oppositional, but attenuated, based on experiences of police illegitimacy and procedural injustices.
Cumulatively, research findings seem to be favouring the second camp. Sampson and Bartush (1998) have argued that legal cynicism, or "anomie" about law, is distinct from subcultural tolerance of deviance, and instead an important source of it is the social-ecological structure of neighbourhoods. Inner-city contexts of racial segregation and concentrated disadvantage breed cynicism and perceptions of legal injustice. Moreover, as they and Shoemaker and Williams (1987) and Ellison (1991) found, just because crime may be concentrated in some of these neighbourhoods, there is not consistent evidence that implies that those people inhabiting them are tolerant of that crime. Therefore, one's personal views that crime/delinquency is wrong does not necessarily translate into support for the mechanisms used to enforce such conduct (i.e., laws, courts, and police).
More recently, Carr et al. (2007) examined the origins of legal cynicism among youth from high-crime urban neighbourhoods, finding that most youth in these areas are negatively disposed toward police and that this is grounded in their lived experience of negative encounters with law enforcement. They also found that these attitudes were not about young people rejecting the rule of law outright, as Anderson (1999) put forth, but rather about cultural attenuation (Warner, 2003), where youth can be cynical of police but still believe that police should have a role in crime control as long as they are procedurally just.
Finally, procedural justice - "people's subjective judgments about the fairness of the procedures through which the police and courts exercise their authority" (Tyler, 2003: 284) or "the fairness of the processes by which the police exercise their authority: the way that police treat citizens and how they decide what to do" (Jonathan-Zamir et al., in press: 2) - is the most prevalent of the terms and one that is encountered frequently in the law and legal scholarship. With procedural justice - the process-based criteria that individuals draw upon to evaluate whether they have been treated fairly (Brunson & Miller, 2006: 618, 636) - the "perceptions of the fairness of the process used during the police-citizen encounter and the appropriateness of the officer's behavior" (Schuck & Martin, 2013: 220) - the focus is less on the outcome of a legal process (e.g., a proper verdict, a fair sentence) than on a subjective evaluation of the process itself: do those engaged in or subject to
a legal process, including an encounter with a police officer, feel that they were treated fairly and that the process or interaction was fair, impartial and legitimate (Barrett, 2013: 156-157)? To some extent, the concept of procedural justice overlaps with legal cynicism: feelings that one has been dealt with unfairly by the police or that a court's processes were not equitable, impartial, or just might contribute to an individual's legal cynicism. But procedural justice is more of an event-based concept, rather than a normative sentiment, and its calculus often occurs ex post - after an encounter with the police, the courts, or some other arm of the criminal justice system (see generally Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997). Thus, it is possible to feel that procedural justice occurred in a specific situation, but to possess cynicism about the law and legal players, more generally. Conversely, it is possible to feel that procedural justice did not occur in a specific instance - that the police did not act fairly during the course of an investigation or arrest or that the court did not employ equitable, impartial, or just procedures or rulings in a case - but to still feel an overall, day-to-day confidence and faith in the legal system.
As alluded to above, research has endeavoured to assess the meaning of procedural justice for those who come in contact with the criminal justice system. For example, as Wissler (1995), Lind and Tyler (1988), Paternoster et al. (1997) and Tyler (2004) have demonstrated, people are willing to accept decisions when they think criminal justice officials or legal institutes are acting fairly. Similarly, Tyler (1990) has argued that citizens generally hold favourable views towards institutions that are perceived as unbiased, while holding negative views of those that are believed to be partisan or discriminatory. Elsewhere, Tyler (2001) has suggested that public trust and confidence in police and courts is not related to performance or outcomes, but on how fair people feel they were treated, and Tyler and Huo (2002) have proffered that when citizens perceive justice system agencies to be fair, they are more likely to comply with the law, legal authorities, and court mandates, increasing institutional confidence.
This article reports on our efforts to measure the legal cynicism of youth involved in voluntary after-school programs at the RHCJC. Accordingly, while this article speaks to issues and questions in the literatures of legal consciousness, legal socialization, and procedural justice, we situate our study and findings in the legal cynicism literature.
3 LIMITATIONS OF PAST RESEARCH
Our work seeks to remedy several limitations in previous research. First, and as noted at the outset, research has shown the importance of contact with the police and satisfaction with the interaction help form attitudes and dispositions (Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Worrall, 1999). There is growing concern that perceived injustice itself causes or at least contributes to criminal behaviour (see, e.g., Bernard, 1990; Hagan & Shedd, 2005; LaFree, 1998; Mann, 1993; Russell-Brown, 1998; Tyler, 1990), and that racial discrimination is a powerful predictor of delinquency (DeKeseredy, 2011: 27). This potential link between attitudes and behaviour adds urgency to developing a better understanding of perceptions of criminal injustice
among youth, as most of the studies have been about the adult population (cf. Brunson & Miller, 2006; Carr et al., 2007; Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000). This study fills a gap in the literature by examining these issues with teenagers in southwest Brooklyn.
Second, most of the literature reporting on what people think about formal social control has examined attitudes towards police (see, e.g., Apple & O'Brien, 1983; Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Huebner et al., 2004). Little research has examined attitudes towards the police, as well as law, courts, and the criminal justice system, which are all contemplated in our current study.
Finally, some studies have explored attitudes of delinquent youth and others, such as Carr et al. (2007), have considered attitudes of both delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Still others have examined whether neighbourhood legal cynicism attenuates the positive association between youth violence and parental assessment of the extent to which youths possess aggressive or impulsive temperaments (Soller et al., 2014). Ours, however, is the first study to look exclusively at nondelinquent youth who have come voluntarily to an institution of formal social control - a court.
4 THE STUDY
4.1 The Red Hook Neighborhood and Youth Programs at the Red Hook Community Justice Center
Red Hook is a geographically isolated neighbourhood in southwest Brooklyn, NY. Seventy percent of its residents live in the large public housing project there, the Red Hook Houses (Brisman, 2009). The Red Hook Houses, the largest public housing development in Brooklyn, New York, are comprised of approximately 60 percent African-Americans and 40 percent Latinos. In 1999, 28 percent of the work force was unemployed and the median household income was $10,372 in the Red Hook Houses. There is some evidence to suggest that many of Red Hook's predominantly low-income and minority youth hold ambivalent or negative attitudes towards police officers. These young people often react negatively when in the presence of law enforcement personnel, and many police officers, in turn, regard the neighbourhood's young residents with suspicion. An article by Lee (2007) in The New York Times highlighted the tension between officers and youth in Red Hook: "The Red Hook projects have a large black population, a history of crime problems and, at least in a few young men, a wariness of the police." One local resident interviewed in Lee's (2007) article said that he "blames police practices like the stop-and-frisks for tension between the community and the police... [M]any officers might want to stop crime in the community, but many cannot discern between common criminals and the common people who live among them." Another resident stated in the article that police frequently stop him as he leaves or comes home, and he has to always carry his work identification badge home to prove to the police that he is employed and is not selling drugs. Pointing to a section of the Red Hook projects, "This is the war zone. If they
catch you in here alone they're going to stop you. And they'll play mind games with you. Ten minutes after searching you, they'll come back by, just staring" (Lee, 2007). Distrust and antagonism between police officers and youth make the officers' jobs harder and can easily escalate into situations in which young people get into unnecessary trouble with the law, leaving them with criminal records and putting a black mark on their futures.
As an initial response to tensions between NYPD officers and Red Hook youth, the RHCJC began offering workshops called "What to do When Stopped by the Police" to local teenagers. At these workshops, local officers convened to speak with teenagers about the nature of police-work, used role-playing to encourage teenagers to understand officers' perspectives, and taught teenagers how to keep themselves safe in interactions with police officers. The workshops were well received both by local officers and teens, but while they may have been very useful in helping teenagers understand how to keep themselves out of trouble when they are stopped by the police, the RHCJC soon realized that the workshops did not tackle the core issue of mutual distrust between law enforcement officers and teenagers in Red Hook. Through conversations with teenagers and officers, the RHCJC found that both sides needed an opportunity to interact in a non-adversarial context and to get to know one another as individuals in order to break down negative stereotypes. To that end, the organization developed and enhanced some of its youth programming to try to address this relationship, both directly and indirectly, as well as encourage a positive relationship between the youth and the local court system. One program was created specifically to develop local teenagers' skills as organizers for positive community change related to crime and delinquency, while a second was established for teenagers and police to come together and learn improvisational acting. The "What to do When Stopped by the Police" workshop was included in the training for these youth programs, as well as in the preexisting RHYC, in which Red Hook youth adjudicate low-level crimes involving their peers. Mentor-mentee relationships were also encouraged between the court officers in the RHCJC building and youth program participants.
4.1.1 Youth ECHO
Youth ECHO (Expanding Community Horizons by Organizing) is a Red Hook Community Justice Center after-school program designed to address the positive perceptions of youth crime thought to be held by many young people residing in the Red Hook Houses. The program tries to increase pro-social behaviours and change attitudes about crime among Red Hook youth and employs a marketing campaign to achieve this goal. The young people meet twice a week for two hours a day and get paid a bi-weekly stipend for their participation. The curriculum focuses on developing research, organizing, and marketing skills to help young people engage their peers on issues facing young people in Red Hook, such as drug dealing and dropping out of school.
4.1.2	Police Teen Theater Program
The Police Teen Theater Program engages young people and police officers from southwest Brooklyn, meeting once a week over the course of 10-weeks to participate in an improvisational acting class taught by a local artist. The program is free for all participants, and teenagers who attend all sessions receive a stipend. The curriculum focuses on building acting skills, as well as providing the group with an opportunity to discuss important community issues, such as gangs, peer pressure, violence and stereotypes. These issues often appear in the original content that the group creates in class, both in written journal entries and improvised scenes. The goals of the program include increasing trust and respect between local police and teens, and debunking the negative stereotypes of these groups in the community. The program culminates in a final performance, Riot Act, which is open to the public.
4.1.3	Red Hook Youth Court
As noted at the outset, the RHYC trains local teenagers to serve as jurors, judges, and attorneys, handling real-life cases involving their peers in southwest Brooklyn. The goal of this court is to use positive peer pressure to ensure that young people committing low-level crimes pay back the community and receive the help they need to avoid further involvement in the justice system. The RHYC handles approximately 150 cases per year, involving young people aged 10-18 who have been cited for low-level offences, such as vandalism, fare evasion, assault, and truancy. These are cases that typically receive "YD cards", a police notation that results in neither sanctions nor links to social services. Thanks to a partnership with the New York Police Department, officers in the 72nd, 76th, and 78th precincts in Brooklyn refer juveniles who have admitted their involvement in such an incident to the RHYC, where they appear before a jury of their peers. If found guilty, sanctions for respondents include community service, letters of apology, essays or skills-building workshops on topics like conflict resolution and goal setting.
To ensure that respondents are judged by a true cross section of their peers, RHYC members - ranging from 14 to 18 years old - are widely recruited from the community for this one-year program. There is no minimum grade-point average for participation, nor is there any previous experience required, although RHYC staff require that members maintain good academic standing in order to continue in the program and are frequently available for tutoring for those students in need of extra help. Taking inspiration from Braithwaite's (1989, 2002; see also Braithwaite & Mugford, 1994) ideas about shaming and reintegration, young people who have previously had a case with the RHYC or in the traditional court are strongly encouraged to apply. Participants receive 30 hours of pre-service training on critical thinking, precision questioning, active listening, and youth court protocols. In addition, they participate in on-going, intensive youth development and team-building activities to help cultivate their leadership skills, and receive a bi-weekly stipend.
4.2 Methods
Over an eighteen-month period, we administered a survey to teenagers entering one of three programs at the RHCJC: RHYC, Youth ECHO, or the Police Teen Theater Program. (We obtained informed assent and consent from the juveniles and their parents/guardians respectively prior to administering the survey.) The youth survey instrument was intended to measure young people's attitudes towards and interactions with the police, the court system, and laws.
4.2.1 Participant Characteristics
A total of 133 teenagers participated in this study. Table 1 presents demographic information for the survey respondents. Fifty-nine percent were female, 41 percent male, 50 percent lived in public housing, and 99 percent were in school. Participants were split evenly between Black Non-Hispanic (49 percent) and Hispanic (49 percent). The majority (80 percent) were involved with the Youth Court program.
Female
Race/Ethnicity Black Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Non-Hispanic Living in Public Housing Currently in School 8th grade 9th grade
10th grade 11th grade 12th grade
GED program Program Youth Court Youth ECHO
Police Teen Theater Program
Note: n = 133 but can be as low as 128 for some data elements due to missing data.
To gauge legal cynicism, we created three primary scales. The first section of the survey instrument asks 26 Likert-based questions about respondents' attitudes towards criminal justice agencies and the legal system. Exploratory factor analysis revealed an eleven-item negative attitudes towards police scale that included the following questions: "I trust the police", "The police do a good job", "The police are there to protect people like me", "The police harass teenagers more than they harass older people" (reverse coded), "The police harass people who are not white more than other people" (reverse coded), "The police pick on me"
59.4%
49.2% 48.5% 2.3% 49.6% 98.5% 22.0% 40.9% 19.7% 10.2% 5.5% 1.6%
79.7% 11.3% 9.0%
Table 1:
Participant
demographics
(reverse coded), "I am annoyed by the way the police behave" (reverse coded), "I believe the police in my neighbourhood use racial profiling" (reverse coding), "Police officers have a difficult job", "Police officers generally want to work with teenagers rather than against them", and "I feel safer when there is a police officer around". Responses were on a 6-point Likert scale with "Strongly agree", coded as 1, "Agree" as 2, "Somewhat agree" as 3, "Somewhat disagree" as 4, "Disagree" as 5, and "Strongly disagree" as 6. The coding for five of these questions was reverse-coded so that "Strongly agree" was coded as 6 and "Strongly disagree" as 1. The mean of these eleven items was then calculated to create the scale; a higher mean represents more negative attitudes towards the police. A reliability analysis produced a Cronbach's alpha of 0.826.
Next a lack ofconfidence in the court scale (alpha = 0.740) was created from the mean of three items designed to measure how fair respondents felt the court system is. Using the same Likert scale, the coding for one question was again reverse-coded. Questions in this scale included "The court system is fair", "The court system is racist" (reverse coded), and "The court system cares about people like me". The mean of these three items was then calculated, with a higher mean indicating less confidence in and more negative attitudes towards the court system.
A third scale, feelings of lack of fairness of laws, was created using the mean of three items: "Laws protect only white people", "Laws protect only rich people", and "Laws protect only adults". Responses were on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from "Strongly agree" to "Strongly disagree." These three questions were reverse coded so that "Strongly agree" was coded as 6 and "Strongly disagree" as 1. The mean of the scale was calculated, with a higher mean on this scale representing the feeling that laws protect some groups of people more than others. A reliability analysis produced a Cronbach's alpha of 0.860.
These three scales were created to capture distinct aspects of legal cynicism, as the legal system is comprised of distinct players (e.g., the court, the police). Other variables related to laws, police, and the court system included whether they had "been stopped by the police within the last 12 months", whether they had "had a positive or negative experience with a police officer in the last six months", whether they had "been to court for something that [they] had done or [were] told [they] had done wrong in the last six months", and whether or not they agreed with the statement, "Laws are enforced more when some people break them than when others do".
Finally, participants were asked if they were regularly involved in activities at various institutions (e.g., school, church), such as a sports team, choir, an academic club, or a part-time job. Responses were coded 0 for no and 1 for yes. A continuous variable, community involvement, was created by summing the responses to these six questions so that it reflected the number of programs and institutions of which each respondent was an active member. This variable ranged from 0 to 6.
4.2.2 OLS Regression Models
Independent samples t-tests (95% confidence interval) were performed to determine whether there were differences in the legal cynicism scales by respondents in
various demographic groups, as well as by those who had experienced recent interactions with criminal justice institutions compared to those who had not. A Pearson's correlation was used to reveal correlations between the three scales. To investigate the relationship between interactions with criminal justice agents and attitudes toward the police, two multiple regression models were employed with the dependent variable being the mean of the negative attitudes towards the police scale, two with the dependent variable being the mean of the lack of confidence in the court scale, and two with the dependent variable being the mean of feelings of lack of fairness of laws' scale.
4.3 Results
A summary of the scale means and other descriptive statistics for the variables is presented in Table 2.
Mean Negative Attitudes Towards Police Scale Mean Lack of Confidence in the Court Scale Mean Feelings of Lack of Fairness of Laws Scale
Agreed with the statement "Laws are enforced more when some people break them than when others do."
I have been stopped by the police within the last 12 months.
I have had a positive experience with a police officer in the last 6 months.
I have had a negative experience with a police officer in the last 6 months.
In the last six months, I have been to a court for something I did wrong or for something that I was told I did wrong.
Note: n = 133 but can be as low as 128 for some data elements due to missing data.
4.3.1 Bivariate Relationships
Next we looked at whether the legal cynicism scales varied by demographic characteristics or by interactions with criminal justice agencies. Table 3 shows these results. Asterisks indicate significant differences between the number starred and the number directly below it.
3.39 2.72 2.24
79.7%
40.9% 45.8% 35.1%
12.1%
Table 2: Measures of legal cynicism and interactions with criminal justice institutions
	Negative	Lack of	Lack of
	Attitudes	Confidence	Fairness of
	Towards	in the	Laws Scale
	Police Scale	Court Scale	
Male	3.38	2.65	2.03
Female	3.37	2.73	2.33
Black Non-Hispanic	3.28	2.72	2.15
Hispanic	3.48	2.69	2.24
Live in public housing	3.54*	2.80	2.22
Live in private housing	3.21	2.61	2.19
Stopped by the police in last year	3.63**	2.93*	2.38
Table 3: Mean
differences on legal cynicism scales by demographics and interactions with criminal justice agencies
Table 3: continuation
	Negative Attitudes Towards Police Scale	Lack of Confidence in the Court Scale	Lack of Fairness of Laws Scale
Not stopped by the police the last year	3.21	2.55	2.10
Had a positive experience with a police officer in last 6 months	3.15**	2.45**	1.99*
Did not have a positive experience with a police officer in last 6 months	3.56	2.91	2.39
Had a negative experience with a police officer in last 6 months	3.80***	2.93*	2.28
Did not have a negative experience with a police officer in last 6 months	3.14	2.58	2.17
Been to court in last 6 months	3.47	2.79	1.91
Had not been to court in last 6 months	3.36	2.68	2.25
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
There were no significant differences in the legal cynicism scales by gender, Hispanic vs. Black non-Hispanic, or by whether or not the respondent had been to court in the last 6 months. Those who lived in public housing had significantly more negative attitudes towards the police than those who did not (3.54 vs. 3.21, p < 0.05). Respondents who had been stopped by the police in the last year had more negative attitudes towards the police (p < 0.01) and less confidence in the court system (p < 0.05) than those who had not been stopped in the last year. Those who had a positive experience with a police officer in the last six months had significantly lower means on all three legal cynicism scales than those who had not, indicating more confidence in the police, courts, and laws. Similarly, those who had a negative experience with a police officer in the last year had significantly higher means on the negative attitudes towards police and lack of confidence in the court system scales, indicating greater cynicism towards criminal justice institutions than those who had not had a negative experience with a police officer in the previous six months. Finally, all three scales were significantly correlated with each other (p < 0.001), as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Legal cynicism scales correlations
	(1)	(2)	(3)
Negative attitudes towards police scale	1.00		
Lack of confidence in the court scale	486***	1.00	
Feelings of Lack of fairness of laws scale	.445***	. 411***	1.00
'*p < .001; n = 133 but can be as low as 129 due to missing data.
4.3.2 Multivariate Relationships
Table 5 shows the results of six ordinary least squares regression models: Models 1 and 2 predict negative attitudes towards the police; Models 3 and 4 predict lack of confidence in the court; and Models 5 and 6 predict feelings of lack of fairness of laws.
A P
CO 0
С" ON
4
^ hO
01
Os ^ Os
О Ь* н-i
7 1s ))
22.021
6 8+
3 2 )
о 4
о
31
^ ^ о
59(..
3 4 1 0 )
СО GO СО КЗ
536
О 4
СО
о 4
СП
СО
1
8
32 5
3 0 8 О
5
))4
ООО W si и мам
h f e .
7
o
(.
о ^
чо I— 2
^ z
oe
3 cg a
ri
sv
n
C on
t e t
n
n fD
t '
e С§
n L
e
R ? e R
r e
e CTQ
3
n
Ns
eg
Hi
s T
и ET r
3 2 p ?
r > n
n y
Table 5: Ordinary least squares regression predicting three aspects of legal cynicism
In Model 1, being female, being Hispanic, and having more connections to a church or other community institution did not have a significant effect on negative attitudes towards the police. New York City public housing residents had, on average, statistically more negative attitudes towards the police than those not in public housing (p < 0.05). Those who had been stopped by the police in the last 12 months had significantly more negative attitudes towards the police than those who had not (p < 0.05). Having had a negative interaction with the police in the last six months was also a strongly significant predictor (p < 0.001) of negative attitudes towards the police. Similarly, the effect of having had a positive interaction with the police in the last six months approached significance (p < 0.10), indicating that such an interaction, on average, translated into a modest decrease in negative attitudes towards the police scale. The adjusted R2 was 0.235, meaning that this model explained almost 24 percent of the variation of the negative attitudes towards the police.
Model 2 added two additional independent variables: lack of confidence in the court scale and feelings of lack of fairness of laws scale. When the two new variables are added, having been stopped by the police in the last 12 months and having had a positive experience with a police officer in the last six months no longer are significant predictors of negative attitudes towards the police. The three most significant (p < 0.001) predictors are having had a negative interaction with the police in the last six months, lack of confidence in the court, and feelings of lack of fairness of laws. The effects of being a public housing resident and being Hispanic approached significance (p < 0.10), indicating that living in NYCHA (New York City Housing Authority) housing or being Hispanic, on average, may translate into an increase in negative attitudes towards police. The predictive power of this model is high. The adjusted R2 is 0.424, meaning that the independent variables in the model explain 42 percent of the variation in negative attitudes towards the police.
In the remaining models, the only significant predictors of a lack of confidence in the court and lack of fairness aspects of legal cynicism are the two other legal cynicism scales: feelings of lack of fairness of laws (p < 0.05) and negative attitudes towards the police (p < 0.01) in Models 3 and 4, and lack of confidence in the court (p < 0.05) and more negative attitudes towards the police (p < 0.001) in Models 5 and 6. The lack of significance of these models may be due in part to the lack of variability in the dependent variables: whereas the negative attitudes towards the police scale was comprised of 11 items, the lack of confidence in the court and the feelings of lack of fairness of laws scales were only comprised of three items each. Given the small sample size, had these two scales included more items, there may have been more significant findings.
5 DISCUSSION
This study set out to answer three questions: (1) How do youth perceive law, court systems, and law enforcement?; (2) How does previous exposure to the police affect attitudes towards the police and other criminal justice agencies?; and (3) What is the relationship between legal cynicism, procedural fairness,
and institutional connections in the community? The results of this study are consistent with Sampson and Bartush's (1998) theory that legal cynicism is distinct from subcultural tolerance of deviance. The young people in our sample had all voluntarily chosen to come to a local courthouse to participate in an after-school program that addressed the relationship between teens and formal criminal justice mechanisms of social control. Yet, they possessed fairly negative attitudes towards the police. While their confidence in the court system and attitudes towards whom laws protect were more positive than their attitudes towards police - perhaps, in part, due to their having had less interaction with the court system than with law enforcement - eighty percent of our sample still believed that laws are enforced unfairly. Their very participation in Youth ECHO, the Police Teen Theater Program, or RHYC, however, may speak to a desire to change - or at least to engage - these systems, rather than approval of deviant behaviours that challenge them.
RHYC participants, in particular, sentence their peers who run afoul of the law to sanctions such as community service and skills-building workshops, which may demonstrate that their negative attitudes towards criminal justice agencies do not translate into negative attitudes towards criminal justice, more generally, or tolerance of criminal behaviour. This supports Shoemaker and Williams' (1987) and Ellison's (1991) findings that an individual's views that crime/delinquency is wrong does not entail support for the mechanisms used to enforce such conduct (e.g., laws, courts, police).
The survey's focus on process and fairness implies an understanding that in administering criminal justice differently, what may be most important is improving public trust and confidence in the system by treating those coming through it fairly (Tyler, 2001). Indeed, the Youth Court members' focus on creating fair trials for their peers who had gotten in trouble translated into an extremely high compliance rate. For example, in 2009, of the 160 cases that were heard, 91% complied with the sanctions the members ordered (Center for Court Innovation, 2009), lending support to Tyler's (2003; see also Tyler, 2004; Tyler & Huo, 2002) thesis that when people perceive the court to be fair and when they are afforded an opportunity to participate in the process by explaining their situation and communicating their views, they are more likely to comply with their mandates.
Those in public housing had more negative attitudes towards the police than those who did not. In Brooklyn, police tend to patrol the pedestrian walkways in NYCHA housing, as well as its surrounding areas. As Lee (2007) indicated, residents of the Red Hook projects are accustomed to being stopped near their homes for no apparent reason. Those in our sample who had been stopped by the police in the last year had more negative attitudes towards the police than those who had not, potentially indicating that something about the experience of being stopped - whether justified or not - results in more negative attitudes. Recent positive or negative interactions with the police are correlated with more positive or negative attitudes towards them respectively. Though the youth clearly distinguish between the different legal players (e.g., police, court personnel, judges), their attitudes towards them were all significantly and positively correlated, potentially indicating that attitudes towards one of the players may have an impact on their attitudes towards the others. Indeed, this is what Models 2, 4, and 6 found.
The results of the regression models confirm Carr et al.'s (2007) theory about the origins of legal cynicism among youth from high-crime urban neighbourhoods. Just as they found that negative dispositions toward police were grounded in lived experience of negative encounters with law enforcement, this study found that having had a negative interaction with a police officer in the last six months was the greatest significant predictor of having more negative attitudes toward the police. In addition, having more confidence in the court or more of a feeling that laws protect people equally results in more positive attitudes towards the police. These three legal cynicism relationships were reciprocal: they were all significant and positive predictors of each other.
In general, adolescents often possess negative attitudes towards authority (Agnew, 1984, 1995, 1997, 2001; Akers, 1998; Matsueda & Heimer, 1987; Warr & Stafford, 1991). Adolescents coming from socially and economically disadvantaged, high-crime neighbourhoods commonly hold relatively negative views of the legal system, as a whole, and the criminal justice system, in particular (Anderson, 1999; Bobo & Johnson, 2004; Brunson, 2007; Carr et al., 2007; Hannerz, 1969; Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Reisig & Parks, 2000; Sampson & Bartush, 1998; Scaglion & Condon, 1980; Smith et al., 1991). Adolescents in southwest Brooklyn frequently have extremely negative attitudes towards police officers, and less negative (though still negative) attitudes towards the court system and law. Though they distinguish between the police, the court system, and law, young people's attitudes towards all three are fairly consistent. With respect to police, in particular, recent negative interactions with law enforcement officers shapes youth attitudes. Interestingly, having had a positive interaction was not a statistically significant predictor of more positive attitudes, nor was being more linked to community institutions. There was no significant relationship between having more connections or involvement with institutions (e.g., church) and measures of legal cynicism among the youth in this sample.
6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
What are the implications for policy and practice of a more accurate understanding of teenagers' legal cynicism? It is important to note that though youth in Red Hook are highly cynical of the police, laws, and the court system, they do not actively condone resistance to them, nor do they reject rule of law outright. Their attitudes are not part of a subcultural system of deviance. Rather, they seem to envision a place for themselves in working with institutions and agents of formal social control - as suggested by their voluntary participation in courthouse-based youth programs that seek to encourage conformity to the law and break down the stereotypes that police and teens have about each other. Therefore, youth civic engagement programs may wish to involve young people more in the criminal justice processes, especially as they relate to other young people. Moreover, with an understanding that legal cynicism comes from feelings of bias, discrimination, racism, and inequitable enforcement, criminal justice institutions, particularly those in the juvenile court system and the police as enforcers of the law, might seek to require their employees, including judges, to be trained in and required
to adhere to principles of procedural fairness. The greater the procedural fairness, the more confidence young people will have in criminal justice agencies, the more they will view them as legitimate, and will comply or defer to their decisions.
While the findings of this study are important, there remain unanswered questions that demand further research. First, this study looks only at a physically disconnected urban area in the United States where crime is high and the population predominantly Black and Hispanic. Would the findings be replicated in urban areas (in the United States or in other countries) with a large White youth population, or with any population in suburban areas? Second, a more qualitative narrative is necessary to understand the reasons that young people, especially those in poor, high-crime areas who are so affected by saturated policing and those who have negative attitudes towards them, are still interested in working with these formal mechanisms of social control. Is it because they believe these institutions can be effective in controlling crime? Is it because they possess some sort of "attachment to their community" (Huebner et al. 2004: 125), albeit a different one from their adult counterparts, whose stake or investment in their neighbourhoods is often linked to marital status and home ownership?
Young people growing up in poor, urban neighbourhoods like Red Hook do not seem to want to be alienated from the police and the legal system. Though negatively disposed towards criminal justice agencies, young people do not exist in a state of normlessness (Merton, 1938). Much potential exists to meaningfully partner with them for the purpose of achieving greater fairness in criminal justice processes (see generally Evenepoel & Christiaens, 2013: 425-436; Olsson, 2012: 416). In sum, given that "criminal justice agents [and agencies] encourage - or inhibit - particular identities" (Bradford et al., 2014: 532), public policy would benefit by actively involving young people in community-based youth crime-reduction programs.
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1984). Goal achievement and delinquency. Socialogy & Social Research, 68(4), 435-451.
Agnew, R. (1995). Strain and subcultural theories of criminality. In J. F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A contemporary handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 305-327). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Agnew, R. (1997). The nature and determinants of strain: Another look at Durkheim and Merton. In N. Passas, & R. Agnew (Eds.), The future of anomie theory (pp. 27-51). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319-361. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and
deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Alexander, M. (February 2, 2013). Why police lie under oath. The New York Times, p. SR4.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton.
Apple, N., & O'Brien, D. J. (1983). Neighborhood racial composition and residents' evaluation of police performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11(1), 76-84.
Associated Press. (March 30, 2012). Russia: New police brutality charges. The New York Times, p. A6.
Barrett, C. (2013). Courting kids: Inside an experimental youth court. New York: New York University Press.
Bernard, T. (1990). Angry aggression among the 'truly disadvantaged'. Criminology, 28(1), 73-96.
Block, R. (1971). Fear of crime and fear of the police. Social Problems, 19(1), 91-101.
Bobo, L., & Johnson, D. (2004). A taste for punishment: Black and White Americans' views on the death penalty and the war on drugs. Du Bois Review, 1(1), 151-180.
Bradford, B., Murphy, K., & Jackson, J. (2014). Officers as mirrors: Policing, procedural justice and the (re)production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 527-550.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, J., & Mugford, S. (1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. British Journal of Sociology, 34(2), 139-171.
Brandl, S., Stroshine, M., & Frank, J. (2001). Who are the complaint-prone officers? An examination of the relationship between police officers' attributes, arrest activity, assignment, and citizens' complaints about excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(6), 521-529.
Brisman, A. (2009). Food justice as crime prevention. Journal of Food Law & Policy, 5(1), 1-44.
Brisman, A. (2010/2011). Fictionalized criminal law and youth legal consciousness. New York Law School Law Review, 55(4), 1039-1071.
Brunson, R. K. (2007). "Police don't like black people": African-American young men's accumulated police experiences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 71101.
Brunson, R., & Miller, J. (2006). Young black men and urban policing in the United States. British Journal of Criminology, 46(4), 613-640.
Buss, E. (2011). Failing juvenile courts, and what lawyers and judges can do about it. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 6(2), 318-333.
Carlson, J. (2012). 'I Don't Dial 911': American gun politics and the problem of policing. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1113-1132.
Carr, P., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45(2), 445-480.
Center for Court Innovation. (2009). Annual Report. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/docu-ments/annual_report_2009.pdf
Chriss, J. J. (2007). The functions of the social bond. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(4), 689-712.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York: Free press.
Cowan, D. (2004). Legal consciousness: Some observations. Modern Law Review, 67(6), 928-958.
DeKeseredy, W. (2011). Contemporary critical criminology. London; New York: Routledge.
Editorial. (August 1, 2007). It will take more than charm. The New York Times, p. A22.
Editorial. (July 17, 2009). Illegal, and pointless. The New York Times, p. A22.
Editorial. (February 18, 2011). The Thomas issue. The New York Times, p. A30.
Editorial. (February 20, 2012). Trust and the Supreme Court. The New York Times, p. A18.
Ellison, C. (1991). An eye for an eye? A note on the Southern subculture of violence thesis. Social Forces, 69(4), 1223-1239.
Engel, D. (1984). The oven bird's song: Insiders, outsiders, and personal injuries in an American community. Law and Society Review, 18(4), 551-582.
Evenepoel, A., & Christiaens, J. (2013). Giving voice to 'Youth of Today': Young people's views and perspectives on youth crime and its prevention in Belgium. Varstvoslovje, 15(4), 424-438.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1991/1992). Conformity, contestation, and resistance: An account of legal consciousness. New England Law Review, 26, 731-749.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and criminal justice. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 123-140.
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18(3), 217-242.
Fahim, K. (July 19, 2009). Death in police encounter stirs calls for change in Egypt. The New York Times, p. A4, A6.
Flanagan, C., & Sherrod, L. (1998). Youth political development: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 447-456.
Fleury-Steiner, B. (2003). Before or against the law? Citizens' legal beliefs and expectations as death penalty jurors. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 27, 115-137.
Fleury-Steiner, B. D. (2004). Jurors' stories of death: How America's death penalty invests in inequality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Greenhouse, C. (1986). Praying for justice: Faith, order, and community in an American town. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Greenhouse, C., Yngvesson, B., & Engel, D. (1994). Law and community in three American towns. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hagan, J., & Albonetti, C. (1982). Race, class, and the perception of criminal injustice in America. The American Journal of Sociology, 88(2), 329-355.
Hagan, J., & Shedd, C. (2005). A socio-legal conflict theory of perceptions of criminal injustice. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 261-287.
Hagan, J., Shedd, C., & Payne, M. (2005). Race, ethnicity and youth perceptions of criminal injustice. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 381-407.
Hahn, H. (1971). Ghetto assessments of police protection and authority. Law and Society Review, 6(2), 183-194.
Hannerz, U. (1969). Soulside - Inquiries into ghetto culture and community. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Books.
Hirsch, S. (2002). Feminist participatory research on legal consciousness. In J. Starr, & M. Goodale (Eds.), Practicing ethnography in law: New dialogues, enduring methods (pp. 13-33). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hoffmann, E. (2003). Legal consciousness and dispute resolution: Different disputing behavior at two similar taxicab companies. Law and Social Inquiry, 28(3), 691-718.
Huang, W., & Vaughn, M. (1996). Support and confidence: Public attitudes toward the police. In T. J. Flanagan, & D. R. Longmire (Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 31-45). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huebner, B., Schafer, J., & Bynum, T. (2004). African American and White perceptions of police services: Within- and between-group variation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(2), 123-135.
Hurdle, J. (April 15, 2007). Philadelphia struggles to quell an epidemic of gun violence. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/2007/04/15/us/15philadelphia.html?hp
Hurst, Y., Frank, J., & Browning, S. (2000). The attitudes of juveniles toward the police: A comparison of black and white youth. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(1), 37-53.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3-32.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S., & Moyal, S. (in press). Measuring procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly. Retrieved from http:// law.huji.ac.il/upload/Jonathan.Zamir.Mastrofski.and.Moyal.forth.pdf
Karstedt, S., & Farrall, S. (2006). The moral economy of everyday crime: Markets, consumers and citizens. British Journal of Criminology, 46(6), 1011-1036.
Kirk, D., & Matsuda, M. (2011). Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology, 49(2), 443-472.
Kochel, T., Parks, R., & Mastrofski, S. (2013). Examining police effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Quarterly, 30(5), 895-925.
LaFree, G. (1998). Losing legitimacy: Street crime and the decline of social institutions in America. Boulder: Westview.
Lee, T. (February 4, 2007). As officers stop and frisk, residents raise their guard. The New York Times, p. A4.
Levine, K., & Mellema, V. (2001). Strategizing the street: How law matters in the lives of women in the street-level drug economy. Law & Social Inquiry, 26(1), 169-197.
Lind, A. E., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
MacDonald, J., & Stokes, R. J. (2006). Race, social capital, and trust in the police. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 358-375.
Malkin, E. (March 4, 2011). A free man still looks over his shoulder in Mexico. The New York Times, p. A5.
Mann, C. (1993). Unequal justice: A question of color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Marshall, A. (2005). Idle rights: employees' rights consciousness and the construction of sexual harassment policies. Law and Society Review, 39(1), 83-124.
Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52(6), 826-840.
Matea, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Merry, S. (1990). Getting justice and getting even: Legal consciousness among working-class Americans. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
Morrill, C., Hagan, J., Harcourt, B., & Meares, T. (2005). Seeing crime and punishment through a sociological lens: Contributions, practices, and the future. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 289-323.
Mraz, J. (1997). Of law and the tears of things: Notes on the varieties of legal consciousness. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20(2), 101-114.
Murphy, K., & Barkworth, J. (2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: Does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims & Offenders, 9(2), 178-204.
Niemi, R., & Hepburn, M. (1995). The rebirth of political socialization. Perspectives on Political Science, 24(1), 7-16.
Nielsen, L. (2000). Situating legal consciousness: Experiences and attitudes of ordinary citizens about law and street harassment. Law and Society Review, 34(4), 1055-1090.
Olsson, P. (2012). Children and human rights. In W. S. DeKeseredy, & M. Dragie-wicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 413-424). London; New York: Routledge.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31(1), 164-204.
Perry, B. (2009). Policing race and place in Indian country: Over- and under-enforce-ment. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Piquero, A., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E., Steinberg, L., & Odgers, C. (2005). Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96(1), 267-298.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607-630.
Rottman, D., & Hansen, R. (2001). How recent users view the state courts: Perceptions of Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/diversity/bin/per-ceptions2.pdf
Russell-Brown, K. (1998). The color of crime: Racial hoaxes, White fear, Black protectionism, police harassment, and other macro-aggressions. New York: New York University Press.
Sampson, R., & Bartush, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 777-804.
Sarat, A. (1990). "The law is all over": Power, resistance and the legal consciousness of the welfare poor. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities, 2(2), 343-379.
Scaglion, R., & Condon, R. G. (1980). Determinants of attitudes toward city police. Criminology, 17(4), 485-494.
Schuck, A., & Martin, C. (2013). Residents' perceptions of procedural injustice during encounters with the police. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 11(4), 219-237.
Scott, K. (2002). Looking through a glass darkly: Applying the lens of social cubism to the police-minority group conflict in America. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 8, 857-882.
Semukhina, O. (2014). Unreported crimes, public dissatisfaction of police, and observed police misconduct in the Volgograd region, Russia: A research note. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 38(4), 305-325.
Sherman, L. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445-473.
Shoemaker, D., & Williams, J. (1987). The subculture of violence and ethnicity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15(6), 461-472.
Slackman, M. (May 22, 2009). Tycoon gets death in singer's murder, stunning an Egypt leery of its courts. The New York Times, p. A4, A6.
Smith, D., Graham, N., & Adams, B. (1991). Minorities and the police: Attitudinal and behavioral questions. In M. J. Lynch, & E. B. Patterson (Eds.), Race and criminal justice (pp. 22-25). New York: Harrow and Heston.
Smith, P., & Hawkins, R. (1973). Victimization, types of citizen-police contacts, and attitudes toward police. Law and Society Review, 8(1), 135-152.
Soller, B., Jackson, A., & Browning, C. (2014). Legal cynicism and parental appraisals of adolescent violence. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 568-591.
Sprott, J., & Doob, A. (2014). Confidence in the police: Variation across groups classified as visible minorities. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56(3), 367-379.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47(4), 1265-1293.
Taylor, T., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F., & Winfree, L. (2001). Coppin' an attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(4), 295-305.
Trubek, D. (1984). Where the action is: Critical legal studies and empiricism. Stanford Law Review, 36(1/2), 575-622.
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22(1), 103-135.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1998). Public mistrust of the law: A political perspective. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 66, 847-876.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19(2), 215-235.
Tyler, T. R. (2002). A national survey for monitoring police legitimacy. Justice Research and Policy, 4, 71-86.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law.
Crime and Justice, 30, 283-352. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84-99. Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 231-275.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the
police and courts. New York: Russell Sage. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attribution of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253-281.
Van Craen, M. (2013). Explaining majority and minority trust in the police. Justice
Quarterly, 30(6), 1042-1067. Walker, S., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (2000). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity and
crime in America. Belmont: Wadsworth. Warner, B. (2003). The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory.
Criminology, 41(1), 73-98. Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they
think or what they do. Criminology, 29(4), 851-865. White, L. (1990). Subordination, rhetorical survival skills, and Sunday shoes:
Notes on the hearing of Mrs. G. Buffalo Law Review, 38(1), 1-58. Wissler, R. (1995). Mediation and adjudication in the small claims court: The effects of process and case characteristics. Law and Society Review, 29(2), 323-358. Worrall, J. (1999). Public perceptions of police efficacy and image: The 'fuzziness' of support for the police. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(1), 47-66.
About the Authors:
Rachel Swaner, Ph.D., is Associate Director for Research at the Center for Court Innovation in New York, NY (USA).
Avi Brisman, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, KY (USA).
Funding
This work was supported by: National Science Foundation, Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, Law and Social Sciences Program, Proposal No. 0961077 (April 1, 2010-March 31, 2011); National Science Foundation, Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, Cultural Anthropology Program, Proposal No. 0961077 (April 1, 2010-March 31, 2010); Oberlin College Alumni Fellowship (2009), Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH (USa).
Reviewers in 2014
Igor Areh, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Igor Bernik, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Matevž Bren, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Aleš Bučar-Ručman, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and
Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia Milan Čoh, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Ljubljana, Slovenia Bojan Dobovšek, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Katja Eman, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Benjamin Flander, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and
Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia Maj Frife, Ministry of Defence, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Maja Garb, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia Marko Hölbl, University of Maribor, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, Maribor, Slovenia Zoran Kanduč, University of Ljubljana, Institute of Criminology at Faculty of
Law, Ljubljana, Slovenia Damijana Kastelec, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Damir Lauš, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Zagreb, Croatia Robert Leskovar, University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Kranj, Slovenia
Branko Lobnikar, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Darko Maver, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Miran Mitar, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Maja Modic, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Iztok Prezelj, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Michael D. Reisig, Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Phoenix, Arizona, USA Peter Umek, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
David S. Wall, Durham University, School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham, UK
Sabina Zgaga, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Bojan Zorec, University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Miroslav Žaberl, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ljubljana, Slovenia	_