Browse

This article is organized as follows. Section I focuses on the concept of police legitimacy, exploring it from the police agency perspective (i.e., why people obey the authority), and presents the empirical findings on legitimacy. Section II discusses what happens when police officers cross the line that separates legitimate and illegitimate conduct. Section III analyzes traditional and novel responses to the situations in which policing went wrong, including internal mechanisms (e.g., internal affairs, early warning systems), external mechanisms (e.g., criminal courts, independent commissions), and mixed mechanisms of control and accountability (e.g., accreditation, citizen reviews). Section IV reflects on the key issues and provides ideas for future research.

According to deterrence theory in criminology, we are affected by both the costs and rewards that are consequent to our behavior. In other words, we tend to behave based on the expectation that we will receive some type of reward for doing it while hoping to avoid some type of punishment for not doing it or doing something else. We also provide disincentives, such as the criminal justice system, in order to discourage crime. The criminal justice system can reduce crime by apprehending and punishing offenders based on two mechanisms: specific deterrence and general deterrence. Deterrence theory posits that the actual practices of the criminal justice system, or what is known as the objective properties of punishment, affect would-be offenders' decisions by way of the perceptual properties of punishment. The idea behind perceptual deterrence theory is that the perceived certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment are inversely related to the decisions by would-be offenders to commit crime.

This article considers the point of systems of criminal justice; reviews Émile Durkheim's theory and its application to contemporary societies; reviews the evidence concerning the ways in which the criminal law can shape behavior other than by threat or imposition of punishment; examines the evidence for why people obey the law and the significance of the state's claim to legitimacy; and discusses the explosion of punishment in the United States and the United Kingdom, and analyses this as an expressive, Durkheimian attempt to shore up both the state's claim to legitimate sovereignty and the moral order of society. The article is informed by the thought that the most important effects of criminal justice do not result only from its involving the threat and imposition of punishment. These effects are intimately tied to the idea of legitimacy; and in evaluating them we cannot but help ask normative questions about the proper relation of the state to its citizens.

This article begins with an overview of the varied meanings of reparation, restoration, and restorative justice, as they are applied in domestic and international contexts of law and criminal justice. It also considers why these terms have become popular in recent decades. Sections II and III explore the history, etymology, and uses of the terms reparation, restoration, and restorative justice, and their links to retribution, restitution, and punishment. Section IV reviews a selected set of practices in domestic and international criminal justice, and transitional justice. The practices associated with reparation and restoration came first, and theories of their social mechanisms came later. Section V describes a selected set of theories, with a focus on behavior, speech, and interaction; and the conclusion considers several key points. Special attention is given to developments in international law and criminal justice, but the focus is on domestic criminal justice.

This article discusses the various theories of proportionality. The first section takes a look at the retributive proportionality principles, two varieties of retributive theory, and the ways non-retributive theories have included elements of retributive proportionality. From here the discussion shifts to two utilitarian proportionality principles and how these have been applied. This article also considers hybrid theories that combine retributive and non-retributive proportionality principles and locates these theories in current sentencing systems.