Tracking Procedural Justice in Processing Detainees: Coding Evidence from CCTV Cameras in Three Police Custody Suites
Loading...
Date
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Springer Nature
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-022-00082-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-022-00082-x
Abstract
Description
Research questionHow closely do custody suite encounters between detainees and custody suite officers (CSOs) match the procedural standards for decision makers treating people who are subject to their authority? To what degree does measurement of procedural justice displayed by CSOs on closed-circuit television (CCTV) records vary across detainees, CSOs and custody suites?DataArrest records for July, August, and September 2020 across three custody suites in the East of England were obtained and a random sample of 150 encounters selected for analysis. MethodsEncounters between CSOs and detainees at the booking-in stage as captured on pre-recorded CCTV were coded into four elements of procedural justice: voice, trustworthy motives, impartiality, and respect. Non-verbal communications and dialogue were also examined. FindingsOverall, custody suite officers demonstrated high levels of respect and neutrality in dealing with detainees. However, they showed relatively less care for the wellbeing of the detainees and did not offer them enough opportunities to ‘tell their side of the story’ (‘voice’). Further analysis revealed statistically significant variations across the three custody suites in the level of opportunities offered to detainees to have an input in discussing the decision-making. We also found evidence that as length of service as police officers and in custody roles increased, the observed level of expression of ‘trustworthy motives’ displayed decreased. Finally, detainee compliance with officers was greater when respect and care for the wellbeing of detainees were more pronounced. ConclusionsA tracking study can help identify police units and police officers with greater concentrations of procedural justice deficits. Such evidence can support more targeted training to improve the delivery of procedural justice, and enhance public confidence in policing.