Measuring Neutrality in Custodial Decisionmaking: Prisoner Perceptions of One Procedural Justice Element

• In Event: Relationships Matter: Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and the Working Alliance in Prisons and Jails

Abstract

Considered integral to positive police-citizen interactions, procedural justice gained increasing attention over the last three decades. More recently scholars translated its theoretical underpinnings to the prison context, positing that relations between individuals and authority figures will improve when the process of delivering authoritative decisions involves: (1) individual participation, or in the prison context, prisoner voice; (2) neutrality, or unbiased decisionmaking; (3) tone and language characterized by dignity and respect; and (4) inmate trust in motives of staff. Empirical studies, however, fail to capture these key theoretical constructs. The current paper is part of a larger project designed to test the four prison procedural justice components: voice, neutrality, dignity and respect, and trust. This paper focused specifically on the development and clarification of neutrality. First, drawing on data from 1,610 prisoner surveys across six prisons, a neutrality measure was developed and refined. Next, incorporating 980 staff surveys, a multilevel framework was used with prisoners (level-1) nested within housing units (level-2) and prisons (level-3) to model the impacts of neutrality. Specifically, the following research questions were examined: (a) Do prisoner neutrality perceptions vary significantly across housing units and prisons? (b) Does staff job ambiguity (e.g., The rules that we are supposed to follow never seem to be very clear) impact prisoner perceptions of neutrality in decisionmaking? Findings advance understanding of neutrality as an element of perceived procedural justice in prisons, and may help prisons train staff to more objectively render decisions to prisoners, particularly those involving in-house sanctioning.

Authors

• Layne Dittman, Sam Houston State University

• Brandy L. Blasko, Sam Houston State University

• Danielle S. Rudes, George Mason University

• Shannon Magnuson, George Mason University