Questioning fairness: the relationship of mental health and psychopathic characteristics with young offenders' perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theories of procedural justice suggest that individuals who experience the criminal justice system as fair are more likely to perceive it as legitimate and, in turn, are less likely to reoffend. However, when individuals come into contact with the legal system, they are not blank slates - they have beliefs and personality characteristics that may systematically influence such perceptions. AIMS: Our aim was to establish the extent to which demographic characteristics, legal history and clinical features, including personality characteristics, systematically influenced the degree to which young people experience the justice system as fair and legitimate. METHOD: Self-report, file and interview data were collected from ninety-two 12 to 17-year-olds on probation in Western Canada. RESULTS: Substance use and traumatic experiences were inversely correlated with perceptions of procedural justice and legal legitimacy. Young people with higher scores on interpersonal, lifestyle and antisocial facets of the psychopathy checklist: youth version believed less strongly in the legitimacy of the law, but regression analyses confirmed that only history of trauma was independently associated with perceived procedural justice and legitimacy. Those in the youngest age group were more likely to have positive perceptions of justice than older youths, but demographics and legal history otherwise did not relate to outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that examining the relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy and offending without taking intra-individual variables into account may neglect important influences on those relationships. Other research has begun to show that young people who do not accept the law as legitimate or the criminal justice system as fair are more likely to offend. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".