通过程序正义与和解重建警察与社区之间的信任

Q2 Social Sciences Behavioral Science and Policy Pub Date : 2019-04-01 DOI:10.1177/237946151900500104
T. C. O'Brien, T. Tyler
{"title":"通过程序正义与和解重建警察与社区之间的信任","authors":"T. C. O'Brien, T. Tyler","doi":"10.1177/237946151900500104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In many societies around the world, segments of the public strongly distrust legal and political authorities. Regardless of how the distrust arises, it lessens the possibilities for future social cohesion, democratic governance, and successful economic development—factors that define strong communities. How can authorities build trust amid a legacy of distrust? In this review, the authors focus on relations between the police and communities and draw on two psychological literatures that articulate evidence-informed trust-building strategies. One, the procedural justice approach, concentrates on the fair and respectful exercise of authority during everyday interactions between individuals. The other, reconciliation, involves gestures that are carried out at the community level with the expressed intention of addressing past injustice and that promise changes in an authority's future relations with a community. This review concludes with policy recommendations, drawn from both literatures, describing a process of trust building that involves substantive improvements in procedural justice combined with reconciliatory gestures that signal a sincere intent to increase trust through service to communities.","PeriodicalId":36971,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Science and Policy","volume":"5 1","pages":"35 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rebuilding Trust between Police & Communities through Procedural Justice & Reconciliation\",\"authors\":\"T. C. O'Brien, T. Tyler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/237946151900500104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In many societies around the world, segments of the public strongly distrust legal and political authorities. Regardless of how the distrust arises, it lessens the possibilities for future social cohesion, democratic governance, and successful economic development—factors that define strong communities. How can authorities build trust amid a legacy of distrust? In this review, the authors focus on relations between the police and communities and draw on two psychological literatures that articulate evidence-informed trust-building strategies. One, the procedural justice approach, concentrates on the fair and respectful exercise of authority during everyday interactions between individuals. The other, reconciliation, involves gestures that are carried out at the community level with the expressed intention of addressing past injustice and that promise changes in an authority's future relations with a community. This review concludes with policy recommendations, drawn from both literatures, describing a process of trust building that involves substantive improvements in procedural justice combined with reconciliatory gestures that signal a sincere intent to increase trust through service to communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Science and Policy\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"35 - 50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Science and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151900500104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Science and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151900500104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

在世界各地的许多社会中,部分公众强烈不信任法律和政治当局。不管这种不信任是如何产生的,它都降低了未来社会凝聚力、民主治理和成功经济发展的可能性——这些因素定义了强大的社区。当局如何在不信任遗留下来的情况下建立信任?在这篇综述中,作者关注警察和社区之间的关系,并借鉴了两篇心理学文献,阐明了基于证据的信任建立策略。一种是程序正义方法,侧重于在个人之间的日常互动中公平和尊重地行使权力。另一种是和解,涉及在社区一级进行的姿态,表达了解决过去不公正的意图,并承诺改变当局与社区的未来关系。本文总结了从两篇文献中得出的政策建议,描述了一个信任建立的过程,该过程涉及程序正义的实质性改进,并结合和解姿态,表明通过为社区提供服务来增加信任的真诚意图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rebuilding Trust between Police & Communities through Procedural Justice & Reconciliation
In many societies around the world, segments of the public strongly distrust legal and political authorities. Regardless of how the distrust arises, it lessens the possibilities for future social cohesion, democratic governance, and successful economic development—factors that define strong communities. How can authorities build trust amid a legacy of distrust? In this review, the authors focus on relations between the police and communities and draw on two psychological literatures that articulate evidence-informed trust-building strategies. One, the procedural justice approach, concentrates on the fair and respectful exercise of authority during everyday interactions between individuals. The other, reconciliation, involves gestures that are carried out at the community level with the expressed intention of addressing past injustice and that promise changes in an authority's future relations with a community. This review concludes with policy recommendations, drawn from both literatures, describing a process of trust building that involves substantive improvements in procedural justice combined with reconciliatory gestures that signal a sincere intent to increase trust through service to communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavioral Science and Policy
Behavioral Science and Policy Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hierarchy position & personality predict politicians’ choice of information sources Editor's note Election polls are 95% confident but only 60% accurate Penalties for Going Against Type: How Sexism Shapes Voters’ Perceptions of Candidate Character Leadership & overconfidence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1