Search results

Procedural justice is important for fostering peoples’ willingness to cooperate with police. Theorizing suggests this relationship results because procedural justice enhances perceptions that the police are legitimate and entitled to be supported. The purpose of this paper is to examine how legitimacy perceptions moderate the effect of procedural justice policing on Muslims’ willingness to cooperate with police.

Survey data from 800 Muslims in Australia are used.

This study shows Muslims’ procedural justice perceptions are positively associated with two types of cooperation: willingness to cooperate with police in general crime control efforts; and willingness to report terror threats to police. Muslims’ perceptions of police legitimacy and law legitimacy also influence willingness to cooperate. Specifically, police legitimacy is more important for predicting general willingness to cooperate with police, while law legitimacy is more important for predicting Muslims’ willingness to report terror threats. Importantly, legitimacy perceptions moderate the relationship between procedural justice and both types of cooperation. Specifically, procedural justice promotes cooperation more strongly for those who question the legitimacy of police or the legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, but the moderation effects differ across the two cooperation contexts. The findings have implications for procedural justice scholarship and for counter-terrorism policing.

The current paper examines an under-explored aspect of legitimacy; it examines police legitimacy perceptions, but also examines how people view the legitimacy of laws police enforce (i.e. law legitimacy). It is argued that perceptions about law legitimacy can also impact people’s willingness to cooperate with police.

The authors discuss trends in crime prevention and community safety particular to Australia. They report on research examining the role local government community safety officers (CSOs) play in the formation and implementation of crime prevention strategies in their home state of Victoria. The paper is based upon interview data conducted with CSOs and will assess key challenges and problems encountered in the management and implementation of strategies at the local level. Issues assessed include the role of community safety practitioners as ‘change managers’. Broader lessons relating to training, capacity building and strengthening the role of local government are drawn from the research that are of relevance to community safety policy in the UK and abroad.

This paper aims to explore the strategy of police harnessing the crime control capacities of third parties and to relate this to problem‐oriented policing.

Harnessing the crime control capacities of third parties requires police to act as effective brokers of public safety by improving the spheres of influence that third parties assert over relevant locations, systems or conditions that facilitate crime. This process is often termed redistribution, leveraging or third‐party policing. Research from the fields of illicit synthetic drug control and regulation is reviewed to highlight a number of key implementation issues.

The term “harnessing capacity” provides a strong conceptual basis by which to analyse police efforts to facilitate the co‐production of public safety, with terms such as third‐party policing being conceptually imprecise. To effectively engage third parties in crime prevention police need to use a range of compliance‐seeking mechanisms. In harnessing the crime control capacity of third parties police need to consider a range of issues: existing deficits in capacity, competency to act against crime, existing incentives to act, and the costs of co‐production.

Relevant implementation challenges are canvassed, as well as issues relating to third parties bearing the costs in return for co‐producing crime prevention.

The paper further expands theory and practical implications related to police harnessing the crime prevention potential of third parties.

The “two communities” metaphor for the relationship between policy and academia is inconsistent with empirical evidence that shows that a sizeable minority of public servants use academic research in their policy-related work. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the two communities metaphor by comparing the personal and professional characteristics of Australian public servants who claim to use research in their policy work with the characteristics of those who claim not to use research.

Using data from a survey of 2,084 public servants from the state and federal levels in Australia carried out from 2011 to 2013, tests of statistical significance were conducted for the relationship between some personal and professional characteristics (e.g. gender, age, work experience) and the claim that research is used in policy-related work.

The “two communities” metaphor is not an accurate description of the relationship between policy and academia. In reality, public servants who claim to use academic research in their policy work are more likely to have much in common with academics, including having postgraduate degrees and work experience in the university sector.

Rather than existing as isolated solitudes, the findings in this paper suggest that the policy and academic communities possess links that can encourage the use of research in policy making.

The findings presented in this paper are especially important for the evidence-based policy movement, which emphasises the value of the use of research evidence in the creation of public policy.

This chapter provides a brief overview of community sanctions in Australia and examines the extent to which McNeill’s analysis in Pervasive Punishment (2019) is applicable in the Australian context. Two key issues in the Australian context are, firstly, state and territory-level variations within a federal political structure, and secondly, disproportionate Indigenous imprisonment and community sanction rates and the generally destructive impact of the criminal legal system on Indigenous communities and peoples. The chapter argues that developing a better agonistic politics around community sanctions requires descending from the broad level of historical and sociological analysis to examine state and territory-level variations in judicial and correctional structures, histories and cultures. Further, that Australian community sanctions cannot be understood without a primary focus on the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates, experiences and meaning. The key to addressing the destructive impact of criminal legal processes and practices on Indigenous peoples lies in developing Indigenous governance, empowerment, self-determination, sovereignty and nation-building. Two recent developments promoting Indigenous governance are examined: the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Justice Reinvestment projects initiated by First Nations communities, highlighting the importance of activism, contest and struggle by community organisations.