Abstract
AbstractTo date, in Western jurisdictions, many criminal justice reforms are devised and implemented with a close eye on public opinion. These are typically intended to regain or foster legitimacy. However, within this context, there is no common understanding of this concept. This essay aims to provide such a conceptualisation of legitimacy, to enable a consistent and systematic evaluation of attempts to accommodate public opinion. To this end, five levels of legitimacy research are discussed that could structure evaluations of public-opinion-targeted reforms: (1) the normative dimension, (2) the ‘audiences’ addressed, (3) the purpose of the reforms, (4) trust and distrust, and (5) dialogic, or longitudinal effects. Furthermore, since research departing from these five levels of analysis is likely to result in observations that are, by nature, incommensurable, it is argued that an overall assessment of legitimacy always requires ajudgment, rather than mere measurement.
Highlights
In recent decades, many reforms in Western criminal justice systems are characterised by an increased gravitation towards the voice of the public
2008) and an increasing engagement of criminal justice professionals in public debates, profiling themselves as a public servant rather than an autonomous expert (Roberts, 2008; Van de Bunt and Van Gelder, 2012). These reforms usually promise to benefit the legitimacy of criminal justice and are promoted throughout large parts of the criminal justice literature
Others claim that a positioning of criminal justice actors that is more exposed to, and can be held accountable by, the tribunal of public opinion would better fit present-day expectations and the way in which legitimacy is best ‘earned’ in contemporary societies
Summary
Many reforms in Western criminal justice systems are characterised by an increased gravitation towards the voice of the public. A second distinction can be drawn between the normative approach of legitimacy of political philosophy and the empirical approach of the social sciences (cf Hinsch, 2010; Siems and Nelken, 2017) While these two approaches are clearly distinct, it is becoming increasingly clear that full evaluations of legitimacy need to take both into account (cf Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012; Jackson and Bradford, 2019; Loader and Sparks, 2013). The framework that is discussed in this essay can serve as a foundation for this judgment by making explicit what is and what is not addressed in a specific research design This will result in more substantiated and more accountable assertions about legitimacy effects of initiatives that seek a closer connection with the public
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
