Policing persons in behavioral crises: an experimental test of bystander perceptions of procedural justice

Abstract

Policing is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Procedural justice is a primary avenue for police reform, including when police officers interact with vulnerable populations. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the nuanced circumstances in which the public may endorse police interactions with persons in crisis as more or less procedurally just. We recruited a nationally representative sample of 569 Americans and a diverse sample of 809 undergraduates. Using factorial survey vignettes, we assessed bystander perceptions of procedural justice to encounters between officers and a person suffering a behavioral crisis, which varied in officer tactics, use of force, and the cause of crisis. Officers were perceived as more procedurally just when they employed tactics consistent with Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. Use of force reduced perceptions of procedural justice, but use of force by CIT officers was perceived as more procedurally just than conventional officers’ actions, regardless of use of force. Conventional treatment and use of force were considered less procedurally just when the person’s crisis was due to mental illness compared with substance use. The current findings suggest bystanders did not uniformly endorse use of force by police but were more tolerant of force when officers used CIT-informed tactics and when a person’s crisis was due to substance use. Use of force against persons with mental illness was viewed as procedurally unjust, perhaps reflecting the public’s increasing sensitivity to this population and a growing dissatisfaction with police involvement as the often standard response to persons in crises.