Legitimacy and People's Compliance with the Law: An Undervalued Aspect - Essay Sample

Reasons Why People Comply With the Law

The belief that legitimacy enhances compliance has widely spread. However, there have been claims that not enough data exists to support these assertions. According to Aiello and Lawton (2018), most scholars have assumed the importance of legitimacy among policing bodies. In effect, the concept is not well established. Tyler (2006) asserted that most people take legitimacy for granted and that it is one of the undervalued aspects of society. In a bid to identify the extent to which legitimacy and procedural justice influence the community, it is essential to distinguish between legitimacy and other factors likely to affect docility, as stipulated in the above section. Determining the influence of legitimacy on behavior compliance, would entail analyzing the indicators. One technique of assessing the impact of legitimacy on conformity is determining the willingness of the people to abide by the law.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The obligation and support for the law are two different terms used to analyze compliance. The relationship between support and conformity showed that citizens tend to comply with the law since they are obliged to do so (Jackson et al. 2012). A study by Jackson et al. (2012) revealed that both adults and children must abide by the law. Accordingly, rules regulate human behavior. Law enforcement authorities have the task of enforcing the regulations set in place. For a society to function effectively, Tyler (2006) indicated that people ought to comply with the law and follow the directions and guidelines of law enforcement. According to Tyler (2006), debates have existed in the past few years on whether people obey the law due to the harsh consequences and penalties or comply with the regulations because it is the right thing to do. Hough et al. (2010) research findings showed that the outcome and process of justice are some of the motivating factors for compliance or non-compliance with the law. Primarily, this implies that the procedures followed when making arrests and prosecuting a person are contributing factors as to whether people in society follow the law or not. In another study, Hough et al. (2010) argued that the instrumental model of compliance, which states that people comply with the law based on the outcome and processes of justice, lies on the fact that personal gains are some of the motivating factors for most people. Mainly, this signifies that people tend to identify opportunities and risks and are likely not to comply with the regulations when the anticipated fines are minimal. More so, non-compliance results when the chances of arrest are insignificant when compared to the benefits accrued for not complying with the law.

Importantly, compliance with the law is based on one's reasoning and logic. Thus, the solution should be deterring people from acts of non-compliance. Tyler (2006) proposed that the benefits of compliance should be much high when compared to those of non-compliance. Proponents argue that increasing the probability of arrest for people who do not comply with the law, and rising sanctions such that non-compliance becomes irrational are some of the factors that could prompt people to abide by the law. In another study finding, Hough et al. (2010) proved that people comply with the law because they see it right and have a moral obligation to obey it as opposed to claims that fear and possible consequences prompt people to follow the law. It is articulate that people tend to obey the law voluntarily since it occurs regardless of whether incentives are present or not. Most researches have supported the fact that normative concerns arise from the legitimacy of the system influence people to comply with the law. Tyler (2006) stipulated that people often abided by the law since it aligned with their morals. In such a case, the perceived risk as a significant influencer of law compliance does not apply.

Consequently, Jackson et al. (2012) argued that most people must think that people comply with the law due to the obligation to do what is right in society. However, what most individuals with this perception fail to understand is the resultant factor when the law contradicts a person's morals, and when the legislation is not consistent with what people view as right. Such situations, according to Jackson et al. (2012), could make people feel obligated and justified to break the law. In addition to that, the views of the society of the law enforcement authorities could influence compliance with the law. Murphy and Gaylor (2010) found out that the legitimacy of law enforcement bodies is one of the essential factors that people consider to comply with the law.

In some cases, the legitimacy of the relevant authorities may fail to align with the morals of a person. Murphy and Gaylor (2010) argued that legitimacy replicates the extent to which people recognize the right that various authorities have in governing their behavior. When the people's perceptions are that the police are legitimate, chances are they are likely to allow the policing body to guide their behavior. It is worth noting that a lawful authority often defines acceptable behavior in society. In effect, community members are likely to submit to the laws of legitimate jurisdiction.

Notably, the legitimacy of a governing body could promote compliance with the law, as already seen in the above sections. Conformity, in this case, results even in situations where people view the law as unmerited. The findings dismiss previous claims by researchers that show that people obey the law when the chances of arrest are minimal or when the perceived fines are small. With this in mind, it is clear that law enforcement authorities can influence people's perceptions. Murphy and Gaylor (2010) proposed that one of the techniques of building the legitimacy of administration is by the way the bodies get their power. Persons in charge of procedural justice are better places to foster voluntary compliance with the law. Law regulators may not change the legislation but can change how they treat citizens in society. From this, one can see that procedural justice is a fascinating and priceless technique that could promote positive behavior in society.

Influence of Procedural Justice on Public Commitment to Comply With the Law

According to Murphy (2014), procedural justice often entails the treatment and decision-making capabilities of an authority. The elements that define procedural justice are neutrality, respect, voice, and trust (Murphy 2014). Respect, in this case, implies whether an authority is respectful and polite when handling a person and whether they respect the rights of the people stipulated under the law. In recent years, communities have accused police of using excessive force when making an arrest. Such actions do not match the definition of respect under procedural justice. Instead, law enforcers should treat people with respect and dignity to ensure that people perceive them as procedurally fair. Jackson et al. (2012) showed that people tend to be sensitive to how authorities provide directives. Acts that include disrespect often yield reluctance and negative evaluations.

Murphy (2014) defined neutrality as the process of making decisions based on rules and principles of a case rather than biases and personal opinions. In the United States, for instance, examples of police mishandling the blacks more when compared to the whites have been on the rise. In such cases, police are not neutral since they discriminate against a particular group of people based on race and ethnicity. In another example, the bombing of the Guilford pub saw the arrest of suspects illegally. Police arrested the suspected terrorists without a warrant and they were detained for seven days without legal representation. Owing to such acts, the arrested persons were released after appeals were made. The example is proof that unlawful arrests often yields no justice to crimes committed in society. In such cases, one could claim that unlawful procedures for arrest and unfair verdicts by court could yield deviance by community members, which in turn increases crime.

According to Murphy (2014), people have the desire to feel secure and need the assurances that they receive the same treatment as other people in society. The trustworthiness of authority indicates the capability of the bodies to treat people fairly. In the example given above, where police mistreat the black more as opposed to the whites, the lack of the trust of the authorities is feasible.

In a study conducted by Gau and Brunson (2010), the findings revealed that most people have issues with police searching, questioning, and stopping them frequently. More so, young men have concerns with how police speak to them in their interactions. In particular, the responses gathered in Gau and Brunson's (2010) study implied that law enforcers were rude and lacked respect for young people by using harsh and demeaning language, racial slurs, and hurling insults. The study also highlighted the fact that police officers in America were more stringent to blacks when compared to the dominant whites. Some participants in the study from the African American population asserted that police tend to use racial slurs and curse at them for no apparent reason (Gau & Brunson, 2010). Most respondents viewed the use of discourteous language as a form of dehumanizing that undermined the legitimacy of the law enforcement authorities. From the responses, it is clear that people need respect from the law enforcers. Notably, Gau and Brunson (2010) argued that most respondents did not mention the race of the officers when describing their experiences. Instead, they presumed that race was not a determining factor in how policing bodies should treat the communi...