DATE DOWNLOADED: Fri Nov 12 07:25:47 2021

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed.

Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, Prosecutorial Procedural Justice and Public Legitimacy in Hong
Kong, 57 BRIT. J. CRIMINOLOGY 94 (2017).

ALWD 6th ed.

Cheng, K. ., Prosecutorial procedural justice and public legitimacy in hong kong,
57(1) Brit. J. Criminology 94 (2017).

APA 7th ed.

Cheng, K. (2017). Prosecutorial procedural justice and public legitimacy in hong
kong. British Journal of Criminology, 57(1), 94-111.

Chicago 17th ed.

Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, "Prosecutorial Procedural Justice and Public Legitimacy in Hong
Kong," British Journal of Criminology 57, no. 1 (January 2017): 94-111

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, "Prosecutorial Procedural Justice and Public Legitimacy in Hong
Kong" (2017) 57:1 Brit J Criminology 94.

AGLC 4th ed.

Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, 'Prosecutorial Procedural Justice and Public Legitimacy in Hong
Kong' (2017) 57(1) British Journal of Criminology 94.

MLA 8th ed.

Cheng, Kevin Kwok-yin. "Prosecutorial Procedural Justice and Public Legitimacy in
Hong Kong." British Journal of Criminology, vol. 57, no. 1, January 2017, p. 94-111.
HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, 'Prosecutorial Procedural Justice and Public Legitimacy in Hong
Kong' (2017) 57 Brit J Criminology 94

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
doi:10.1093/bjc/azv106 BRIT.]. CRIMINOL. (2017) 57, 94-111
Advance Access publication 26 September 2015

PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC

LEGITIMACY IN HONG KONG
KEVIN KwoK-YIN CHENG*

Prosecutorsare said to be ministers ofjustice and protectors of the public interest. Drawingon proce-
duraljustice and the re-conceptualizationof legitimacy, this study argues thatforprosecutors to be
seen to act in the public interest, they should be perceived to exercise theirpowers legitimately, and,
more specifically, for the public to feel thatprosecutors make decisions that are morally aligned with
their own. Using a random survey of the Hong Kong generalpopulation, it is found that when
prosecutorsareperceived to act in procedurallyjust ways, the legitimacy of thejustice system, as well
as the moral alignment with prosecutors and the courts, are enhanced in the minds of the public.
Legitimacy and moral alignment are also associated with cooperation with the legal authorities
and compliance with the law.
Keywords: procedural justice, legitimacy, moral alignment, prosecutors, public opinion

Introduction
The study of legitimacy has increasingly gained traction in criminology over the past
two-and-a-half decades (Tankebe 2013). Legitimacy refers to 'people's beliefs about the
right ofjustice institutions to hold power and influence' (Jackson et al. 2015: 2). These
justice institutions, or legal authorities, include the police, the courts and the prosecu-
tion. In recent years, the conceptualization of legitimacy has been expanding to reflect
its multidimensionality (Bottoms and Tankebe 2012; Tankebe 2013; Tyler andJackson
2013; 2014). Under this re-conceptualization, legitimacy is said to be comprised of two
interrelated elements: the belief that legal authorities have a right to dictate appropri-
ate behaviour and a corresponding duty to obey (obligation to obey), and a belief that
legal authorities operate in ways that are in accordance with the public's sense of moral-
ity (moral alignment) (Jackson et al. 2012; 2015; Tyler andJackson 2013). However, the
extant legitimacy studies have predominately focused on attitudes towards the police
(Hinds and Murphy 2007; Tyler and Fagan 2008; Hough et al. 2010; Tyler et al. 2010;
Schulhofer et al. 2011; Murphy and Cherney 2012; Bradford et al. 2014) and to a lesser
extent, the judiciary (Gibson 1989; Tyler and Rasinski 1991; Baird 2001) and defence
lawyers (Peterson-Badali et al. 2007; Chui and Cheng 2015a; 2015b). The prosecutor has
received conspicuously little attention.
This is surprising given that the prosecutor is arguably the most powerful actor in
the criminal justice process. Prosecutors have the power, and discretion, to lay charges,
withdraw cases and engage in plea bargaining (Davis 2007; McConville 2007; Bibas
2009). At the same time, prosecutors in common lawjurisdictions, including the United
States, England and Wales, and Hong Kong are said to be 'ministers ofjustice' and their
code of conduct underscores the importance of the public interest (Crown Prosecution

*Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Room 604, 6/F, Lee Shau Kee Building, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong; kevinchengccuhk.edu.hk

94
C The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime andJustice Studies
(ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mnail: journals.permnissions@oup.com
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

Service 2013; American Bar Association 2014; Hong Kong Department ofJustice 2014).
The prosecutor-as-minister of justice notion is so entrenched in the common law that
a Canadian court has declared it to be the 'silver thread' of criminal law [R v. Pearson
(1957) 21 WWR (NS) 337 at 348].
The present study argues that for prosecutors to be seen to act in the public interest,
they should be perceived to exercise their powers legitimately, and, more specifically,
for the public to feel that prosecutors make decisions that are morally aligned with
their own. To accomplish this, three aspects are examined. First, this study empirically
assesses whether perceptions of how procedurally justly prosecutors act is associated
with the public's views of the legitimacy of the criminaljustice system. Second, this study
seeks to test whether procedural justice positively correlates with the perceived moral
alignment between prosecutors and the public. Lastly, this study ascertains whether
perceptions about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system are associated with the
public's willingness to cooperate with legal authorities and compliance with the law.
This article begins by discussing the role of prosecutors as ministers of justice and
the public's (lack of) understanding with respect to the criminal justice system. The
next section reviews the procedural justice literature and the re-conceptualization of
legitimacy. Afterwards, the objectives and hypotheses, the methodology and the vari-
ous measures of the present study are discussed. The results of the random telephone
survey (N= 374) of the Hong Kong general population are then presented. It will be
shown that the more that the public perceives prosecutors to act in procedurally just
ways the more that their views of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system are bol-
stered. In turn, this is associated with a greater willingness to cooperate with legal
authorities and compliance with the law.

Minister ofJustice and Public Understanding

The minister of justice role goes against the popular image of prosecutors as zealous
advocates who unequivocally pursue convictions at all costs. It is often said that pros-
ecutors should not pay attention to wins and losses but rather they should reach a
just outcome on behalf of the public. For example, the American Bar Association's
Model Rules of Professional Conduct commentary to Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of
a Prosecutor, states that: '[a] prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice
and not simply that of an advocate'. Similarly, Young and Sanders (2004: 194), in writ-
ing about prosecutors in England and Wales, observe that for prosecutors in criminal
proceedings, 'the question in dispute is whether the defendant has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt to be guilty of the crime charged and, if so, what punishment should
be imposed. It is not simply a matter of winning or losing a case, but a matter of appro-
priate moral censure'.
Unlike defence lawyers who represent individual clients, the prosecutor's only cli-
ent is the state, and prosecutors perceive themselves as 'protector[s] of the public'
(Medwed 2004: 147). For instance, the Codefor Crown Prosecutorsin England and Wales
(Crown Prosecution Service 2013) and the Prosecution Code in Hong Kong (Hong Kong
Department of Justice 2014), both underscore the need for prosecutors to take the
public interest into account even when there is enough evidence in deciding whether
to press charges or not. While public interest is not clearly explained, prosecutors must
95
 CHENG

consider a number of factors including the potential impact that prosecution may have
on the community.
Commentators have constantly noted that such ideal notions as ministers of justice
are ill-defined and lack judicial guidance as to what they actually entail. Bresler (1995:
1301) for instance refers to the notions as 'pretty phrases' and 'juris-babble'. Moreover,
there are serious doubts as to whether such ideals actually occur in reality (Young and
Sanders 2004; Medwed 2009; Plater and Line 2012).
Members of the public may only have an impression regarding the role of prosecu-
tors. In other words, many in the public may not actually know how prosecutors behave.
They may receive their information from other sources such as the media. The media
tend to over-report on violent offences, leading the public to view the criminal justice
system as being too lenient (Roberts and Doob 1990). Previous research reveals that
the public possess little understanding about crime and the operation of the criminal
justice system (Roberts 1992; Roberts and Stalans 1997; Cullen et al. 2000; Roberts and
Hough 2005). For instance, the public often overestimate crime rates and the propen-
sity of being a victim to violent crime (Roberts 1992). On the other hand, the public
in Britain has been found to underestimate the severity of sentencing patterns, and
as a result, showed criticisms towards judges as being too lenient (Hough and Roberts
1999). Indeed, the public is most critical of the courts because they are more likely to
have the least knowledge about it compared with more visible legal authorities like the
police. Moreover, low knowledge leads to unrealistic expectations and erodes public
confidence in the courts (Hough and Roberts 2004).
In a recent study about young people's attitudes towards lawyer-client interactions
in Hong Kong, it was found that understanding about lawyers positively correlated
with how fairly that young people felt defence lawyers treated their youth clients.
Respondents were asked about the role and functions of defence lawyers, and students
demonstrated a better knowledge than young offenders despite young offenders having
direct experiences with lawyers. However, understanding about lawyers was not found
to be associated with perceptions about the legitimacy of the justice system (Chui and
Cheng 2015b).
Nonetheless, measuring public attitudes are imperative. Public opinion can influ-
ence law makers and criminal justice policies (Cullen et al. 2000). Politicians promote
criminal justice policies that they think are attractive to the general public (Roberts
and Hough 2005). Additionally, as it will be illustrated in the subsequent sections, how
the public believes legal authorities behave is linked to their cooperation with legal
authorities and law-abiding behaviour.

ProceduralJusticeand Legitimacy
This section examines the re-conceptualization of legitimacy in procedural justice
studies, namely being comprised of an obligation to obey and moral alignment. The
earlier procedural justice studies tended to equate legitimacy with the obligation to
obey the directives of legal authorities only (Bottoms and Tankebe 2012). Tyler and
Huo (2002: xiv) for instance argued that the public would perceive legal authorities to
be legitimate if they possess the 'belief that legal authorities are entitled to be obeyed
and that the individual ought to defer to their judgments'. The focus was on people's
response to the authority's claim of rightful authority (Jackson et al. 2015).
96
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

Measurements of legitimacy in the earlier procedural justice studies have therefore

typically consisted of an obligation to obey and to trust the authorities (Reisig et al.
2007). Trust was included because it is seen to help to justify the legal authorities' use
of power. Trust refers to a belief by people that the authorities have correct motives
and are competent in exercising their authority (Jackson et al. 2011). For example, the
widely cited Sunshine-Tyler legitimacy scale (Sunshine and Tyler 2003) operational-
ized legitimacy as the perceived obligation to obey and trust the legal authority into a
single index. Measures included items such as 'You should accept the decisions made
by police, even if you think they are wrong' and 'I trust in the police to make decisions
that are good for everyone in the city' (Sunshine and Tyler 2003).
However, doubts were raised about the notion that if people feel an obligation to obey
the legal authorities, it means that they believe that the legal authority is legitimate. In
a study of public attitudes towards the police in Ghana, Tankebe (2009b) found a lack
of empirical validity for obligation's influence on the public's willingness to cooperate
with the police. It is argued that in Western liberal democracies, obligation is based
on assumptions of shared moral values between the authority and citizens. In other
societies, cooperation may very well be derived from fear or a sense of hopelessness to
challenge the authorities and not necessarily because the public considers the author-
ity to be entitled to be obeyed. It is towards this idea of shared moral values that the
conceptualization of legitimacy has progressed.
In recent years, the conceptualization of legitimacy has been expanded to incorpo-
rate shared moral values between the public and the legal authorities. Moral alignment
corresponds to Beetham's (1991) second element of legitimacy, namely shared values.
His first element of consent is reflected by the measure of obligation to obey the direc-
tives of the legal authorities. Moral alignment refers to the belief that power is rightfully
held by legal authorities because they act in accordance with the public's predominant
notions of right and wrong (Jackson et al. 2015). Suchman (1995: 574) states that '[1]
egitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are
desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms,
values, beliefs, and definitions'. The idea of shared moral values is regarded as the pub-
lic's justification of the power enjoyed by the legal authorities (Jackson et al. 2012; 2013;
2015). In short, the legal authorities are deemed to be legitimate when their actions are
judged as moral and just by the public.
In criminology, the predominant explanatory framework for enhancing the public's
perception of the legitimacy of legal authorities is Tyler's proceduraljustice model (Tyler
1990). An extensive amount of studies was initially conducted in the United States (e.g.
Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 2006; Tyler and Fagan 2008; Tyler et al. 2010). In recent
years, the study of proceduraljustice and legitimacy became progressively international
(e.g. Reisig and Lloyd 2009; Tankebe 2009a; 2009b; Hasisi and Weisburd 2011; Jackson
et al. 2011; Murphy and Cherney 2012; Bradford et al. 2014; Tsushima and Hamai 2015;
Chui and Cheng 2015a; 2015b). Numerous works point to procedural justice as the pri-
mary antecedent for legal authorities to build legitimacy in the public's minds. This in
turn is seen to be correlated with public cooperation with legal authorities and compli-
ance with the law (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 2006; Tyler and Fagan 2008; Murphy
et al. 2009; Hough et al. 2010; Tyler et al. 2010; Jackson et al. 2012; Bradford et al. 2014).
The premise of the procedural justice model is that because people regard the legal
authorities as acting in procedurally just ways, the more likely the legal authorities will
97
 CHENG

be seen as legitimate (Tyler 1990; 2006). Procedural justice draws on social psychology
and it is comprised of several factors: the level of participation granted by the author-
ity to individuals; the perceived neutrality and trustworthiness of the authority; and
whether the authority treats people with dignity and respect (Tyler 2008).
When people consider that the authorities do not afford individuals participation
in the decision-making process or treat them disrespectfully, namely in procedurally
unjust ways, they will consider that the authority is sending them a message that they
are not valued members of society. This erodes group identification with the authority
(Lind and Tyler 1988). The authority in question will be perceived as less legitimate
and there will be a greater resort to defiance and vigilantism (Tankebe 2009a). On the
other hand, by acting in procedurally just ways, the authorities can enhance people's
internalization of rules, norms and laws (Fagan and Tyler 2005; Fagan and Piquero
2007; Tyler et al. 2014). This process of legal socialization is influenced both by personal
and vicarious experiences with the legal authorities (Fagan and Tyler 2005).
Procedural justice has also been contended as the primary antecedent by which
the legal authorities enhance their moral alignment with the public. When the legal
authorities are perceived to treat people in procedurally just ways, they are able to
instil a sense of shared moral purpose and shared values with individuals. This helps to
enhance an individual's identification with the authority in question and it also helps
to sustain the moral validity of the authority's power (Tyler and Jackson 2013). Social
identity acts as a bridge between procedural justice and public legitimacy (Bradford
et al. 2014).
The procedural justice model has received robust empirical support. In numerous
policing studies, ranging from traffic stops (Engel 2005; Tyler et al. 2014) to assisting
the police with counterterrorism efforts (Schulhofer et al. 2011), there has been strong
support for the procedural justice model. For example, in a study in Australia, Hinds
and Murphy (2007) found that people who considered the police to act in procedurally
just ways when exercising their authority were more disposed to view the police as legiti-
mate and were more satisfied with police services. Similarly, in examining public views
about the legitimacy of the police in England, Jackson and colleagues (2012) found that
when police officers are deemed act fairly and treat people respectfully, it correlated
with the public's sense of moral alignment with the police. In a recent survey conducted
in the United States, Tyler and Jackson (2014) found that those who considered legal
authorities to be more legitimate were more willing to assist the police and the legal
system, such as being willing to report crimes and act as a witness.
Moral alignment also helps to foster cooperation and compliance because it strength-
ens the solidarity between the authority and the governed. When people perceive that
the goals of a legal authority are aligned with their own values, there is a greater com-
mitment to assist the authority to achieve those goals (Jackson et al. 2013). By sharing
the same moral values, there is a stronger 'motivational force of identification' (Jackson
et al. 2013: 13). This force leads people to further adopt the values and goals of the
authority as their own, which provides the basis for further cooperation and compli-
ance (Jackson et al. 2013).
Likewise for defence lawyers, it was found that when defence lawyers are regarded
to treat their clients in a procedurally just manner, defendants' satisfaction with them
increased, and this was associated with a more positive view towards considering the
justice system as legitimate (Chui and Cheng 2015a). Legitimacy studies of the courts,
98
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

which sometimes include views towards prosecutors, came to similar conclusions

(Casper et al. 1988). The early study by Casper and colleagues (1988), however, com-
bined prosecutors with the court and lawyers into a single procedural justice index
instead of measuring prosecutors separately.
As noted, it is important to measure public attitudes towards prosecutors because prose-
cutors enjoy enormous discretionary powers and are regarded as the most powerful actors
in the criminaljustice system (Davis 2007). Moreover, prosecutors are said to be ministers
ofjustice and they are tasked with caring for the public interest. It is imperative to meas-
ure whether the public perceives prosecutors to exercise their authority legitimately and
whether prosecutors act in ways that are morally aligned with the public's values.

The Present Study

Objectives and hypotheses
The primary aims of the present study are to determine whether more favourable per-
ceptions of procedural justice by prosecutors have a positive influence on the public's
view of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and whether greater perceptions of
legitimacy would lead to a stronger willingness to cooperate with the legal authorities
and to comply with the law. More specifically, the hypothesis of whether prosecuto-
rial procedural justice would enhance the public's moral alignment with them will be
tested. Perceived distributive justice of the court system was included in the analysis in
order to compare the effects of procedural justice against instrumental judgements.
Under the procedural justice model, procedural justice should be a stronger predictor
of legitimacy than instrumental judgements (Sunshine and Tyler 2003).
Drawing on the procedural justice model and past studies on procedural justice and
legitimacy, the following hypotheses are offered:
HI: A better regard of prosecutors in terms of procedural justice has a positive effect on the public
legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
H2 : Similarly, a better regard of prosecutors in terms of procedural justice has a positive effect on the
public's moral alignment with the prosecution.
H 3 : A better regard of prosecutors in terms of procedural justice has a positive effect on the public's
moral alignment with the justice system.
H,: Procedural justice has the strongest positive effect on legitimacy and moral alignment, more so
than distributive justice.
H5 : The more legitimate the public perceive the criminal justice system to be, the more willing they
will be to cooperate with the legal authorities in the future.
H6 : The greater moral alignment that the public have with prosecutors, the more willing they will be
to cooperate with the legal authorities in the future.
H7 : The greater moral alignment that the public have with the justice system, the more willing they
will be to cooperate with the legal authorities in the future.
Hs: The more legitimate the public perceive the criminal justice system to be, the more compliance
they will have with the law.
Hg: The greater moral alignment that the public have with prosecutors, the more compliance they
will have with the law.
H 10 : The greater moral alignment that the public have with the justice system, the more compliance
they will have with the law.

99
 CHENG

Using data from Hong Kong provides an opportunity to test the generalizability of the
procedural justice model and the re-conceptualization of legitimacy in a context that
has received scarce inquiry.

Research location
Hong Kong is a former British colony with a population of approximately 7.2 million.
Over 90% of the population is ethnically Chinese. Although Hong Kong was handed
over to the People's Republic of China in 1997, it continues to operate a legal system,
including the common law system, reminiscent of its colonial era under the 'one coun-
try, two systems' framework (Lo and Chui 2012). The previous legal institutions, includ-
ing the law (both legislation and case law), thejudiciary and prosecution, remain largely
unchanged. Under this framework, Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy and its
courts and prosecution enjoy independent power separate from the rest of Mainland
China (Lo and Chui 2012).
The Prosecutions Division under the Hong Kong Department of Justice is responsi-
ble for prosecuting cases on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Article 63 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's postcolonial constitution, guarantees that: 'The
Department ofJustice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control crim-
inal prosecutions, free from any interference' (The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region). The Prosecution Code, which resembles codes of conduct for pros-
ecutors in similar legal jurisdictions such as England and Wales, underscores the impor-
tance of the relationship between the prosecutors and the public. The first paragraph of
the Code stresses that: 'A prosecutor is required to act in the general public interest, but
independently as a "minister ofjustice"' (Hong Kong Department ofJustice 2014).
As such, Hong Kong provides a useful context to expand the study of legitimacy
internationally and to expand the literature on prosecutors and procedural justice.
The results will provide a comparable empirical base to test the applicability of the pro-
cedural justice model and re-conceptualization of legitimacy in a similar legal jurisdic-
tion with existing Western studies but a culturally different context.

Data
The data for this study were drawn from telephone interviews with a random sample
of adults (over 18 years old) in Hong Kong. The interviews were conducted by trained
interviewers during the summer of 2014. In total, the sample consisted of 374 com-
pleted surveys. Given the homogenous and concentrated nature of Hong Kong's popu-
lation, the sample can be said to reflect 'the public' of Hong Kong.
There was a good balance between male and female respondents in the sample, with
199 (53.2 per cent) males and 175 (46.8 per cent) females. There was also a good distri-
bution in terms of the age of the respondents, e.g. 69 (18.4 per cent) of the sample fell
into the 18-24 years age range, 37 (9.9 per cent) fell into the 40-44 years age range, 46
(12.3 per cent) fell into the 50-54 years age range and 50 (13.4 per cent) fell into the
60 years and above age range. A large proportion of the respondents had completed
higher secondary school education (Forms 4-7) (32.4 per cent) compared with those
who had only completed lower secondary school education (Forms 1-3) (11.2 per cent).
100
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

However, nearly half of the respondents (44.9 per cent) reported that they earn less
than HK$9,999 per month (approximately US$1,430). All respondents were ethically
Chinese and inhabitants of Hong Kong.

Measures
The items of this study were formulated based on the extant literature on procedural
justice and legitimacy. Some wordings were changed to measure the prosecutors instead
of the police and the courts in previous studies (e.g. Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Reisig
et al. 2007; Jackson et al. 2012).

Proceduraljustice
Procedural justice was measured by five items that corresponded to both the qual-
ity of the decision making of prosecutors and the quality of the treatment by pros-
ecutors towards defendants. The respondents were asked to rate their agreement to
five statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree. The statements were (1) 'Prosecutors listen to all sides in a case', (2)
'Prosecutors treat everyone with dignity and respect', (3) 'Prosecutors treat everyone
fairly', (4) 'Prosecutors give honest explanations of their decisions' and (5) 'Prosecutors
care more about getting justice than getting a case over with quickly'. The items were
combined to create a procedural justice index, and it displayed a high internal reliabil-
ity (a = 0.889; mean = 4.044; SD = 0.826).

Legitimacy
Legitimacy was measured by ten items that corresponded to the three dimensions of
obligation, trust and confidence, and moral alignment. Respondents were asked to
rate their agreement to ten statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The statements for obligation and trust
and confidence (the traditional conceptualization of legitimacy) were (1) 'You should
try to obey the law even if it goes against what you think is right', (2) 'The law helps
to protect the interests of people like you', (3) 'In general, our laws make Hong Kong
a better place', (4) 'Overall, you are confident in the courts', (5) 'You should accept
the decisions made by the courts even if you think they are wrong'. To capture the re-
conceptualization of legitimacy, five items were used to measure moral alignment with
judges, the law and prosecutors. Again, the respondents were asked to rate their agree-
ment on a 5-point Likert scale. The statements for moral alignment with the court were
(6) judges usually make decisions that are consistent with my own ideas about what is
right and wrong', and (7) judges can be trusted to make decisions that are right for
the people of Hong Kong'. For moral alignment with the law, it was measured with the
statement: (8) 'My own ideas about right and wrong usually agree with the law'. Finally,
the statements for moral alignment with prosecutors were (9) 'Prosecutors usually
make decisions that are consistent with my own ideas about what is right and wrong',
and (10) 'Prosecutors can be trusted to make decisions that are right for the people of
Hong Kong'. The two items (items 9 and 10) were combined to form a moral alignment
(prosecutors only) index (a = 0.698; mean = 3.516; SD = 0.917). The five items for moral
alignment with judges, the law and prosecutors (items 6 to 10) were combined to form
101
 CHENG

a moral alignment (justice system) index (a = 0.775; mean = 3.563; SD = 0.782). The ten
items altogether were combined to create a legitimacy index (a = 0.762; mean = 3.697;
SD = 0.572).

Cooperation with the legal authorities

Cooperation with the legal authorities was measured by using three items. Respondents
were asked to indicate their agreement to each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The three statements were (1)
'I am willing to help provide information to the court to help with a case', (2) 'I am
willing to serve as a witness in court' and (3) 'I am willing to serve as ajuror'. A higher
score would indicate a greater willingness to cooperate with the courts. The three
items were combined to create a cooperation with the justice system index (a = 0.737;
mean = 4.172; SD = 0.647).

Compliance with the law

Compliance with the law was measured using five offences. Respondents were asked to
indicate how often they committed the offence on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging
from 1 = never to 4 = often. The five offences were (1) 'Cross the street when the light is
red', (2) 'Dispose of litter on the ground', (3) 'Bought something that was fabricated',
(4) 'Make noise at night that is disruptive' and (5) 'Illegally download content from the
Internet'. Each of the items was reverse coded. A higher score would indicate a higher
compliance with the law. The five items were combined to create a compliance with the
law index (a = 0.598; mean = 3.289; SD = 0.484).

Distributive justice
Distributivejustice was measured with the statement: 'When it comes to criminaljustice,
the most important thing is who you are and who you know'. Participants were asked to
indicate their agreement to this statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. This item was reverse scored (mean = 3.407;
SD = 1.280).

Demographics
The demographic variables of participants, including gender (1 = male), age, income
and education (from primary school to tertiary education) were used as control
variables.

Results
A series of ordinary least square regressions was performed to test the additive effects
of the independent variables, particularly prosecutorial procedural justice, on legiti-
macy and moral alignment (see Table 1). Further regression analyses were conducted
to test the effects of legitimacy on cooperation with the justice system and compliance
with the law (see Tables 2 and 3). As with all regressions, there is a threat of multi-
collinearity, when two or more predictor variables are highly correlated. Variance
inflation factor (VIF) was used to test whether multicollinearity was an issue. Given
102
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

TABLE 1 Influences on legitimacy, moral alignment (prosecutorsonly) and moral alignment (justicesystem)

Legitimacy Moral alignment Moral alignment

(prosecutors only) (justice system)

Gender 0.071 (0.056) -0.062 (0.092) -0.018 (0.076)

Age 0.013 (0.010) 0.016 (0.016) 0.017 (0.013)
Income 0.090 (0.023)*** 0.052 (0.039) 0.043 (0.032)
Education -0.039 (0.027) -0.084 (0.044) -0.054 (0.037)
Procedural justice 0.300 (0.034)*** 0.473 (0.056)*** 0.426 (0.047)***
Distributivejustice -0.019 (0.022) -0.006 (0.037) -0.026 (0.030)
Fvalue 16.667 14.647 16.212
Adjusted R2 0.222 0.199 0.217

N= 374. Entries are unstandardized coefficients, standard errors are in parentheses.

***p < 0.001.

TABLE 2 Influences on cooperation with the legal authorities

Cooperation Cooperation Cooperation

Gender -0.026 (0.069) 0.008 (0.070) -0.002 (0.070)

Age -0.013 (0.012) -0.011 (0.012) -0.011 (0.012)
Income 0.080 (0.029)** 0.103 (0.030)** 0.103 (0.030)**
Education 0.006 (0.033) 0.004 (0.034) 0.001 (0.034)
Legitimacy 0.364 (0.061)*** -

-
Moral alignment - 0.156 (0.039)***

-
(prosecutors only)
Moral alignment - - 0.183 (0.046)**
(justice system)
Distributive justice -0.030 (0.027) -0.031 (0.027) -0.027 (0.027)
Fvalue 8.647 5.321 5.243
Adjusted R2 0.122 0.073 0.072

N= 374. Entries are unstandardized coefficients, standard errors are in parentheses.

**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

TABLE 3 Influences on compliance with the law

Compliance Compliance Compliance

Gender -0.202 (0.050)*** -0.189 (0.051)*** -0.192 (0.051)***

Age 0.039 (0.009)*** 0.040 (0.009)*** 0.040 (0.009)***
Income -0.001 (0.021) 0.009 (0.021) 0.009 (0.021)
Education -0.032 (0.024) -0.032 (0.025) -0.034 (0.025)
Legitimacy 0.134 (0.045)** -
-

Moral alignment - 0.065 (0.028)*

(prosecutors only)
Moral alignment - - 0.067 (0.033)*
(justice system)
Distributive justice -0.003 (0.020) -0.004 (0.020) -0.002 (0.020)
Fvalue 11.109 10.436 10.162
Adjusted R2 0.155 0.146 0.143

N= 374. Entries are unstandardized coefficients, standard errors are in parentheses.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

103
 CHENG

that the highest VIF was 1.459, it is safe to say that multicollinearity was not a threat
(Montgomery et al. 2012).
The procedural justice model asserts that the public perception of how fairly the
legal authorities act shapes their public legitimacy. A series of regression models tested
the effects of procedural justice on legitimacy (see Table 1). The first regression model
tested whether perceived procedural justice by prosecutors correlates with the legiti-
macy of the criminaljustice system in the minds of the public (H1 ). The regression used
legitimacy as the outcome variable with the procedural justice of prosecutors, distribu-
tive justice, effectiveness and demographic characteristics as independent variables. As
seen in Table 1, H was supported because procedural justice was positively associated
with the overall legitimacy of the criminal justice system. More specifically, the more
that the prosecutors are viewed to act in procedurallyjust ways the more that the public
considers the justice system to be legitimate (B= 0.300; p< 0.001).
H was also substantiated because procedural justice was found to have a stronger
influence than distributive justice, which was not found to be statistically significant.
This finding is consistent with previous policing studies that found procedural justice
to have a much higher effect on legitimacy than other instrumental variables of law
enforcement (Sunshine and Tyler 2003).
One demographic variable was found to be significant. Respondents with a higher
income demonstrated greater public legitimacy towards the justice system (B = 0.090;
p < 0.001). It is possible that those with a higher income perceive the justice system to be
protecting their interests and therefore they possess a higher trust and confidence in
the justice system. This differs from individuals of a lower socio-economic background
who often deem the legal authorities to be antagonistic towards them (e.g. Choongh
1997).
The second regression model tested whether prosecutorial procedural justice posi-
tively associates with people's moral alignment with the prosecutors (H2). Again, pro-
cedural justice was found to be statistically significant (B = 0.473; p < 0.001). The results
here provide support for H2 and Tyler and Jackson's (2013) claim that by acting in a
procedurallyjust manner, the legal authorities, in this case the prosecutors, are able to
imbue themselves with common normative purpose and values with the public.
The third regression model expanded the measure of moral alignment to moral
alignment with the justice system, which included moral alignment with prosecutors,
judges and the law. This model tested whether prosecutorial procedural justice is asso-
ciated with the public's perception of moral alignment with the justice system (H,).
Procedural justice was found to have a significant positive correlation with moral align-
ment with thejustice system (B = 0.426; p < 0.001). In this way, H3 was supported. Income
was not found to have an effect on moral alignment.
Another set of regressions examined the relationship of legitimacy with people's will-
ingness to cooperate with the legal authorities (see Table 2). Cooperation served as the
outcome variables with legitimacy, distributive justice and demographic characteristics
as independent variables (H5). With respect to cooperation with the legal authorities,
consistent with previous research, legitimacy was found to be significantly correlated
with the public's willingness to cooperate with the courts (B = 0.364; p < 0.001). H
5
was therefore supported. Besides legitimacy, income was also a significant factor. The
higher the income of participants, the more they were willing to cooperate with the
courts (B = 0.080; p < 0.01). This is similar to previous policing studies that found higher
104
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

income earners to be more inclined to report crimes to the police compared with lower
income citizens (Goudriaan et at. 2004). It was posited that this was due to higher
income citizens suffering a greater monetary loss from crimes and they would therefore
have a greater interest in seeing justice done (Goudriaan et al. 2004).
A further regression was performed to test the association of moral alignment with
prosecutors on cooperation (H6 ). As shown in Table 2, H6 was supported because moral
alignment (prosecutors only) demonstrated a strong positive correlation with coopera-
tion (B = 0.156; p < 0.001). The more that people feel that their values are aligned with
prosecutors, the more willing they are to cooperate with the legal authorities. Once
again, the level of income had a strong effect on cooperation (B = 0.103; p < 0.01).
An additional regression examined the relationship of moral alignment with the jus-
tice system with cooperation with the legal authorities (H7). Like the previous results,
moral alignment (justice system) was found to have a strong positive association with
people's willingness to cooperate with the legal authorities (B = 0.183; p< 0.001). H7 was
therefore supported. Also income was once more found to be positively correlated with
cooperation (B = 0.103; p < 0.001).
With regards to compliance with the law (see Table 3), legitimacy was again found
to be a significant factor (B = 0.134; p < 0.01). This is consistent with previous legiti-
macy studies conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom (e.g. Murphy
et al. 2009; Jackson et al. 2012). H8 was supported. However, legitimacy was not the only
significant factor because other demographic variables demonstrated a strong signifi-
cance as well. Males were significantly less likely to comply with the law than females
(B = -0.202; p < 0.001). This is not too surprising given that as in many places, males
commit the majority of criminal offences. This is no different in Hong Kong (Hong
Kong Police Force 2014). Age was also found to be significant. The older the respond-
ents, the more that they indicated compliance with the law (B = 0.039; p < 0.001). This
was also unsurprising because it is typical that young people are more likely to be
engaged in criminal activities than older citizens (Hong Kong Police Force 2014).
As shown in Table 3, another regression tested the relationship between moral align-
ment with prosecutors and compliance with the law (H9 ). It was found that the more
that people found their morals and values to be aligned with prosecutors, the more
they indicated compliance with the law (B = 0.065; p < 0.05). H 9 was therefore sup-
ported. Like the previous results, both males and older participants revealed a greater
compliance with the law (B = -0.189; p < 0.001 and B = 0.040; p < 0.001, respectively).
A final regression was performed to test the association between moral alignment
with the justice system and compliance with the law (Ho). Consistent with the previous
results, moral alignment with the justice system had a significant positive correlation
with people's compliance with the law (B = 0.067; p < 0.05). In this way, H 0 was sup-
ported. Consistent with the previous results, both males and older participants indi-
cated a greater compliance with the law (B = -0.192; p < 0.001 and B = 0.040; p < 0.001,
respectively).

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that prosecutors may play an important part in influ-
encing the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, and thus, the willingness of the
public to cooperate with legal authorities and comply with the law. How prosecutors are
105
 CHENG

perceived to treat people and wield their authority may have an impact on how legiti-
mate the public view them, as well as how legitimate the public perceives thejustice sys-
tem more generally. Equally, when prosecutors are perceived to act in procedurallyjust
ways, the moral alignment between them and the public is likely to be strengthened.
Through a more robust moral alignment between prosecutors and the public, it can be
said that prosecutors are indeed guarding the public interest and acting as ministers
ofjustice.
There may also very well be utilitarian benefits that come as a result of legitimacy and
moral alignment. The results confirm the relationship between legitimacy and coop-
eration with the legal authorities and compliance with the law. Moreover, it was found
that moral alignment with prosecutors and the justice system is positively associated
with a greater willingness by the public to cooperate with the legal authorities and to
comply with the law. The justice system certainly needs people to be willing to assist in
reporting crimes, to act as witnesses and to serve as jurors in order to operate effectively
(Kaukinen and Colavecchia 1999). The goal of the criminal justice system is also to
ensure that people lead law-abiding lives. The way in which prosecutors are perceived
to behave, as this study has demonstrated, can help to further these utilitarian benefits.
In terms of policy, the prosecution codes in various jurisdictions should therefore
stipulate that prosecutors pay more attention to procedural justice. This can include
opportunities for prosecutors to give defendants, victims and other witnesses a voice in
the proceedings, both pre-trial and throughout the trial. There have already been sug-
gestions that prosecutors should behave in procedurallyjust ways in the plea bargaining
process (O'Hear 2008). Cross-examinations could also be less adversarial. Prosecutors
should treat everyone, including defendants and opposing witnesses, with courtesy and
respect and also ensure that everyone has the opportunity to meaningfully tell their
side of the story. After all, prosecutors should in theory not care about winning or
losing but serving the public interest in bringing about a just outcome (Hong Kong
Department ofJustice 2014).
This study has confirmed the salience of the procedural justice model in the Hong
Kong Chinese context. The results are largely consistent with previous studies on police
and court legitimacy conducted in the United States and Europe (Jackson et al. 2012;
2013; Hough et al. 2013; Tyler andJackson 2014). Conceptually, this study broadens the
applicability of the conceptualization of legitimacy, which incorporates moral align-
ment in a context where the study of procedural justice and legitimacy has often been
neglected.
However, several limitations of this study should be noted. Although procedural
justice and moral alignment were found to be much more salient than specific utili-
tarian factors such as distributive justice, other specific values may help to increase
cooperation and compliance but were regrettably not measured. Tankebe (2009b) for
instance argues that the public's willingness to assist the legal authorities depends on
the authorities meeting expectations of effectiveness. Writing about police legitimacy,
Tankebe (2009b: 1281) comments that '[f]ailure to meet such expectations sends a sig-
nal to people that the police cannot be relied on to make good use of the information
offered to them to help protect citizens'. This in turn would erode people's willingness
to cooperate.
The results of compliance with the law show that while legitimacy and moral align-
ment were significant factors that were found to be positively associated with compliance
106
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

with the law, they explained a smaller variation compared with other variables. In par-
ticular, measures of perceived risks of sanctions and beliefs about the morality of the
law-violating acts should be incorporated. After all, legitimacy is supposed to have an
effect on law-abiding behaviour that is orthogonal to the risks of getting caught and the
morality of the act. By including these variables, it would help researchers determine
whether people comply with the law because they find the legal authorities to be legiti-
mate or because they fear the risks of being caught and punished. This should help to
develop a more robust construct of legitimacy with respect to compliance with the law.
Furthermore, this study measured only the perceptions of legitimacy by the general
public. As discussed earlier, the public may have misunderstandings about how the jus-
tice system functions and they only have an impression of how prosecutors, and other
legal authorities, behave. Future studies should take into account the assessments of
defendants and victims and then determine whether prosecutorial procedural justice
is associated with their moral alignment with prosecutors and the justice system. This
could also tap into interactions with prosecutors that are hidden from public view such
as plea bargaining (Cheng 2014). This study was a cross-sectional survey of people's will-
ingness to cooperate with the legal authorities in the future and their past compliance
with the law. It does not ascertain whether prosecutorial procedural justice determines
actualcooperation and compliance. When actually serving as a witness or ajuror, peo-
ple may not act as they say they will in a hypothetical scenario. For that, longitudinal
studies would provide more concrete results.
While the focus on prosecutors fills a lacuna in the literature, there may be a possibil-
ity that prosecutors are standing in for a more psychological proximate legal authority
like the police. The police are after all the more visible legal authority and the public
may be more knowledgeable about them (Hough and Roberts 2004). The public may
not have a strong sense of the abilities and intentions of prosecutors, and few may have
direct knowledge of how prosecutors make decisions and behave. Future studies should
measure public perceptions about various legal authorities such as the police and pros-
ecutors together to ascertain whether perceptions about how prosecutors behave is
associated with how legitimate the public regards the criminal justice system.
What this study does demonstrate is the centrality of procedural justice and how it is
important for prosecutors to be seen to act in procedurally just ways. The prosecutor
wields enormous discretionary power in the criminal justice system. It is appreciated that
such powers and discretion are necessary to bring offenders to justice. At the same time
there may be concerns that prosecutors are not held accountable (Bibas 2009). By being
perceived to act in procedurallyjust ways, this study has shown that prosecutors can vali-
date such discretionary powers and generate normative validity for the justice system.

Funding
Direct Grant for Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Project No. 4059008)

REFERENCES

American Bar Association. (2014), 'Model Rules for Professional Conduct', American Bar
Association, available online atwww.americanbar.org/groups/professional-responsibility/

107
 CHENG

publications/model rulesof-professional-conduct/modelrules_of-professionalcon-
duct table of contents.html (last accessed 2 June 2015).
BAIRD, V. A. (2001), 'Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice',
PoliticalResearch Quarterly, 54: 333-54.
BEETHAM, D. (1991), The Legitimation of Power. Macmillan.
BIBAS, S. (2009), 'Prosecutorial Regulation Versus Prosecutorial Accountability', University
ofPennsylvaniaLaw Review, 157: 959-1016.
BOTTOMS, A. and TANKEBE, J. (2012), 'Beyond Procedural Justice: A dialogic Approach
to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice', The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102:
119-70.
BRADFORD, B., MURPHY, K. andJACKSON,J. (2014), 'Officers as Mirrors: Policing, Procedural
Justice and the (Re)Production ofSocial Identity', BritishJournalofCriminology, 54: 527-50.
BRESLER, K. (1995), 'Pretty Phrases: The Prosecutor as Minister ofJustice and Administrator
ofJustice', GeorgetownjournalofLegal Ethics, 9: 1301-305.
CASPER, J. D., TYLER, T. and FISHER, B. (1988), 'Procedural Justice in Felony Cases', Law

&
Society Review: 22: 483-507.
CHENG, K. K. (2014), 'The Practice and Justifications of Plea Bargaining by Hong Kong
Criminal Defence Lawyers,' AsianjournalofLaw and Society, 2: 395-412.
CHOONGH, S. (1997), 'Policing the Dross: A Social Disciplinary Model of Policing', British
Journalof Criminology, 38: 623-34.
CHUI, W. H. and CHENG, K. K. (2015a), 'Perceptions of Fairness and Satisfaction in Lawyer-
Client Interactions among Young Offenders in Hong Kong', Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, doi: 10.1177/1558689815593834.
--. (2015b), 'Young People's Perception of Lawyers in Hong Kong: A Comparison between
Offenders, Youth-at-Risk and Students', InternationalJournalofLaw, Crime andJustice, doi:
10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.12.001.
Crown Prosecution Service. (2013), The Code for Crown Prosecutors. Crown Prosecution
Service.
CULLEN, F. T., FISHER, B. S. and APPLEGATE, B. K. (2000), 'Public Opinion about Punishment
and Corrections', Crime andJustice, 27: 1-79.
DAVIS, A. J. (2007), Arbitraryjustice: The Power of the American Prosecutor. Oxford University
Press.
ENGEL, R. S. (2005), 'Citizens' Perceptions of Distributive and Procedural Injustice During
Traffic Stops with Police', JournalofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 42: 445-81.
FAGAN, J. and PIQUERO, A. R. (2007), 'Rational Choice and Developmental Influences on
Recidivism among Adolescent Felony Offenders', Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4:
715-48.
FAGAN, J. and TYLER, T. (2005), 'Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents', Social
justice Research, 18: 217-42.
GIBSON, J. (1989), 'Understandings ofJustice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice,
and Political Tolerance', Law & Society Review, 23: 469-96.
GOUDRIAAN, H., LYNCH, J. P. and NIEUWBEERTA, P. (2004), 'Reporting to the Police in
Western Nations: A Theoretical Analysis of the Effects of Social Context', Justice Quarterly,
21: 933-69.
HASISI, B. and WEISBURD, D. (2011), 'Going Beyond Ascribed Identities: The Importance
of Procedural Justice in Airport Security Screening in Israel', Law & Society Review, 45:
867-92.
108
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

HINDS, L. and MURPHY, K. (2007), 'Public Satisfaction with Police: Using ProceduralJustice
to Improve Police Legitimacy', The Australian and New Zealandjournalof Criminology, 40:
27-42.
Hong Kong Department of Justice. (2014), 'Prosecution Code', Hong Kong Department
of Justice, available online at www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/pubsoppapcon.html#1 (last
accessed 3June 2015).
Hong Kong Police Force. (2014), 'Hong Kong Police Review 2013', Hong Kong Police Force,
available online at http://www.police.gov.hk/info/review/2013/index.html (last accessed
3June 2015).
HOUGH, M., JACKSON, J. and BRADFORD, B. (2013), 'Legitimacy, Trust, and Compliance:
An Empirical Test of Procedural Justice Theory using the European Social Survey', in J.
Tankebe and A. Liebling, eds, Legitimacy and CriminalJustice:An InternationalExploration,
326-52. Oxford University Press.
HOUGH, M., JACKSON, J., BRADFORD, B., MYHILL, A. and QUINTON, P. (2010), 'Procedural
Justice, Trust, and Institutional Legitimacy', Policing, 4: 203-10.
HOUGH, M. and ROBERTS,J. V. (1999), 'Sentencing Trends in Britain: Public Knowledge and
Public Opinion,' Punishment & Society, 1: 11-26.
--. (2004), Confidence injustice:An InternationalReview. Home Office.
JACKSON, J., BRADFORD, B., HOUGH, M., KUHA, J., STARES, S., WIDDOP, S., FITZGERALD,
R., YORDANOVA, M. and GALEV, T. (2011), 'Developing European Indicators of Trust in
Justice', EuropeanJournalof Criminology, 8: 267-85.
JACKSONJ., BRADFORD, B., HOUGH, M., MYHILL, A., QUINTON, P. and TYLER, T. (2012), 'Why
Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions',
BritishJournalof Criminology, 52: 1051-71.
JACKSONJ., BRADFORD, B., STANKO, B. and HOHL, K. (2013),Just Authority? Trust in the Police
in England and Wales. Routledge.
JACKSON, J., HOUGH, M., BRADFORD, B. and KUHA, J. (2015), 'Empirical Legitimacy as Two
Connected Psychological States', in G. Meiko andJ. Tankebe, eds, Trust and Legitimacy in
CriminalJustice:European Perspectives, 137-60. Springer.
KAUKINEN, C. and COLAVECCHIA, S. (1999), 'Public Perceptions of the Courts: An
Examination of Attitudes Toward the Treatment of Victims and Accused', Canadian
Journalof Criminology, 41: 365-84.
LIND, E. A. and TYLER, T. R. (1988), The Social Psychology of ProceduralJustice.Plenum.
Lo, S. H. C. and CHUI, W. H. (2012), The HongKongLegalSystem. McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).
MCCONVILLE, M. (2007), 'Politicians and Prosecutorial Accountability in Hong Kong',
Common Law World Review, 36: 355-88.
MEDWED, D. S. (2004), 'The Zeal Deal: Prosecutorial Resistance to Post-Conviction Claims
of Innocence', Boston University Law Review, 84: 125-83.
--. (2009), 'The Prosecutor as Minister ofJustice: Preaching to the Unconverted from the
Post-Conviction Pulpit', Washington Law Review, 84: 35-66.
MONTGOMERY, D. C., PECK, E. A. and VINING, G. G. (2012), Introduction to LinearRegression
Analysis.John Wiley & Sons.
MURPHY, K. and CHERNEY, A. (2012), 'Understanding Cooperation with Police in a Diverse
Society', BritishJournalof Criminology, 52: 181-201.
MURPHY, K., TYLER, T. and CURTIS, A. (2009), 'Nurturing Regulatory Compliance:
Is Procedural Justice Effective When People Question the Legitimacy of the Law?',
Regulation & Governance, 3: 1-26.

109
 CHENG

O'HEAR, M. M. (2008), 'Plea Bargaining and Procedural Justice', Georgia Law Review, 42:
407-69.
PETERSON-BADALI, M., CARE, S. and BROEKING, J. (2007), 'Young People's Perceptions
and Experiences of the Lawyer-Client Relationship', Canadianjournal of Criminology and
CriminalJustice,49: 375-402.
PLATER, D. and LINE, L. (2012), 'Has the 'Silver Thread' of the Criminal Law Lost its Lustre?
The Modern Prosecutor as a Minister of Justice', University of Tasmania Law Review, 31:
54-94.
R v. Pearson. (1957), 21 WWR (NS) 337.
REISIG, M. D., BRATTONJ. and GERTZ, M. G. (2007), 'The Construct Validity and Refinement
of Process-Based Policing Measures', CriminalJusticeand Behavior, 34: 1005-28.
REISIG, M. D. and LLOYD, C. (2009), 'Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Helping
the Police Fight Crime: Results from a Survey ofJamaican Adolescents', Police Quarterly,
12: 42-62.
ROBERTS, J. V. (1992), 'Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice', Crime andJustice, 16:
99-180.
ROBERTS, J. V. and DooB, A. N. (1990), 'News Media Influences on Public Views of
Sentencing', Law and Human Behavior, 14: 451-68.
ROBERTS,J. V. and HOUGH, M. (2005), UnderstandingPublic Attitudes to CriminalJustice.Open
University Press.
ROBERTS,J. V. and STALANS, L.J. (1997), Public Opinion, Crime, and CriminalJustice.Westview
Press.
SCHULHOFER, S.J., TYLER, T. R. and HuQ, A. Z. (2011), 'American Policing at a Crossroads:
Unsustainable Policies and the ProceduralJustice Alternative', TheJournalof CriminalLaw
& Criminology, 101: 335-74.
SUCHMAN, M. C. (1995), 'Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches',
The Academy of Management Review, 20: 571-610.
SUNSHINE, J. and TYLER, T. (2003), 'The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in
Shaping Public Support for Policing', Law & Society Review, 37: 513-48.
TANKEBE, J. (2009a), 'Self-Help, Policing, and Procedural Justice: Ghanaian Vigilantism
and the Rule of Law', Law & Society Review, 43: 245-69.
-. (2009b), 'Public Cooperation with the Police in Ghana: Does Procedural Fairness
Matter?', Criminology, 47: 1265-93.
-. (2013), 'Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Police
Legitimacy', Criminology, 51: 103-35.
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Legislation.
TSUSHIMA, M. and HAMAI, K. (2015), 'Public Cooperationwith the Police injapan: Testing the
Legitimacy Model',JournalofContemporary CriminalJustice,doi: 10.1177/1043986214568836.
TYLER, T. (1990), Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press.
-. (2006), 'Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation', Annual Review
ofPsychology, 57: 375-400.
-. (2008), 'Procedural Justice and the Courts,' CourtReview, 44: 26-31.
TYLER, T. and FAGAN, J. (2008), 'Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why People Help the Police
Fight crime in Their Communities?', Ohio StateJournalof CriminalLaw, 6: 231-75.
TYLER, T., FAGAN, J. and GELLER, A. (2014), 'Street Stops and Police Legitimacy: Teachable
Moments in Young Urban Men's Legal Socialization', Journal ofEmpiricalLegalStudies, 11:
751-85.
110
 PROSECUTORIAL PROCEDURALJUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY

TYLER, T. and Huo, J. Y. (2002), Trust in the Law: EncouragingPublic Cooperationwith the Police
and Courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
TYLER, T. and JACKSON, J. (2013), 'Future Challenges in the Study of Legitimacy and
Criminal Justice', in J. Tankebe and A. Liebling, eds, Legitimacy and CriminalJustice:An
internationalExploration, 83-104. Oxford University Press.
--. (2014), 'Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating
Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement', Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20: 78-95.
TYLER, T. and RASINSKI, K. (1991), 'Legitimacy and the Acceptance of Unpopular Supreme
Court Decisions: A Question of Causality', Law & Society Review, 25: 621-30.
TYLER, T., SCHULHOFER, S. and Huq, A. Z. (2010), 'Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in
Counterterrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans', Law & Society Review, 44:
365-401.
YOUNG, R. and SANDERS, A. (2004), 'The Ethics of Prosecution Lawyers', Legal Ethics, 7:
190-209.

111