Skip to main content

Legal Attitudes of Immigrant Detainees

Emily Ryo, Associate Professor of Law & Sociology
University of Southern California Gould School of Law

In my recent article, Legal Attitudes of Immigrant Detainees, I explore a topic that is difficult yet important to investigate: the legal attitudes of immigrant detainees.  By legal attitudes, I mean people’s views and beliefs about the law and legal authorities.  Why study immigrants’ legal attitudes?  One practical reason is that studies show that people’s legal attitudes often have wide ranging behavioral consequences—from their willingness to report crimes to their decisions regarding whether to obey the law.  In addition, detainees’ legal attitudes may have significant implications for both domestic and international governance and the rule of law.  All detainees must either be deported to their countries of origin or released back into their communities in the United States after an intensive period of confinement that requires them to navigate the U.S. legal system and to interact with legal authorities on a sustained basis.  Immigrant detainees thus have the potential to widely disseminate expressions of deference and trust, or cynicism and delegitimating beliefs, about the U.S. legal system and authorities—not only within the United States, but also around the world.

My study addresses two key questions using original survey data on 434 long-term immigrant detainees in the Central District of California (Rodriguez Survey).  How do immigrant detainees perceive obligations to obey the law generally, and U.S. immigration authorities in particular?  What is the relationship between detainees’ procedural justice judgments and their perceived obligations to obey?  Procedural justice refers to people’s judgments about fairness in interpersonal treatment (for example, whether they felt they were treated with dignity, care, and concern).  My study analyzes detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice in detention, both in relation to their own personal treatment and the treatment of other detainees.

My findings offer a unique window into the world of immigrant detainees.  First, the majority of detainees in the study (83 percent) reported a felt obligation to obey the law, and they did so at a significantly higher rate than other U.S. sample populations (see Figure 1).  I also find that the detainees’ perceived obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities is significantly related to their perceptions of fair treatment in detention, controlling for a variety of instrumental and detainee background factors.  That is, detainees who reported being treated with respect and as human beings in detention were more likely to express a felt sense of obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities.  Conversely, detainees who reported having personally experienced or witnessed others experience insults, humiliation, or threats from the guards or facility staff, were less likely to express a felt sense of obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities.    

My study provides a foundation for testing the potential causal relationship between detainees’ procedural justice judgments and their perceived obligations to obey U.S. immigration authorities.  More broadly, this study highlights the importance of developing a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the potentially far-reaching effects of enforcement policies against noncitizens.  These are critical and pressing tasks for future research—now more than ever—in light of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation plan, which is expected to greatly expand the use of immigration detention as an enforcement tool in the United States.  

Figure 1. Percentage of Respondents Who Agree/Disagree with the Statement, “People Should Obey the Law Even If It Goes Against What They Think Is Right”
 
Notes: Figure adapted from Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan (2012:427). *Data collected in collaboration with Caitlin Patler. 




Popular posts from this blog

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…