2008The British Journal of CriminologyOpen access

The Techno-Fix Versus The Fair Cop: Procedural (In)Justice and Automated Speed Limit Enforcement

Helene Wells

Open full text 68 citations

Abstract

While the use of technology to monitor and punish suspected ‘risky’ populations is likely to increase, the experience of being on the receiving end of such enforcement has received relatively little attention. This paper presents research that considered one particular criminal justice ‘techno-fix’—the speed camera—from the perspective of those who encounter the technology as offenders. Such enforcement is commonly described by drivers as being ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’. Speeding drivers’ experiences of being ‘techno-fixed’ are considered with reference to the antecedent elements of a procedurally just experience proposed by Tyler amongst others. Drivers’ preferences for fairer methods of speed limit enforcement are then analysed, before the potential for reconciling the ‘techno-fix’ with procedurally just enforcement is considered.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

While the use of technology to monitor and punish suspected ‘risky’ populations is likely to increase, the experience of being on the receiving end of such enforcement has received relatively little attention. This paper presents research that considered one particular criminal justice ‘techno-fix’—the speed camera—from the perspective of those who encounter the technology as offenders. Such enforcement is commonly described by drivers as being ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’. Speeding drivers’ experiences of being ‘techno-fixed’ are considered with reference to the antecedent elements of a procedurally just experience proposed by Tyler amongst others. Drivers’ preferences for fairer methods of speed limit enforcement are then analysed, before the potential for reconciling the ‘techno-fix’ with procedurally just enforcement is considered.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 68 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

While the use of technology to monitor and punish suspected ‘risky’ populations is likely to increase, the experience of being on the receiving end of such enforcement has received relatively little attention. This paper presents research that considered one particular criminal justice ‘techno-fix’—the speed camera—from the perspective of those who encounter the technology as offenders. Such enforcement is commonly described by drivers as being ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’. Speeding drivers’ experiences of being ‘techno-fixed’ are considered with reference to the antecedent elements of a procedurally just experience proposed by Tyler amongst others. Drivers’ preferences for fairer methods of speed limit enforcement are then analysed, before the potential for reconciling the ‘techno-fix’ with procedurally just enforcement is considered.

Key concepts: Enforcement, Antecedent (behavioral psychology), Economic Justice, Law enforcement, Perspective (graphical), Speed limit, Procedural justice, Limit (mathematics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Techno-Fix Versus The Fair Cop: Procedural (In)Justice and Automated Speed Limit Enforcement — Research Paper | ScholarLens