Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on August 13, 2008
British Journal of Criminology 2008 48(6):798-817; doi:10.1093/bjc/azn058
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
48/6/798    most recent
azn058v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wells, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 48:798-817 (2008)
© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

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

Helen Wells*

* Centre for Criminological Research, Institute for Law, Politics and Justice, Keele University; h.m.wells{at}crim.keele.ac.uk.


  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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.