Abstract
A review of the literature on interorganisational relations reveals that trust has become one of the most commonly cited concepts (Kroeger 2012). Successful relationships between organisations are based on several characteristics and trust is one of them (Wehmeyer et al. 2001). Interorganisational trust is defined as the willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al. 1995) based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of other actors in the context of an institutional system, which will lead to concrete actions (Edelenbos and Klijn 2007). Apart from trust, this chapter will also examine distrust, which can be seen as a separate concept (Lewicki 2006). It is possible to at the same time trust and distrust a person in one relationship, depending on context, roles, and tasks. Despite the popularity of trust research, there are relatively few studies (or data) available that focus on interorganisational relations amongst public authorities involved in the process of criminal investigation and prosecution (Tasdöven and Kapucu 2011). An attempt is made to cover this gap by focusing on trust in the Belgian criminal justice chain, specifically focusing on the triangular relationship between the police (local and federal), the public prosecutor’s office, and the examining magistrate. Data are collected by qualitative interviewing of individual members in relation to other members or organisations. The main research question is the following: what does trust and distrust mean for the police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Examining Magistrates?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
“Risk can be seen as the perceived probability of loss as interpreted by a decision maker. Uncertainty regarding whether the other intends to and will act appropriately is the source of risk” (Rousseau et al. 1998, p. 395).
- 2.
Law of 1 december 2013 tot hervorming van de gerechtelijke arrondissementen en tot wijziging van het Gerechtelijk wetboek met het oog op een grotere mobiliteit van de leden van de rechter-lijke orde, BS 10 december 2013.
- 3.
The name of the judicial district is not mentioned due to reasons of confidentiality.
- 4.
Ph.D. research investigating trust between the police, public prosecutor’s office and the examining magistrates in one judicial district.
- 5.
Because one respondent didn’t have an opinion about the trust definition, the total of respondents for the results about trust will be 31.
- 6.
A nuance has to be made, since it is possible to return to a previous actor in the chain, for example when additional investigative actions are necessary.
- 7.
This phenomenon is also called ‘judge shopping’ (Garner 2001, p. 481).
References
Adober, H. (2003). A decision-based explanation of trust in interfirm alliances. In R. Golembiewski, K. Mackenzie, & M. Afzalur Rahim, Current Topics in Management (pp. 143-162). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Babbie, E. (2010). The Basics of Social Research. USA: Cengage Learning.
Bak, N. (2005). Would you buy an education from this teacher? Notions of trust and distrust in education. In S. Askvik, & N. Bak, Trust In Public Institutions In South Africa (pp. 183-196). England: Ashgate Publishing.
Ballin, M. (2012). Anticipative Criminal Investigation: Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and the United States . The Netherlands: Springer.
Bednarova, J. (2011). The heart of the criminal justice system: a critical analysis of the position of the victim. Internet Jourlan of Criminology, pp. 1-46.
Benson, M., & Cullen, F. (1998). Combating Corporate Crime: Locale Prosecutors at Work. Boston: Northeastern University.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research. London: Sage.
Cole, G. (1985). The Decision to Prosecute. Law and society review, 331-344.
De Standaard. (2013, november 08). Slechts 30 procent vrouwen bij politie. http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20131108_00829750.
Deakin, S., & Michie, J. (1997). Contracts, Co-Operation, and Competition: Studies in Economics, Management, and Law. Oxford University Press.
Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. (2007). Trust in Complex Decision-Making Networks : A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration. Administration & Society, 25-50.
Ellis, K., & Shockley‐Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information receiving. Communication Quarterly, 382-398.
Freyne, T. (2009). De positie van de onderzoeksrechter op de helling: nood aan vernieuwde werkprocessen in het strafrechtelijk vooronderzoek. In M. Vanderhallen, E. Jaspaert, & G. Vervaeke, De relatie in de strafrechtsketen tussen politie, parket, onderzoeksrechter en rechtbank (pp. 177-197). Gent: Maklu.
Garner, B. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Transparency and trust: an experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government. Utrecht: Wöhrmann Print Service.
Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2010). The Practice of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Hill, C., & O’Hara, E. (2005). A Cognitive theory of trust. Washington: University Law Review.
Hill, C., & O’Hara, E. (2005). A Cognitive theory of trust. 1717-1796. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-51 .
IICA. (1973). A Hemispheric and Humanistic Projection in the 70’s. IICA.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 569-598.
Kroeger, F. (2012). Trusting organizations: the institutionalization of trust in interorganizational relationships. Organization, 743-763.
Lewicki, R., McAllister, D., & Bies, R. (1998). Trust and Distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 438-458.
Lippens, V. (2009). Over mannelijke daders en slachtoffers: een gendergevoelige benadering van criminaliteit. In M. De Metsenaere, In haar recht. Vrouwe Justitia feministisch bekeken (pp. 107-122). Brussel: Vubpress.
Maso, I., & Smaling, A. (1998). Kwalitatief onderzoek: praktijk en theorie. Boom.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 709-734.
McKnight, H., & Chervany, N. (2000). What is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and an Interdisciplinary Model. AMCIS 2000 Proceedings, (pp. 826-833).
McKnight, H., & Chervany, N. (2006). Reflections on an initial trust-building model. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer, Handbook of Trust Research (pp. 29-52). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Misztal, B. (2013). Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Morce, J. (1990). Strategies for sampling. In J. Morce, Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue (pp. 126-145). London: Sage Publications.
Oomsels, P., & Bouckaert, G. (2012). Managing trust in public organisations: A consolidated approach and its contradictions. Paper for the XVI IRSPM conference: Contradictions in Public Management: Managing in Volatile Times, (p. 25).
Parmentier, S., & Vervaeke, G. (2011). In Criminal Justice We Trust? A decade of public opinion research in Belgium. European Journal of Criminology, 286-302.
Rousseau, M., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Introduction to special topic forum: Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 393–404.
Tasdöven, H., & Kapucu, N. (2011). Network analysis tools and methods in analyzing coordinated response against organized crime. Turkisch Journal of Police Studies, 75-99.
Van de Walle, S., & Six, F. (2013). Trust and Distrust as Distinct Concepts: Why Studying Distrust in Institutions is Important. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 1-17.
Van den Wyngaert, C. (2006). Strafrecht, strafprocesrecht en internationaal strafrecht in hoofd-lijnen. 6de herziene uitgave. Apeldoorn: Maklu.
Wehmeyer, K., Riemer, K., & Schneider, B. (2001). Roles and Trust in Interorganizational Systems. 14. Maastricht, bijdrage aan Eighth Research Symposium on Emerging Electronic Markets .
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Acknowledgment
The authors want to thank Prof. Dr. Jeroen Maesschalck (KU Leuven, Leuven Institute of criminology) for his input to this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vanschoenwinkel, J., Hondeghem, A. (2016). The Concepts of Trust and Distrust in the Belgian Criminal Justice Chain. In: Hondeghem, A., Rousseaux, X., Schoenaers, F. (eds) Modernisation of the Criminal Justice Chain and the Judicial System. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25802-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25802-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25800-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25802-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)