Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Concepts of Trust and Distrust in the Belgian Criminal Justice Chain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Modernisation of the Criminal Justice Chain and the Judicial System

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 50))

  • 581 Accesses

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?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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. 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. 3.

    The name of the judicial district is not mentioned due to reasons of confidentiality.

  4. 4.

    Ph.D. research investigating trust between the police, public prosecutor’s office and the examining magistrates in one judicial district.

  5. 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. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. (2010). The Basics of Social Research. USA: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballin, M. (2012). Anticipative Criminal Investigation: Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and the United States . The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, M., & Cullen, F. (1998). Combating Corporate Crime: Locale Prosecutors at Work. Boston: Northeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, G. (1985). The Decision to Prosecute. Law and society review, 331-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Standaard. (2013, november 08). Slechts 30 procent vrouwen bij politie. http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20131108_00829750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, S., & Michie, J. (1997). Contracts, Co-Operation, and Competition: Studies in Economics, Management, and Law. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. (2007). Trust in Complex Decision-Making Networks : A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration. Administration & Society, 25-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, B. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Transparency and trust: an experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government. Utrecht: Wöhrmann Print Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2010). The Practice of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., & O’Hara, E. (2005). A Cognitive theory of trust. Washington: University Law Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., & O’Hara, E. (2005). A Cognitive theory of trust. 1717-1796. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-51 .

    Google Scholar 

  • IICA. (1973). A Hemispheric and Humanistic Projection in the 70’s. IICA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 569-598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, F. (2012). Trusting organizations: the institutionalization of trust in interorganizational relationships. Organization, 743-763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., McAllister, D., & Bies, R. (1998). Trust and Distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 438-458.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maso, I., & Smaling, A. (1998). Kwalitatief onderzoek: praktijk en theorie. Boom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 709-734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, H., & Chervany, N. (2000). What is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and an Interdisciplinary Model. AMCIS 2000 Proceedings, (pp. 826-833).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misztal, B. (2013). Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. UK: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morce, J. (1990). Strategies for sampling. In J. Morce, Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue (pp. 126-145). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmentier, S., & Vervaeke, G. (2011). In Criminal Justice We Trust? A decade of public opinion research in Belgium. European Journal of Criminology, 286-302.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasdöven, H., & Kapucu, N. (2011). Network analysis tools and methods in analyzing coordinated response against organized crime. Turkisch Journal of Police Studies, 75-99.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Wyngaert, C. (2006). Strafrecht, strafprocesrecht en internationaal strafrecht in hoofd-lijnen. 6de herziene uitgave. Apeldoorn: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeyer, K., Riemer, K., & Schneider, B. (2001). Roles and Trust in Interorganizational Systems. 14. Maastricht, bijdrage aan Eighth Research Symposium on Emerging Electronic Markets .

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Public Governance Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Jolien Vanschoenwinkel & Annie Hondeghem

Authors
  1. Jolien Vanschoenwinkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annie Hondeghem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jolien Vanschoenwinkel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. KU Leuven Public Governance Institute, Leuven, Belgium

    Annie Hondeghem

  2. Centre d'histoire du droit et de la justice (CHDJ), Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Xavier Rousseaux

  3. Centre de Recherche et d’Interventions Sociologiques (CRIS), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Fréderic Schoenaers

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation