Using structured interview data and official records from an incarcerated sample of adult males housed in a Slovene prison, this study tests hypotheses derived from the process-based model of regulation (Tyler, in M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice, pp. 283–357, 2003). The findings show that inmates who evaluate prison officers’ use of authority as procedurally just are less likely to report engaging in misconduct and are charged with violating fewer institutional rules. The observed association between procedural justice and legitimacy is indistinguishable from zero. Although legitimacy is inversely related to both prisoner misconduct measures, the associations are relatively weak. Overall, these findings partially support Tyler's social–psychological framework, and also provide empirical justification for fair and respectful offender management.

The purpose of this article is to explore prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff and examine the compliance of prisoners with the authority of prison staff to highlight the differences between instrumental and normative compliance of prisoners. This study draws on data collected from a random sample of 193 prisoners in all Slovene prisons. Using a qualitative approach based on structured interviews, our findings suggest that distributive justice, procedural justice, the quality of relations with prison staff, and the effectiveness of prison staff influence prisoners’ perception of legitimacy in a prison environment. Several prisoners comply with prison rules because they fear sanctions, which indicates their instrumental compliance, while normative compliance was reported by prisoners who perceived the legitimacy of prison staff in a more positive manner. Overall findings indicate that both instrumental and normative compliance of prisoners can be observed in Slovene prisons.

The aim of this paper is to study the interplay of perceived deterrence and level of self-control in explaining individual differences in self-reported offending. Different theories of crime come to different conclusions in this regard. Some postulate independent negative effects of perceived sanction risk on offending (Deterrence Theory), while others assume that low self-control undermines the deterrent effect of legal sanctions (Self-Control Theory) or, conversely, that sanction threats are only relevant for individuals characterized by a lack of self-control (Situational Action Theory). Here, the question of the exact nature of this interplay is addressed from an empirical point of view. Based on three independent surveys of adolescents conducted in three European countries (Austria, Belgium and Slovenia), we examine whether juveniles with low self-control are more, equally or less susceptible to the deterrent effect of legal sanctioning. Our findings consistently support Situational Action Theory’s conceptualization of the linkage between self-control and deterrence. All three studies provide evidence that deterrent effects are greatest among adolescents of low self-control.