Despite its robust empirical evidence, the existing “procedural fairness” literature suffers significant shortcomings. The preoccupation with the utilitarian value of “procedural fairness” appears to make police recognition, and adherence to the normative obligations of the exercise of their power, contingent on demonstrable instrumental benefits, in terms of the facilitation of the police’s task, to maintain law and order. This type of approach may be making false promises to police forces if specific historical and contemporary sociopolitical realities are overlooked. Moreover, a utilitarian approach ignores the intrinsic value associated with police exercise of power in a manner that is procedurally fair. There is a tendency among “procedural fairness” theorists to underestimate the importance that perceptions of outcome fairness and favorability make to evaluations of police legitimacy, and to public willingness toward law-abiding behavior. Another weakness is the neglect of the police’s own self-concept of the moral rightness of the power vested in them. This neglect limits understanding of legitimate of police power and makes it difficult to account for police differential treatment of members of the public beyond references to police culture. Further comparative studies in different sociopolitical settings are needed to test the generalizability of the propositions of the “procedural fairness” literature. 1 figure and 53 references