Whose crime & whose punishment? Identity and retribution for extremist violence

Abstract

ABSTRACT Domestic far-right groups, many of which are characterized by white supremacist aims, pose the most significant risk of ideological violence in the United States. Our ability to confront this security threat depends, in part, on the public’s willingness to punish perpetrators of such violence. Social Identity Theory suggests that societal responses to various behaviours will be shaped by ‘in-group’ identities and affiliations, with research from across disciplines finding that white and non-white offenders are treated differently. Considering the current national security threat posed by white supremacist violence, we expect that an effective response to this threat will face the twin obstacles of punishing perpetrators who are both white and American citizens. To evaluate the extent of these biases, we examine the public’s willingness to punish acts of violent extremism. Using a survey experiment, we find that ethnicity and citizenship powerfully influence the severity with which people punish extremist violence. White US citizens are punished the least severely compared to Muslim or non-citizen perpetrators for identical acts of violence. Our results indicate that America’s ability to confront the national security threat posed by white supremacy will depend in part on our ability to punish members of their racial and national ‘in-group’.