Abstract
Objectives
To empirically examine the absolute and relative impact of situational characteristics and confidence in the criminal justice system on public support for vigilantism.
Methods
In an experimental study with a between-subjects design, members of a Dutch household panel (n = 1,930) responded to vignettes about vigilantism that were varied across two experimental factors: (1) type of precipitating crime and (2) type of formal sentence for the precipitating offender. In the measurement of support, we distinguished between outrage at vigilantism, empathy with the vigilante, and desired punishment for the vigilante. Confidence was assessed 1 month later.
Results
Our findings show that situational characteristics have a substantial and independent influence on support for vigilantism, in addition to the role of confidence. This means that when citizens express support for those who take the law into their own hands, this is not necessarily rooted in a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, all three measures of support were affected more by the situational characteristics than by confidence.
Conclusions
Citizens are nuanced in their judgment of vigilantism and sensitive to contextual information, which is in line with other recent findings regarding public punitiveness. Future studies should assess whether the findings can be generalized to other settings where citizens cannot rely (as much) on the state to deal with crime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We refer to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system as perceived by the public; not legitimacy according to objective criteria (see Hough et al. 2010 regarding this distinction).
There are exceptions to this monopoly, such as self-defense and citizen’s arrest.
In the sex offense condition, there are only two sentencing variations: a lenient and a severe one. The reason for this is that we piloted this study using the two traffic offenses, and found relatively low levels of support for vigilantism. As an extra check we therefore included a particularly heinous precipitating event (child molestation) in the current study, but only operationalized two out of four sentences due to practical limitations.
These are our labels of the relative severity of the sentencing variations; respondents may have experienced the severity differently. In order to reinforce the suggestion of a lenient, normal or severe sentence, the vignettes report what the Public Prosecution had demanded as a sentence for the precipitating offender.
The editors of www.nu.nl gave written permission to use the nu.nl format and picture, provided that subjects would be informed about the fictitious nature of the articles. A disclaimer followed after the first part of the study.
A factor analysis resulted in two rather than three factors, with an explained variance of 57 percent. We nonetheless decided to construct three scales because the social justice literature commonly makes a meaningful distinction between moral outrage, empathy and desire for punishment.
The items that were presented after Vignette 1 function as a manipulation check for the first experimental factor (type of precipitating crime). These items are almost identical to those related to Vignette 2, except that the former concern the precipitating crime instead of the vigilantism act. The responses to this first set of items confirm that people were upset about the precipitating crime (analyses not reported here).
A factor analysis resulted in two factors, with one consisting of all items related to police. The results of the regression analyses were highly similar when running them separately for these two confidence factors, so we constructed one overall confidence scale for reasons of parsimony. We excluded five items that loaded below .40 in the forced one-factor solution.
Funding for the establishment of the LISS panel was provided by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). For more information about the panel, see www.centerdata.nl and www.lissdata.nl.
The reference population is the Dutch speaking population that permanently resides in the Netherlands. Children below 16 years of age are excluded. Households that did not have internet or computers available were loaned equipment to provide access to the internet via a broadband connection. Panel members have been presented with monthly online questionnaires on a variety of topics since October 2007. Completion of a questionnaire takes about 20 to 30 minutes, and respondents are paid for each completed one.
Baruch (1999) compared the response rates of 175 different studies that were published in behavioral sciences journals. He found the mean reported response rate to be 55.6 percent, with a median of 60. For conventional populations, Baruch proposes response rates between 40 and 80 percent to be the acceptable norm.
Due to the random allocation of respondents, the non-response is divided equally over the experimental conditions. Specific characteristics of the panel members who did not participate in the current study are not available. Within the LISS panel in general, a considerable part of the monthly nonresponse is due to the same panel members every month (Scherpenzeel and Vis 2010). Panel members who participated before but have not completed a questionnaire for at least 3 months are defined as sleepers, which was the case for 13 percent of the LISS panel members in January 2010. The likelihood of becoming a sleeper is related more to past response behavior than to demographic characteristics. Non-response in the LISS panel is mainly due to technical reasons or personal circumstances; survey characteristics hardly play a role (Scherpenzeel and Zandvliet 2010).
The educational levels of the sample are as follows: primary education (10 percent), pre-vocational secondary education (27 percent), senior general secondary education, pre-university education or secondary vocational education (33 percent), and an associate or university degree (30 percent). With regards to monthly net income, 11 percent of the sample had no income, 25 percent earned less than or equal to 1000 euros, 41 percent between 1001 and 2000 euros and 23 percent earned over 2000 euros. These statistics are highly representative for the Dutch population, as are other sample characteristics such as ethnic background, household size and urbanity.
We did examine the influence of age, gender and educational level. The only noteworthy effect was that of educational level on desired punishment (ß = .13, p < .01). This is in line with previous research (Tankebe 2009).
References
Abrahams, R. (2002). Vigilantism, state jurisdiction and community morality: Control of crime and 'undesirable' behaviour when the state 'fails'. In I. Pardo (Ed.), Morals of legitimacy: Between agency and system (pp. 107–126). New York: Berghahn Books.
Adinkrah, M. (2005). Vigilante homicides in contemporary Ghana. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 413–427.
Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378.
Allen, J., Edmonds, S., Patterson, A., & Smith, D. (2006). Policing and the criminal justice system—public confidence and perceptions: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey (Online report 07/06). London: Home Office.
Alvarez, A., & Bachman, R. (2007). Mob violence. Violence. The enduring problem (pp. 211–236). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., Turner, M. G., & Sundt, J. L. (1996). Assessing public support for three-strikes-and-you're-out laws: global versus specific attitudes. Crime & Delinquency, 42(4), 517–534.
Ayyildiz, E. (1995). When battered woman's syndrome does not go far enough: the battered woman as vigilante. Journal of Gender and the Law, 4(141), 141–166.
Baker, B. (2001). Taking the law into their own hands: Fighting crime in South Africa. Paper presented at the ECPR, Grenoble.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438.
Benesh, S. C., & Howell, S. E. (2001). Confidence in the courts: a comparison of users and non-users. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 199–214.
Bieneck, S. (2009). How adequate is the vignette technique as a research tool for psycho-legal research? In M. E. Oswald, S. Bieneck, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 255–271). Chichester: Wiley.
Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 34–45.
Brown, R. M. (1975). Strain of violence. Historical studies of American violence and vigilantism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: the discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21, 119–137.
Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(2), 284–299.
Coffee, J. C. (1991). Does "unlawful" mean "criminal"? Reflections on the disappearing tort/crime distinction in American law. Boston University Law Review, 71, 193–246.
Cohen, R. L. (1989). The legitimacy of vigilanteism. Brigham Young University Law Review, 4, 1261–1276.
Cooney, M. (1997). From warre to tyranny: lethal conflict and the state. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 316–338.
Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2007). Victim's innocence, social categorization, and the threat to the belief in a just world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 31–38.
Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 27, pp. 1–79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cullen, F. T., Mathers, R. A., Clark, G. A., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Public support for punishing white-collar crime: Blaming the victim revisited? 11(6), 481–493.
Darley, J. M. (2001). Citizens' sense of justice and the legal system. Current directions in psychological science, 10(1), 10–13.
Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 659–683.
Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324–336.
De Keijser, J. W. (2001). Punishment and purpose: From moral theory to punishment in action. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
De Keijser, J. W., & Elffers, H. (2009). Cross-jurisdictional differences in punitive public attitudes? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 47–62.
De Keijser, J. W., Van Koppen, P. J., & Elffers, H. (2007). Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(2), 131–131.
Dumsday, T. (2009). On cheering Charles Bronson: the ethics of vigilantism. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 47(1), 49–68.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: a research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337–348.
Freiburg, A. (2001). Affective versus effective justice. Instrumentalism and emotionalism in criminal justice. Punishment and Society, 3(2), 265–278.
Friedman, J. S., & Austin, W. (1978). Observers' reactions to an innocent victim: effects of characterological information and degree of suffering. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 4(4), 569–574.
Gardner, J. (1998). Crime: In proportion and in perspective. In A. Ashworth & M. Wasik (Eds.), Fundamentals of sentencing theory: Essays in honour of Andrew von Hirsch (pp. 31–52). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: the psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781–795.
Goldstein, D. M. (2003). "In our own hands": Lynching, justice, and the law in Bolivia. American Ethnologist, 30(1), 22–43.
Greene, E. J., & Darley, J. M. (1998). Effects of necessary, sufficient, and indirect causation on judgments of criminal liability. Law and Human Behavior, 22(4), 429–451.
Haas, N. E. (2010). Public support for vigilantism. Leiden: Leiden University.
Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: problems, developments and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167.
Hamm, J. A., PytlikZillig, L. M., Tomkins, A. J., Herian, M. N., Bornstein, B. H., & Neeley, E. M. (2011). Exploring separable components of institutional confidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 95–115.
Harnischfeger, J. (2003). The Bakassi Boys: fighting crime in Nigeria. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(1).
Haynes, G. A., & Olson, J. M. (2006). Coping with threats to just-world beliefs: derogate, blame, or help? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 664–682.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Heise, D. R. (1972). Employing nominal variables, induced variables, and block variables in path analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 1(147–173).
Herzog, S. (2006). Battered women who kill. An empirical analysis of public perceptions of seriousness in Israel from a consensus theory perspective. Homicide Studies, 10(4), 293–319.
Hine, K. D. (1998). Vigilantism revisited: an economic analysis of the law of extra-judicial self-help or why can't Dick shoot Henry for stealing Jane's truck? The American University law review, 47(5), 1221–1254.
Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 14(2), 151–172.
Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing, 4(3), 241–248.
Huggins, M. K. (1991). Vigilantism and the state in modern Latin America. New York: Praeger.
Hutton, N. (2005). Beyond populist punitiveness? Punishment and Society, 7(3), 243–258.
Jacoby, J. E., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). The structure of punishment norms: applying the Rossi-Berk model. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89(1), 245–312.
Johnson, D. (2009). Anger about crime and support for punitive criminal justice policies. Punishment and Society, 11(1), 51–66.
Johnston, L. (1996). What is vigilantism? British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 220–236.
Joseph, J. M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1983). Perceived responsibility and the least of evils principle. Law and Human Behavior, 7(1), 51–58.
Justiz und Selbstjustiz. (2008, March 2). Spiegel. Retrieved from http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/1485/justiz_und_selbstjustiz.html
Köpcke, M. (2006, March 6). Rache im Gerichtssaal. Deutschlandradio. Retrieved from http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/kalenderblatt/474050/
Lenz, T. (1988). Republican virtue and the American vigilante. Legal Studies Forum, 12(2), 117–140.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Little, C. B., & Sheffield, C. P. (1983). Frontiers and criminal justice: English private prosecution agencies and American vigilantism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. American Sociological Review, 48, 796–808.
Locke, J. (1689/1967). Two treatises of government. In Laslett (Ed.), Two treatises of government: A critical edition with an introduction and apparatus criticus (second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., Wildschut, T., Nijstad, B. A., Savenije, W., & Smit, M. (2001). In a violent world a just world makes sense: the case of 'senseless violence' in the Netherlands. Social Justice Research, 14(1), 79–94.
Luckenbill, D. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 176–186.
MacCormick, N., & Garland, D. (1998). Sovereign states and vengeful victims: The problem of the right to punish. In A. Ashworth & M. Wasik (Eds.), Fundamentals of sentencing theory: Essays in honour of Andrew von Hirsch (pp. 11–29). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Minnaar, A. (2001). The new vigilantism in Post-April 1994 South Africa: Crime prevention or an expression of lawlessness? Technikon: Institute for Human Rights & Criminal Justice Studies.
Peterson, B., Doty, R., & Winter, D. (1993). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward contemporary social issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(19), 174–184.
Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2005). Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (1997). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. San Francisco: Westview Press.
Rosenbaum, H. J., & Sederberg, P. C. (1974). Vigilantism: an analysis of establishment violence. Comparative Politics, 6(4), 541–570.
Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (Eds.). (1982). Measuring social judgments. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Rossi, P. H., Simpson, J. E., & Miller, J. L. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: fitting the punishment to the crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1(1), 59–90.
Sarat, A., & Kearns, T. R. (1992). Introduction. In A. Sarat & T. R. Kearns (Eds.), Law's violence (pp. 1–21). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan's Press.
Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A. (1996). Trials of battered women who kill: the impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(2), 167–187.
Scott, E. S., Repucci, N. D., Antonishak, J., & DeGennaro, J. T. (2006). Public attitudes about the culpability and punishment of young offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24(6), 815–832.
Scherpenzeel, A., & Vis, C. (2010). Encouraging and maintaining participation in an Internet panel: Effects of letters, incentives and feedback. Paper presented at the Panel Survey Methods Workshop, University of Mannheim, Germany.
Scherpenzeel, A., & Zandvliet, R. (2010). Slapers en inactieven binnen online panels [Sleepers and inactive respondents in online panels]. In A. E. Bronner (Ed.), Ontwikkelingen in het marktonderzoek: Jaarboek MarktOnderzoekAssociatie (pp. 189–204). Haarlem: Spaar en Hout.
Shaw, M. E., & Sulzer, J. L. (1964). An empirical test of Heider's levels in attribution of responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(1), 39–46.
Shotland, R. L. (1976). Spontaneous vigilantism: a bystander response to criminal behavior. In H. J. Rosenbaum & P. C. Sederberg (Eds.), Vigilante Politics: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. I. (1984). The role of bystanders in crime control. Journal of Social Issues, 40(1), 9–26.
Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305–326.
Skogan, W. G. (2009). Concern about crime and confidence in the police: reassurance or accountability? Police Quarterly, 12(3), 301–318.
Spencer, J. (2008). Foreword. In D. Pratten & A. Sen (Eds.), Global vigilantes (x-xii). New York: Colombia University Press.
St Amand, M. D., & Zamble, E. (2001). Impact of information about sentencing decisions on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 515–528.
Stylianou, S. (2003). Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: what have we learned and what else do we want to know. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 37–56.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003a). Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and the importance of procedural justice: the police as prototypical representatives of a group's moral values. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 153–165.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003b). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Self-help, policing and procedural justice: Ghanaian vigilantism and the rule of law. Law & Society Review, 43(2), 245–270.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing law breakers. Law & Society Review, 31(2), 237–265.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1997). Social justice and social movements. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 595–629). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2009). Empathetic identification and punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology, 13(3), 283–312.
Vidmar, N. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law.
Vitaglione, G. D., & Barnett, M. A. (2003). Assessing a new dimension of empathy: empathic anger as a predictor of helping and punishing desires. Motivation and Emotion, 27(4), 301–325.
Warr, M. (1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crimes? Criminology, 27(4), 795–821.
Weber, H. (2000). Emotional excesses as elements of the law. In J. Schlaeger (Ed.), Representations of emotional excess (Vol. 16, pp. 287–296). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Weisburd, D. (1998). Vigilantism as community social control: developing a quantitative criminological model. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(2), 137–153.
Zimring, F. E. (2003). The contradictions of American capital punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to CentERdata for the data collection. We furthermore thank the editor, three anonymous reviewers and Andrew Lemieux for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1 Translated text of selected vignette versions
Vignette 1: Traffic aggression
Man (39) heavily injured by aggression in traffic
DORDRECHT – On Friday afternoon, a 39-year-old man from Schiedam was forced off the road by a car on a bicycle path in his home town. The victim, Frank H., was cut off when he wanted to turn right into the Mauritsweg. He reacted to this by raising his fists to the driver, Ruben S. Shortly afterwards, H. was forced off the road by the same driver, causing him to fall off his bicycle. Frank H. ended up with a broken leg, a broken arm, bruised ribs and a heavy concussion. He was taken to a hospital in Rotterdam by ambulance. The 35-year-old driver Ruben S. from Rotterdam was taken in for interrogation. He was found to have a blood-alcohol level that was twice the legal limit.
Vignette 1: Pedestrian crash
Girl (9) heavily injured after pedestrian crash
DORDRECHT – On Friday afternoon, a 9-year-old girl from Dordrecht was hit by a car when she was trying to cross a pedestrian crossing. The girl ended up with a broken leg, a broken arm, bruised ribs, and a heavy concussion. She was taken to a hospital in Rotterdam by ambulance. The girl wanted to walk her bicycle across the Mauritsweg. While she was walking on the pedestrian crossing, she was hit by a car that was going at high speed. The 35-year-old driver Ruben S. from Rotterdam was taken in for interrogation. He was found to have a blood-alcohol level that was twice the legal limit.
Vignette 1: Sex offense
Girl (9) pulled from bicycle and sexually assaulted
DORDRECHT – On Friday afternoon, a 9-year-old girl from Dordrecht was pulled off her bicycle and sexually assaulted by a man. A 35-year-old man from Rotterdam was apprehended on Friday for the sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl in Dordrecht. The girl was on her way home from school. Suddenly a man pulled up next to her on his bicycle and forcefully pulled her off her bicycle. After the girl had fallen onto the ground, he sexually assaulted her. As the girl resisted, she was able to get away and notify the police. The man, Ruben S., was later apprehended on the basis of her description.
Vignette 2: Traffic aggression + acquittal
Man (35) beaten up by former victim
ROTTERDAM – A 35-year-old man from Rotterdam was beaten up Friday night by a 39-year-old man from Dordrecht, whom he had hit by car in February. The victim of the beating, Ruben S., was acquitted by a judge on Tuesday from involvement in a serious traffic accident. As a result of the accident in question, 39-year-old Frank H. from Dordrecht was seriously injured. The driver, Ruben S., was found to have been driving while under the influence of alcohol. He was acquitted, however, due to a technicality, as the summons reported the wrong date. The judge said that he did collide with Frank H., but that this did not happen on the indicated date. He thus acquitted Ruben S. Three days after his acquittal, S. was startled when a brick was thrown through the window of his living room. When he walked outside, he was awaited near the front door by Frank H., who started hitting and kicking him. S. was left with two broken teeth, a broken nose, and contusions.
Vignette 2: Pedestrian crash + lenient sentence
Father beats up man who crashed into his daughter on the road
ROTTERDAM – A 35-year-old man from Rotterdam was beaten up Friday night by a 39-year-old man from Dordrecht, whose daughter he ran into by car in February. The victim of the beating, Ruben S., was sentenced by the judge last Tuesday to a 100 euro fine and a suspended driver’s license for 2 months due to his involvement in a serious traffic accident. As a result of the accident in question, the 9-year-old daughter of Frank H. from Dordrecht was seriously injured. The driver, Ruben S., was found to have been driving while under the influence of alcohol. The 100 euro fine combined with the 2-month suspended sentence is less severe than the Public Prosecutor’s demand, which was 180h of community service, a 2-month suspended prison sentence and a suspended driver’s license for 1 year. Three days after his conviction, S. was startled when a brick was thrown through the window of his living room. When he walked outside, he was awaited by Frank H, who started hitting and kicking him. S. was left with two broken teeth, a broken nose and contusions.
Appendix 2 Measures of support and confidence
Support measures
Outrage at vigilantism (α = .86, mean = 4.01, SD = 1.42)
(1) I find it terrible that Ruben S. was beaten up (2) I pity Ruben S. (3) I feel for Ruben S. (4) Frank H.’s behavior is not justifiable in any way (5) Frank H.’s behavior is morally reprehensible (6) I am angry at Frank H.
Empathy with the vigilante (α = .84, mean = 3.62, SD = 1.39)
(1) I feel sympathy for Frank H. (2) Frank H.’s behavior is understandable (3) Frank H. was completely right in beating up Ruben S. (4) Frank H. is the victim in this situation, not the offender (5) Ruben S. has himself to thank for the assault (6) Ruben S. is to blame for the assault.
Desired punishment for the vigilante (α = .88, mean = 5.01, SD = 1.60)
(1) Frank H. should be prosecuted for what he did (2) Frank H. should do penance for his behavior (3) The authorities should ignore the assault (reverse coded) (4) Frank H. is to blame for the assault.
Confidence measure
Confidence in the criminal justice system (α = .96, mean = 4.30, SD = .82)
(1) Judges treat people fairly (2) Judges’ verdicts are well deliberated (3) I have respect for judges (4) The Public Prosecution deserves citizens’ respect (5) The Public Prosecution is prejudiced (reverse coded) (6) The Public Prosecution manages to prosecute the right people (7) The police care about the well-being of the everyday citizen (8) Citizens’ rights are not adequately protected by the police (reverse coded) (9) When the police decide not to arrest someone, they will have a good reason not to (10) Citizens can rest assured that their case is properly dealt with in the Dutch criminal justice system (11) The Dutch criminal justice system functions properly (12) Judges do their job well (13) Judges are prejudiced (reverse coded) (14) Judges deserve citizens’ respect (15) Sentence recommendations are well-deliberated by the Public Prosecution (16) The Public Prosecution is trustworthy (17) If the Public Prosecution recommends a lenient sentence, it will have a good reason for doing so (18) The police take citizens seriously (19) The police are there when you need them (20) I have confidence in how laws in the Netherlands are enforced (21) The Dutch criminal justice system is effective in combating crime (22) You can count on judges to take decisions in the best interests of society (23) Judges know what is going on in society (24) When a judge passes a lenient sentence, he will have a good reason for doing so (25) You can count on the Public Prosecution to take decisions in the best interests of society (26) The Public Prosecution does its job well (27) Citizens’ rights are not adequately protected by the Public Prosecution (reverse coded) (28) The police are trustworthy (29) The police are effective in combating crime (30) The Dutch criminal justice system is trustworthy (31) I have respect for the Dutch criminal justice system (32) The Dutch justice system succeeds at bringing criminals to justice (33) Judges are trustworthy (34) Citizens’ rights are not adequately protected by judges (reverse coded) (35) The Public Prosecution treats people fairly (36) I have respect for the Public Prosecution (37) The Dutch criminal justice system is fair (38) You can count on the police to take decisions that are in the best interests of society (39) The police do their job well.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haas, N.E., de Keijser, J.W. & Bruinsma, G.J.N. Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study. J Exp Criminol 8, 387–413 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9144-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9144-1