Looking for someone to type an essay about Vigilantism for my English 101 class

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study

Nicole E. Haas & Jan W. de Keijser & Gerben J. N. Bruinsma

Published online: 10 March 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

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 0 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 confi- dence. 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.

Keywords Confidence . Criminal justice system . Public support . Punishment .

Vigilantism

J Exp Criminol (2012) 8:387–413 DOI 10.1007/s11292-012-9144-1

N. E. Haas (*) : G. J. N. Bruinsma Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

J. W. de Keijser Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Introduction

Citizens who take the law into their own hands tend to spark heated debates. Moreover, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to receive considerable public support for their behavior, even when they go as far as killing an (alleged) offender. A famous example is the case of Marianne Bachmeier, who took the law into her own hands inside of a courtroom in Lübeck, West Germany, in 1981. She pulled out a gun and fired eight times at the man who was on trial for the abduction, sexual abuse, and murder of her 7-year-old daughter. He died on the courtroom floor (Köpcke 2006). Many people felt sympathy for the vigilante, sending her support letters, money, and flowers while she was in detention. Interestingly, public opinion shifted once more negative information surfaced about Marianne Bachmeier’s life (Justiz und Selbstjustiz 2008). It became known that she had an additional child at age 16 and another one at age 18, who were both given up for adoption, and that her father was involved with the Waffen-SS. All in all, Marianne Bachmeier no longer seemed to fit the role of the ‘innocent’ mother that was initially ascribed to her, which affected the public’s judgment of her act of vigilantism.

What does it mean when the public supports citizens who deal with crime outside of the law? Does it signify that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system is at stake?1 Public support for vigilantism is often seen as indicative of diminished confidence in the criminal justice system (e.g., Harnischfeger 2003; Tankebe 2009). However, little is known about actual determinants of support for those who take the law into their own hands. Despite its relevance from both a social and legal perspective, this phenomenon has been relatively overlooked in the criminological literature. We do not know what public support for vigilantism constitutes, what causes it and what implications it might have for society. This is unfortunate as such knowledge can provide unique insights into how people view justice within and outside of the criminal justice system. Why do citizens find certain acts of vigilantism justified even though such acts are against the law? How do people view the vigilante and his victim? Why does the public not always find it necessary for vigilantes to be punished for their criminal behavior?

In this paper we seek to reach a better understanding of public support for vigilantism. We will empirically test whether support for vigilantism can be explained through a low level of confidence in the criminal justice system. We will also introduce and test an alternative proposition, namely that support is affected by characteristics related to the vigilantism situation itself. This will be studied by conducting an experimental study. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings, and by offering suggestions for future research.

Vigilantism and the state

The occurrence of vigilantism begs questions about the performance of the state and its justice institutions (Black 1983; Spencer 2008). The state has a formal monopoly

1 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).

388 N.E. Haas et al.

over the legitimate use of force in most developed countries, thereby harnessing the emotions of citizens into a civilized justice system.2 The modern state in fact characterizes itself by only permitting force that is used in preservation and enforce- ment of the law (Sarat and Kearns 1992). The presence of law is generally assumed to result in a less violent society because it provides peaceful alternatives for handling conflicts (Cooney 1997). The very existence of a criminal justice system can be justified by contrasting it with the unjustifiability of citizens retaliating against wrongdoers (Gardner 1998). One of the aims of restricting the prosecution and punishment of offenders to an impartial third party is to prevent emotional excesses. This function has been described in the literature as the displacement of retaliation:

The blood feud, the vendetta, the duel, the revenge, the lynching: for the elimination of these modes of retaliation, more than anything else, the criminal law as we know it today came into existence…The displacement function of criminal law always was and remains today one of the central pillars of its justification (Gardner 1998, p.32).

The criminal law thus aims to channel the natural instinct for retaliation and “turn hot vengeance into cool, impartial justice” (MacCormick and Garland 1998, p.26). This channeling is deemed necessary as it is commonly believed that people cannot be rational in the judgment of their own cases (see e.g., Locke 1689/1967).

Vigilantism is commonly said to occur when citizens, from whom authorities are supposed to derive their legitimacy, believe that the criminal justice system is inadequate (Abrahams 2002; Adinkrah 2005; Baker 2001; Benesh and Howell 2001; Goldstein 2003; Robinson and Darley 1995). Vigilantism can be seen as the result of a so-called injustice gap: a discrepancy between the desired and actual outcome (Exline et al. 2003). Taking the law into one’s own hands is a way of reducing this perceived injustice gap and restoring one’s sense of justice. Vigilantism may occur when people do not want the criminal justice authorities to get involved, when the authorities fail to respond, or when the authorities were involved but not to the satisfaction of the affected party. Situations like the latter include victims or their relatives who physically attack defendants upon finding out that they are acquitted by a judge or given ‘too lenient’ a sentence (Weber 2000). The presented case of Marianne Bachmeier provides an illustrative example. Even though an arrest had been made, and a defendant was brought to trial, she apparently felt that none of the possible judicial sentences would be adequate. She probably saw the death penalty as the only satisfactory result, which was not an option in the German criminal justice system, and effectuated this desired punishment by fatally shooting the defendant. Similarly, in South Africa there are reports of citizens who, due to dissatisfaction with the formal response to crime, collectively pay bail of jailed convicts and subsequently kill them (Minnaar 2001).

When citizens resort to vigilantism, it can be a sign that the state’s capability to displace retaliation is in jeopardy. However, what may matter most on a societal level is the collective approval of citizens who take the law into their own hands. Research suggests that support for vigilantism may increase the likelihood of vigilante behavior in a community (Weisburd 1998). Even if

2 There are exceptions to this monopoly, such as self-defense and citizen’s arrest.

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 389

vigilantism itself is rare, public support for it can be widespread. Formal responses like the arrest, prosecution and sentencing of vigilantes can trigger considerable public controversy. Ideally, a legal system should represent the moral consensus of the community, maximizing voluntary compliance. In reality, a justice system will never be able to fully match the values and expectations of all citizens that it is supposed to serve. Legal rules will always diverge to a certain extent from citizens’ principles. However, when these discrepancies become too large, the danger exists that public respect for the legal system will be lost (Carlsmith 2008; Darley 2001; Roberts and Stalans 1997). Such a lack of respect for the law would be detrimental to the functioning of the criminal justice system, as citizens often obey the law because they find the norms to be legitimate and deserving of compliance (Coffee 1991; Tyler 1990). It has been argued in the literature that moral contempt for specific laws may generalize to the entire criminal code (Greene and Darley 1998). Thus, if there is no moral consensus in the community vis-à-vis the formal reactions to vigilantism, the state should at least attempt to explain to its citizens why the existing practice is to be preferred (Greene and Darley 1998). If not, people may lose confidence in the law and the legal authorities, which may ironically bring about a higher frequency of vigilantism itself.

The concept of vigilantism

In order to study public support for vigilantism, it is crucial to know what vigilantism entails. Importantly, it is not an act that has been defined in (criminal) law; people cannot be charged with ‘vigilantism’. Citizens can only be arrested, prosecuted and/or sentenced for legally defined acts such as murder; the context is what may result in an additional qualification of the act as vigilantism. In order to reach a definition of vigilantism, we therefore draw on the scientific literature instead of the law. Interestingly, there exists disagreement on a number of seemingly rudimentary elements of vigilantism, such as the who, what, why, when and how. Some authors for instance maintain that vigilantes are private citizens (Johnston 1996; Little and Sheffield 1983), while others also envision vigilantism as carried out by state agents (Dumsday 2009; Huggins 1991). Most authors agree that vigilantism consists of (threats of) violence (Rosenbaum and Sederberg 1974), but some also include nonviolent versions like Neighborhood Watches (Hine 1998). The perceived goal of vigilantes also differs widely, such as defending an established sociopolitical order (Rosenbaum and Sederberg 1974), imposing law in a lawless setting (Alvarez and Bachman 2007), community social control (Weisburd 1998) and the apprehension and punishment of (alleged) criminals (Ayyildiz 1995; Shotland 1976; Weisburd 1998; Zimring 2003). Similarly, some claim that vigilantism is always a premeditated or organized act (Brown 1975; Dumsday 2009; Johnston 1996), while others also recognize more spontaneous forms (Adinkrah 2005; Huggins 1991; Shotland and Goodstein 1984).

For current purposes we define vigilantism as a planned criminal act, carried out by a private citizen in response to (the perceived threat of) a crime committed by a private citizen, targeting the (alleged) perpetrator of that crime. This (necessarily restricted) definition will provide a starting point for our empirical analysis of support for vigilantism. By describing vigilantism as a criminal act, we purposely exclude

390 N.E. Haas et al.

self-defense and citizen’s arrest, which are related but quite distinct phenomena (see e.g., Cohen 1989).

Support for vigilantism

Empirical research on support for vigilantism is scarce, and measures of both support for vigilantism and confidence are often limited (Hamm et al. 2011; Tyler and Huo 2002; Zimring 2003). Single-item measures are commonly used, which are particularly sensitive to measurement error and distortion (Roberts and Hough 2005). The wide variety of conceptualizations of confidence and vigilantism in the literature further complicates the matter. In essence, support for vigilantism is a reaction to an event that consists of two subsequent criminal acts: a precipitating crime and a vigilantism act. How might responses to such events be explained?

In order to reach a better understanding of public support for vigilantism, we draw on social justice research, which aims to explain people’s judgments about justice and injustice (Tyler and Smith 1997). Numerous studies in this field have demonstrated the important role of emotions in reactions to crime (e.g., Freiburg 2001; Johnson 2009; Tyler and Boeckmann 1997; Vidmar 2001). The primary reaction to intentionally inflicted harm, such as a criminal act, is said to be moral outrage (e.g., Carlsmith et al. 2002; Darley and Pittman 2003). This in turn produces a desire for retribution: punishment of the harm-doer (Tyler and Boeckmann 1997). Another common response is empathy with the victim (Friedman and Austin 1978; Hoffman 1990; Vitaglione and Barnett 2003), although victims may also be blamed or derogated (Correia et al. 2007; Haynes and Olson 2006; Lerner 1980). Vidmar (2001) proposes a six-stage model of the psychological dynamics behind retributive justice. In this model, a perceived rule or norm violation is said to arouse a negative affective reaction (such as anger), which triggers a demand for ‘justice to be done’ in order to return to a phase of homeostasis in which the rule or norm is perceived to be vindicated. Punishment is seen not only as an attempt to change the beliefs or status of the offender, but also to confirm or reestablish consensus about the moral nature of the rule that was violated. By making sure the perpetrator ‘gets what he deserves’, the moral order is restored and people can hold on to their belief that the world is just (Hafer and Bègue 2005; Lerner 1980).

Based on the literature, one would normally expect an act of vigilantism to induce moral outrage, empathy with the victim, and a call for punishment of the offender. However, vigilantism forms a unique situation in that it concerns a criminal act against an (alleged) criminal offender. Vigilantism can therefore be seen both as a violation and confirmation of norms. By ‘punishing’ an offender, the vigilante confirms the norm that was violated in the precipitating crime, but at the same time he violates the norm of the state monopoly on the legitimate use of force. For some, the act of vigilantism will be seen as causing an injustice gap, evoking a call for punishment of the vigilante in order to restore justice. Others may actually perceive the vigilante as restoring justice in response to the injustice caused by the precipitating crime. They may therefore not be outraged by the act of vigilantism, feel empathy with the offender instead of with his victim, and find punishment of the offender uncalled for. In other words: they may express support for vigilantism. The main question is what might

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 391

determine how people respond to vigilantism. Below we present two main proposi- tions in this regard.

Confidence proposition

According to what we refer to as the confidence proposition, when a citizen supports vigilantism, this is due to a low general level (or lack) of confidence in the criminal justice system. In other words, a negative view of the criminal justice system is thought to result in a rejection of the norm of the state monopoly on force, and in a positive view of those who take the law into their own hands (Goldstein 2003; Harnischfeger 2003; Lenz 1988; Tankebe 2009). This hypothesis appears to be feasible at first glance. After all, why would people who do have confidence in justice support those who defy the law? To date there has nonetheless been little attempt to test this idea. Only one study has reliably evaluated this proposition, using survey data to examine the effect of attitudes toward police on public support for vigilantism in Ghana (Tankebe 2009). Findings confirm the expected negative rela- tion between (perceived) police trustworthiness and support for vigilantism.

Situation proposition

In this section we will argue that public responses to an act of vigilantism are (at least in part) affected by situational characteristics. In other words, the situation proposition maintains that support for vigilantism is shaped by aspects of the vigilantism case itself. This is in line with findings from the field of social justice research, which suggest that people’s judgments of issues such as fairness, justice, and deservingness at least partially depend on contextual factors (Tyler and Smith 1997). Research shows public reactions to crime to be affected by situational aspects such as the severity of the offense (Cullen et al. 1983; Darley et al. 2000; Jacoby and Cullen 1998; Stylianou 2003), crime type (Carlsmith et al. 2002; Rossi et al. 1985; Warr 1989), perceived responsibility of the offender (Heider 1958; Joseph and Tedeschi 1983; Shaw and Sulzer 1964) and characteristics of the offender (Applegate et al. 1996; Rossi et al. 1985; Scott et al. 2006; Warr 1989). When there are justifications, excuses or mitigations, this can also affect reactions to harm (Darley and Pittman 2003). Provoked harm for instance leads people to be milder in their retributive judgments (Vidmar 2001). Likewise, when people feel empathetic with an offender, this is said to reduce punitiveness (Unnever and Cullen 2009) and increase forgive- ness (Exline et al. 2003). It has also been argued in the literature that when someone finds out that a victim has previously harmed the offender, this may result in reduced empathy with the victim and increased empathy with the offender (Hoffman 1990; Lerner 1980).

In line with the social justice literature, we predict that situational characteristics, such as those related to the act of vigilantism or to the people involved, will affect public support for vigilantism. In other words, rather than assuming that people’s response to an act of vigilantism is exclusively a result of their overall level of confidence in the criminal justice system, we expect them to be sensitive to case-specific information. If the precipitating crime is for instance particularly heinous, this may result in a more positive reaction to an act of vigilantism, regardless of someone’s view of the criminal

392 N.E. Haas et al.

justice system. Importantly, this situational context can also concern the criminal justice system: the kind of formal response or lack thereof to a specific (precipitating) crime. If for instance the (alleged) perpetrator of a crime is not punished by the authorities, this can result in a perception of injustice, which may manifest itself in support for a subsequent act of vigilantism (cf. Goldberg et al. 1999). Perceptions of the criminal justice system can thus play a role on two levels: on both a general and specific (situational) one.

We found only one experimental study that provides empirical evidence for the role of situational characteristics within the context of vigilantism. Based on an experiment with vignettes and a between-subjects design, Skitka and Houston (2001) concluded that whether respondents perceived vigilantism against a murder suspect as fair depended on the murder suspect’s apparent guilt (guilty, innocent or ambiguous).

The current study

As outlined above, empirical research on public support for vigilantism is scarce. Moreover, we have not come across any studies in which the two presented propositions have been tested simultaneously. In order to do so, it is essential to (1) vary situational characteristics of an act of vigilantism, and (2) assess support for vigilantism as well as confidence in the criminal justice system. This is precisely the approach of the current experiment. We use experimental variation with vignettes to test the situation proposition, and introduce multiple-item measures for both support and confidence. The use of vignettes allows for a systematic variation of specific pieces of information, so that the effects of this manipulation on the dependent variable (in this case support for vigilantism) can be studied in isolation from other effects (Bieneck 2009; Rossi and Nock 1982). Vignettes are also valuable for comparing judgments between experimental condi- tions, rather than asking respondents to explain their own judgments. This is useful as people are not always aware of their own attitudes or actual reasons that lie behind their judgments (Carlsmith 2008; De Keijser 2001; Roberts and Stalans 1997).

In order to systematically vary situational characteristics of vigilantism in a vignette, it is important to identify the main events of which a vigilantism situation is commonly composed. We therefore introduce the ‘vigilantism event sequence’, which consists of three events. Firstly, without a prior crime to react to, vigilantism cannot be distin- guished from other forms of crime. We will refer to this prior crime as the precipitating crime, which forms the first event in the sequence. Secondly, (support for) vigilantism is often attributed to a dissatisfaction with the extent to which the legal authorities (fail to) deal with the precipitating crime. We therefore identify the formal reaction to the precipitating crime as the second main event. The final event in the sequence is the act of vigilantism itself. According to the situation proposition, characteristics of all three events (and the people involved) can affect support for a vigilantism case.

Methods

The study consists of two parts. In the first part we presented respondents with vignettes in an experimental design, and measured their support for vigilantism. In

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 393

the second part, which was conducted 1 month later, we assessed confidence in the criminal justice system. We created this time lapse to reduce possible effects of reading and responding to vignettes on the confidence ratings, and to prevent respondents from guessing the purpose of the study. Likewise, participants were not informed that the measures were part of the same study.

Design

In a between-subjects experimental design, each respondent was presented with two vignettes that together present information about all three events from the vigilantism event sequence. Vignette 1 describes the precipitating crime, which was followed by a first set of questions. Participants were subsequently presented with Vignette 2, which describes the formal response to the precipitating crime and a subsequent act of vigilantism (against the precipitating offender). This vignette was followed by a second set of questions, measuring support for vigilantism.

The contents of the vignettes differ in correspondence with the experimental manipulation of two situational characteristics. Experimental factor 1 is the type of precipitating crime (three versions). Experimental factor 2 is the formal sentence for the precipitating offender (four versions).3 Both factors are expected to affect how the subsequent act of vigilantism is judged by respondents. Table 1 provides an overview of the design; the manipulation, vignettes and measures are elucidated below. Respondents were randomly allocated to one of the ten conditions.

Factor 1: type of precipitating crime

The first experimental factor is the type of precipitating crime, which was pre- sented in Vignette 1. As described earlier, crime type can have a considerable impact on how a crime situation and the people involved are judged by outsiders (e.g., Carlsmith et al. 2002). This experimental manipulation was operationalized by constructing three versions of the precipitating crime: traffic aggression, a pedestrian crash and a sex offense. The consequences for the victim of the precipitating crime were purposely non-fatal in order to avoid reaching a ceiling effect of support.

In the traffic aggression version, a 39-year-old male cyclist is cut off in traffic by a car driver. The cyclist reacts to this by raising his fists to the driver, after which the latter purposely pushes him off the road. This causes the cyclist to fall off his bicycle, resulting in a broken arm, a broken leg, bruised ribs and a concussion. He is taken to a hospital. The driver is apprehended by the police and found to have a blood-alcohol level of twice the legal limit.

The pedestrian crash version describes a 9-year-old girl who is hit by a speeding car while walking her bicycle across a pedestrian crossing. The driver is arrested by the police and is found to be intoxicated at the same level as the driver in the traffic aggression version. The girl’s injuries are exactly the same as those suffered by the male victim in the traffic aggression version, and she is also taken to a hospital.

3 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.

394 N.E. Haas et al.

The third version of Vignette 1 concerns child molestation. The victim is a 9-year-old girl who is pulled off her bicycle while on her way home from school. After she falls to the ground, a man sexually assaults her. In the struggle that follows, she is able to get away, and the man is later apprehended by the police.

The English translation of all three versions of Vignette 1 can be found in Appendix 1. Apart from the type of precipitating crime, details were held constant between the three vignettes as much as possible in order to avoid interference with the experimental manipulation. However, it was challenging to vary crime type without varying other situational aspects. We return to this in the discussion section.

Factor 2: sentence for the precipitating offender

The second experimental factor concerns the sentence for the precipitating offender, and was manipulated in Vignette 2. The public tends to feel strongly about sentenc- ing, and often perceives it to be too lenient (e.g., De Keijser et al. 2007, regarding the Dutch). We expect that the type of sentence for the precipitating offender in the vignette will affect to what extent the subsequent act of vigilantism is perceived as an injustice. In our study, we distinguish four sentence levels: acquittal, a lenient, normal and a severe sentence.4 The lenient sentence for the two traffic offenders (traffic aggression and pedestrian crash) for instance consists of a 100 euro fine and a suspended driver’s license for 2 months. The severe version of the sentence is a combination of 240h of community service, a 4-month suspended prison sentence and a 2-year suspension of the driver’s license. In case of acquittal, the precipitating offender is acquitted by the judge due to a technicality (the wrong date in the summons). Importantly, it is made clear that the precipitating offender is not released because of a lack of evidence. The sentences for the two traffic offenders necessarily differ from the sentences given to the sex offender due to the specific nature of the offenses. The suspension of the driver’s license is replaced by victim compensation in the sex offense condition. Appendix 1 provides the English translation of selected versions of Vignette 2.

Following the information about the sentence, the vignette reports that the sen- tenced precipitating offender was attacked by a vigilante. The vigilantism act is identical in all conditions: a 39-year-old male vigilante goes to the house of the

4 These are our labels of the relative severity of the sentencing variations; respondents may have experi- enced 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.

Table 1 Experimental factors and conditions

Factor 1: type of precipitating crime

Traffic aggression Pedestrian crash Sex offense

Factor 2: sentence for the precipitating offender

Acquittal x x

Lenient x x x

Normal x x

Severe x x x

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 395

precipitating offender and throws a brick through the front window. Following this, the precipitating offender walks out his front door and gets beaten up by the vigilante. The resulting injuries of the vigilantism victim (i.e., the precipitating offender) are two broken teeth, a broken nose and contusions. This act of vigilantism matches our definition. The identity of the vigilante differs slightly between the conditions. The traffic aggression offender is attacked by the man he previously victimized (the cyclist). In the other two conditions, the father of the victimized 9-year-old girl is the one who takes the law into his own hands.

With the aim of inducing genuine reactions from our respondents, all vignettes were made as realistic as possible by making them appear like articles from a popular Dutch news website: www.nu.nl. A real crime scene picture from the website was added to Vignette 1 to make it more salient.5 Each version contains the same picture of a bicycle lying in an area between a road and a bicycle path, which matches all three storylines.

Measures

Support for vigilantism

To measure support for vigilantism, we presented a wide range of items that pertain to various sentiments. We based these on research in the field of social justice, which has identified some of the most common emotional reactions to crime (e.g., Darley and Pittman 2003). A 7-point Likert response format was used (10fully disagree; 70 fully agree). Items include “I find it terrible that Ruben S. was beaten up” and “I feel sympathy for Frank H.”. Based on these items (k016), we constructed three distinct measures of support: outrage at vigilantism (α0.86), empathy with the vigilante (α0.84) and desired punishment for the vigilante (α0.88).6 See Appendix 2 for the items and summated scales.7

Confidence

In the literature on confidence, a distinction is commonly made between procedural justice and effectiveness (e.g., Roberts and Hough 2005; Skogan 2009; Sunshine and Tyler 2003a, 2003b). We used insights from both perspectives to create an elaborate measure of confidence. It has additionally been shown that there is added value of specifying confidence per criminal justice system agency, as it results in differential confidence ratings (e.g., Allen et al. 2006; Roberts and Hough 2005). Our final measure of confidence (k044) therefore combines items about a) procedural justice

5 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. 6 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. 7 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).

396 N.E. Haas et al.

and effectiveness and b) police, public prosecution, judges and the criminal justice system as a whole. Examples are “Judges treat people fairly” and “The police are effective in combating crime”. A 7-point Likert response format was used. The items were used to construct one overall summated scale: Confidence in the criminal justice system (α0.96).8 The items can be found in Appendix 2.

Hypotheses

Experimental factor 1: type of precipitating crime

Overall we expect that a more serious precipitating crime will lead to relatively more positive reactions regarding the subsequent act of vigilantism; it will be seen as less of an injustice. As child molesters tend to evoke very emotional reactions, we hypothesize that when he becomes the victim of vigilantism, levels of outrage at vigilantism and punishment desire will be lowest, and empathy with the vigilante highest, compared to the other two precipitating crimes. The victimized cyclist who takes the law into his own hands will probably induce the highest levels of outrage compared to the other two vigilantes, as he can be seen as having partially provoked the traffic offense by raising his fist to the driver. Empathy and punishment ratings will vary accordingly.

Experimental factor 2: sentence for the precipitating offender

We expect that the more adequate the formal reaction to the precipitating crime is perceived to be, the more negative people will react to the subsequent act of vigilantism. We predict that a severe sentence for the precipitating offender will lead to relatively more outrage when he is also ‘punished’ by a vigilante, as the latter event will be perceived as more of an injustice than in the conditions where he is punished more leniently (or even acquitted). Empathy and punishment desire will follow this pattern. Vigilantism after acquittal will thus result in the lowest levels of outrage and punishment desire, and highest level of empathy with the vigilante.

Confidence in the criminal justice system

In line with the confidence proposition, we expect a negative relation between confidence in the justice system and support for vigilantism. People who have a higher level of confidence are more likely to consider criminal justice procedures and outcomes as legitimate and adequate, and will therefore react more negatively to vigilantism. They will be more likely to see vigilantism as causing injustice rather than justice. Confidence in the criminal justice system will thus be positively related to outrage at vigilantism and desired punishment for the vigilante, and negatively to empathy with the vigilante.

8 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.

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 397

Data collection and sample

Data were collected by the CentERdata research institute among a random selection of members of the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social sciences (LISS) panel.9

This representative online panel consists of 5,000 households, comprising a total of approximately 9,000 individuals, and is based on a true probability sample of house- holds drawn from the population by Statistics Netherlands.10

Half of the LISS panel members (n04,440) were randomly selected for participa- tion in the first part of the study in September 2009. A total of 2,244 individual panel members participated, yielding a response rate of 61 percent.11 Participants were randomly allocated to one of the ten experimental conditions. The second part of the study was conducted in October 2009, with a total of 2,705 respondents and a 62 percent response rate.12 For the analyses, only those respondents were included who participated in both parts of the study, which was 53 percent of the total number of individual members approached. We excluded 404 respondents who were in addi- tional experimental conditions which are not analyzed in the current paper. We additionally excluded 42 respondents due to missing values. This results in a final sample of 1,930 respondents, of whom 48 percent are male. Participants are between 16 and 89 years old (M049; SD017).13

Findings

Table 2 shows the ratings on the three measures of support for vigilantism per type of precipitating crime (experimental factor 1).

9 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. 10 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. 11 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. 12 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). 13 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 second- ary 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 back- ground, household size and urbanity.

398 N.E. Haas et al.

The levels of outrage at vigilantism are not very high, suggesting that respondents were not particularly upset by the fact that the precipitating offender was assaulted. Only in the traffic aggression condition does outrage exceed the midpoint of the scale. It is also noticeable that, in the case of the two traffic offenses, desired punishment is higher than outrage, and empathy is the lowest of all three measures of support. The opposite is true for the sex offense. This implies that the specific nature of the sex offense has a particular impact on people’s responses.

In Table 3, the mean ratings on the three support measures are presented per level of the second experimental factor: the sentence level for the precipitating offender.

We carried out a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the three dependent variables to test for main effects and interactions (see Table 4). All main

Table 2 Support for vigilantism per precipitating crime (n01,930), scale 1-7

Scale (overall mean) Precipitating crime Mean (SD)

Outrage at vigilantism (4.01) Traffic aggression (n0747) 4.64 (1.25)

Pedestrian crash (n0776) 3.83 (1.37)

Sex offense (n0407) 3.19 (1.29)

Empathy with vigilante (3.62) Traffic aggression (n0747) 3.04 (1.20)

Pedestrian crash (n0776) 3.71 (1.35)

Sex offense (n0407) 4.50 (1.27)

Desired punishment for vigilante (5.01) Traffic aggression (n0747) 5.59 (1.36)

Pedestrian crash (n0776) 4.92 (1.55)

Sex offense (n0407) 4.14 (1.68)

Table 3 Support for vigilantism per sentence level (n01,930), scale 1-7

Scale (overall mean) Sentence level Mean (SD)

Outrage at vigilantism (4.01) Acquittal (n0395) 3.81 (1.36)

Lenient (n0584) 3.88 (1.43)

Normal (n0360) 4.38 (1.39)

Severe (n 0591) 4.03 (1.43)

Empathy with vigilante (3.62) Acquittal (n0395) 3.74 (1.30)

Lenient (n0584) 3.78 (1.44)

Normal (n0360) 3.22 (1.30)

Severe (n 0591) 3.61 (1.40)

Desired punishment for vigilante (5.01) Acquittal (n0395) 4.84 (1.55)

Lenient (n0584) 4.85 (1.66)

Normal (n0360) 5.44 (1.46)

Severe (n 0591) 5.04 (1.63)

Sex offense was operationalized with only two sentencing levels (lenient and severe), so the acquittal and normal conditions have relatively less respondents

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 399

effects are significant. The two experimental factors (i.e., situational characteristics) affect all three measures of support. This implies that public support for vigilantism should not exclusively be attributed to a low level of confidence in the criminal justice system. Interestingly, the impact of the type of precipitating crime is consid- erably larger than that of the sentence level. No interaction effects were found between the experimental factors.

We will discuss these findings in more detail below, examining one measure of support for vigilantism at a time. For each we first report outcomes of post- hoc tests in which we more closely examine the differences between the specific experimental conditions. We subsequently present the outcomes of the OLS regression analyses in Tables 5, 6 and 7. These findings will show the impact of confidence on support for vigilantism. We did not identify the two experimental factors (type of precipitating crime and sentence level) separately in these models, due to the fact that the sex offense only has two sentence levels and thus cannot be compared directly to the other conditions. Instead, nine experimental conditions were entered as one block of variables, and one condition (traffic aggres- sion, acquittal) served as the reference category. The resulting beta values of the experimental conditions thus need to be interpreted in relation to the reference category.

We secondly will discuss the relative impact of situational characteristics and confidence on support for vigilantism. The focus thereby is not on explained vari- ance, but rather on the relative influence of situational characteristics and confidence. For this reason we did not include demographic variables in the regression models.14

We calculated sheaf coefficients (Heise 1972) for both blocks of independent varia- bles, which makes it possible to examine their relative impact on support. These standardized measures range from 0 (no effect on the dependent variable) to 1 (a factor that explains all variance of the dependent variable). By comparing the

14 We did examine the influence of age, gender and educational level. The only noteworthy effect was that of educational level on desired punishment (ß0.13, p<.01). This is in line with previous research (Tankebe 2009).

Table 4 Two-way ANOVAs on three measures of support for vigilantism

* p<.05; ** p<.01 In order to examine the robustness of our findings, we conducted other analyses, but these did not affect our conclusions

SOURCE df F

Outrage at vigilantism

Precipitating crime 2 181.35**

Sentence level 3 17.19**

Precipitating crime * sentence level 4 .41

Empathy with vigilante

Precipitating crime 2 177.14**

Sentence level 3 14.22**

Precipitating crime * sentence level 4 .63

Desired punishment for vigilante

Precipitating crime 2 126.21**

Sentence level 3 13.66**

Precipitating crime * sentence level 4 .45

400 N.E. Haas et al.

Table 5 Determinants of outrage at vigilantism (n01,930)

Independent variables

b (SE) β

Constant

Traffic aggression – acquittal 1.98 (.17)

Experimental conditions

Traffic aggression – lenient .47 (.13) .10**

Traffic aggression – normal .53 (.13) .11**

Traffic aggression – severe .56 (.13) .12**

Pedestrian crash – acquittal -.75 (.12) -.17**

Pedestrian crash – lenient -.37 (.13) -.08**

Pedestrian crash – normal -.26 (.13) -.05*

Pedestrian crash – severe -.13 (.13) -.03

Sex offense – lenient −1.12 (.13) -.24** Sex offense – severe -.99 (.12) -.22**

Confidence

Confidence in the CJS .53 (.03) .30**

Adj. R2 .26

* p<.05; ** p<.01

Table 6 Determinants of empathy with vigilante (n01,930)

Independent variables

b (SE) β

Constant

Traffic aggression – acquittal 5.25 (.17)

Experimental conditions

Traffic aggression – lenient -.30 (.13) -.06*

Traffic aggression – normal -.43 (.13) -.09**

Traffic aggression – severe -.43 (.13) -.10**

Pedestrian crash – acquittal .71 (.12) .16**

Pedestrian crash – lenient .39 (.13) .08**

Pedestrian crash – normal .21 (.13) .04

Pedestrian crash – severe .09 (.13) .02

Sex offense – lenient 1.22 (.13) .27**

Sex offense – severe 1.11 (.12) .25**

Confidence

Confidence in the CJS -.45 (.03) -.26**

Adj. R2 .24

* p<.05; ** p<.01

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 401

sheaf coefficients we can examine whether experimental variation overall has a similar, smaller or larger impact on the three measures of support for vigilantism than confidence in the criminal justice system.

Outrage at vigilantism

We first discuss the findings concerning the impact of situational characteristics on outrage. With regards to the first experimental factor (type of precipitating crime), we expected outrage to be lowest for vigilantism against the sex offender, and highest for vigilantism against the traffic aggression offender. This hypothesis was confirmed (see Table 2), and post-hoc analyses (Tukey) reveal all differences between the means to be significant at p<.01. We next examined the impact of the second experimental factor: sentencing of the precipitating offender. These analyses were run separately for the sex offense conditions, as they only have two sentence levels. We expected outrage to be positively related to the sentencing level. This hypothesis was partially confirmed for the traffic aggression and pedestrian crash conditions. A one-way ANOVA reveals that the level of outrage differs overall, F(3, 1522)018.11, p <.001, but only when comparing the acquittal version to the other three (all p <.001). However, it should be noted that the differences between any of these sentence conditions are not particularly large. As expected though, outrage at vigi- lantism is the lowest in the acquittal condition, and highest in the severe sentence condition. Within the sex offense conditions, no differences were found between the

Table 7 Determinants of desired punishment for vigilante (n01930)

Independent variables

b (SE) β

Constant

Traffic aggression – acquittal 2.80 (.20)

Experimental conditions

Traffic aggression – lenient .48 (.15) .09**

Traffic aggression – normal .47 (.15) .09**

Traffic aggression – severe .53 (.15) .10**

Pedestrian crash – acquittal -.66 (.14) -.13**

Pedestrian crash – lenient -.33 (.15) -.06*

Pedestrian crash – normal -.02 (.15) .00

Pedestrian crash – severe -.05 (.15) -.01

Sex offense – lenient −1.19 (.15) -.22** Sex offense – severe -.96 (.15) -.19**

Confidence

Confidence in the CJS .56 (.04) .29**

Adj. R2 .21

* p<.05; ** p<.01

402 N.E. Haas et al.

two sentence levels, t(405)0−1.19, p0.24. Outrage is low no matter at what level the precipitating sex offender was sentenced.

In order to evaluate the confidence proposition, we next examined the outcome of the regression analysis on outrage (see Table 5). We expected a positive relation between confidence in the criminal justice system and outrage at vigilantism, which was confirmed by our findings. We lastly calculated sheaf coefficients to examine the relative impact of the experimental manipulation and confidence on outrage. The set of experimental conditions has a larger sheaf coefficient (.42) than confidence (.30). Outrage at vigilantism in the vignette is thus affected more by situational variation than by confidence.

Empathy with vigilante

We now examine the second measure of support for vigilantism. We predicted respondents to feel most empathy in the conditions where the vigilante attacks a sex offender and least when a traffic aggression offender is assaulted. These expectations were confirmed (see Table 2), and post-hoc analyses show all differences to be significant at p<.001.

Concerning the effect of sentencing, the second experimental factor, we first exam- ined the traffic aggression and pedestrian crash conditions. We expected people to feel more empathy with the vigilante if his victim, the precipitating offender, was previously acquitted than if he was sentenced. We found a main effect for sentencing (see Table 4). Post-hoc analyses reveal that indeed the highest level of empathy, which was found in the acquittal condition, differs significantly (p<.001) from each of the other three sentencing conditions. A difference in empathy in the expected direction was also found between the lenient and severe sentence conditions (p<.001), although it is not particularly large. Differences between the other sentencing levels were not signifi- cant, so our expectations were only partially confirmed. In the sex offense conditions, differences between the two sentence levels (lenient and severe) were not significant, t(405)0.99, p0.33. The level of empathy with the vigilante was high in both conditions, independent of the sentence level.

We next tested the confidence proposition by conducting a regression analysis on empathy with the vigilante (see Table 6).

As expected, confidence in the criminal justice system had a substantive negative impact on empathy. The sheaf coefficients reveal again that the situational factors (.42) have a larger influence on empathy with the vigilante than confidence (.26).

Desired punishment for vigilante

The type of precipitating crime also had a substantial impact on our third support measure: desired punishment. We expected that respondents would be least inclined towards punishing the vigilante if his victim was a sex offender, and most likely to find punishment necessary in the conditions where the vigilante assaulted the traffic aggression offender. Our findings match this expectation (see Table 2), and post-hoc analyses reveal all differences between the conditions to be significant at p<.001.

Concerning the second experimental factor (sentence level), we found a similar pattern as before for the two traffic offense conditions. As expected, punishment desire

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 403

was lowest for the vigilante who victimized someone who had been acquitted by a judge, in comparison to conditions where someone had been sentenced (see Table 3). The difference in desired punishment between the traffic aggression and pedestrian crash conditions was significant overall, F(3, 743)06.46, p<.001, but only between acquittal and the other three sentencing types (all p<.01). Our expectations were thereby partially confirmed, although it should be noted that the effects of sentencing that we did find are not particularly large. Within the sex offense conditions, desired punishment for the vigilante did not differ between the two sentence levels, t(405)0− 1.56, p0.12.

Table 7 shows the outcome of our regression analysis on desired punishment. As predicted, higher confidence is related to a stronger call for vigilante punishment. Lastly, the sheaf coefficients reveal that the combined effect of the experimental conditions (.36) on desired punishment is larger than that of confidence (.29).

Conclusions

Our findings reveal that public support for vigilantism is not necessarily rooted in a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system: characteristics of the vigilantism situation have a substantive and independent influence. When the public expresses support for those who take the law into their own hands, this is not necessarily a sign that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system is in jeopardy.

In line with the situation proposition, both experimental factors affected the three measures of support for vigilantism (empathy, outrage and desired punishment). Situa- tional characteristics thus affect how people judge an act of vigilantism. Especially the type of precipitating crime had a strong impact. Empathy was for instance higher with the vigilante who attacked a sex offender than with the two vigilantes who assaulted traffic offenders. Punishment desire for the vigilante who attacked the sex offender was also relatively low in comparison to the other vigilantes. Regarding the sentencing manipu- lation, (small) differences in support were mainly found when comparing the acquittal condition to the other three sentence levels. Outrage at vigilantism was for instance lowest when the precipitating offender had previously been acquitted by a judge. However, in the conditions where he had been sentenced, the particular level of the sentence did not affect the various measures of support. Respondents were thus mostly influenced by whether the precipitating offender had been acquitted or sentenced before becoming a victim of vigilantism, and not necessarily by the sentence level. This adds an interesting dimension to current debates about public punitiveness; perhaps citizens are more concerned with cases of acquittal than with overly lenient sentencing. This may nonetheless be due to the fact that the acquittal in the current study was the result of a mistake in the summons, as opposed to a ‘normal’ type of acquittal.

Within the sex offense conditions, the sentence did not have any impact at all on the three measures of support. Whether the sex offender received a lenient or a severe sentence did not affect people’s reactions to the subsequent act of vigilantism against him. One explanation for this finding is the lack of an acquittal condition for the sex offense: it was precisely in this condition that differences were found for the three measures of support in comparison to the other sentence levels. Another possibility is

404 N.E. Haas et al.

that the particular nature of the crime (child molestation) caused people to be more supportive of vigilantism regardless of the level at which the sex offender was sentenced. The average ratings of outrage and punishment desire were indeed lower in the two sex offense conditions, and the level of empathy with the vigilante higher, than in all of the traffic offense conditions.

We also found evidence for the confidence proposition. Confidence in the criminal justice system affected all three measures of support for vigilantism. Respondents with a higher level of confidence were more outraged at the act of vigilantism, felt less empathy with the vigilante, and had a stronger desire for punishment of the vigilante. Confidence in the criminal justice system therefore does provide a partial explanation for support for vigilantism.

Using sheaf coefficients, we examined the relative impact of the experimental factors (i.e., situational characteristics) and confidence. These analyses revealed that all three measures of support for vigilantism were affected more by the situational characteristics than by levels of confidence. This implies that when people judge an act of vigilantism, they are reacting mainly to situational features.

Discussion

Before a further discussion of implications and suggestions for future research, there are a few methodological matters to be addressed. Firstly, there were differences between the vignettes that were not directly related to the experimental manipulation. For instance, the victims of the pedestrian crash and sexual offense were 9-year-old girls, while the traffic aggression victim was an adult male. Likewise, the vigilante in the former two cases was the father of the girl victim, while in the latter case it was the victim himself who assaulted the precipitating offender. These differences may have affected people’s responses to the vignettes in addition to the impact of the two experimental manipulations. Our main conclusion, namely that situational factors have a considerable influence on support for vigilantism, is nonetheless not affected by this.

Our respondents were not confronted with real crime victims. Nevertheless, previous research has shown that the actual presence of a victim is not necessary to induce emotional reactions; mental images of a victim are sufficient (cf. Hoffman 1990). Moreover, real-life situations of vigilantism are not that different from the one in our study: people read newspaper articles about vigilantism and form their opinion accordingly. The realistic appearance of our news articles adds to the external validity of our results. Interestingly, in a space that was provided for extra remarks, some of the respondents expressed having difficulty in deciding to what extent the offenders deserved punishment because they had too little information. This suggests that it may be easy for citizens to complain about the severity of a formal sentence as described in a newspaper, but that coming up with one’s own judgment is something else (cf. De Keijser et al. 2007).

We found considerable differences between the three measures of support. The fact that people empathize with a vigilante does not automatically imply that they believe he should remain unpunished. Citizens seem much more nuanced in their judgments than is often assumed. This is in line with recent findings regarding the impact of

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 405

methodology on sentencing attitudes. General survey questions result in a different and usually more punitive response than (multiple-item) measures related to specific case studies (cf. Cullen et al. 2000; De Keijser and Elffers 2009; Hutton 2005; St Amand and Zamble 2001). In the measurement of support for vigilantism it is therefore important to discriminate between its different forms, to use multiple-item measures and to provide people with concrete cases and sufficient information.

The social justice literature tends to focus on explaining attitudes toward those who are either victims or offenders (e.g., Carlsmith et al. 2002). The current findings reveal that this theoretical framework is also relevant for predicting public judgments of situations where the roles of victims and offenders are less clear-cut. In many cases of vigilantism, offenders become victims and vice versa. Understanding the psychological mechanism behind public judgments of such situations is particu- larly interesting, as the real life distinction between victims and offenders outside of the vigilantism domain is often ambiguous too (e.g., Luckenbill 1977). The current methodology, combined with insights from the social justice literature, may for instance be applied to understand jury nullifications in trials of murder following prolonged domestic abuse (cf. Herzog 2006; Schuller and Hastings 1996).

The focus of the current study was on examining the absolute and relative impact of confidence and situational characteristics on support for vigilantism. We therefore did not evaluate the possible influence of other factors such as cultural norms, social character- istics, political context and personal attitudes aside from confidence. In future studies it might be worthwhile to empirically asses the role of such factors. We recognize that the relatively low level of support for vigilantism in our study may be due to the relatively well-functioning criminal justice system in the Netherlands. We therefore recommend a replication of our study in countries or regions where citizens cannot rely (as much) on the state to deal with crime. Likewise, it would be interesting to study the role of individual factors that have been empirically linked to punitiveness, such as authoritar- ianism and attributions of crime (Alicke 1992; Goldberg et al. 1999; Lodewijkx et al. 2001; Peterson et al. 1993). How respondents view goals of punishment may also play a role. If someone attaches particular value to deterrence, rather than retribution, this might change his or her view of a retribution-driven act of vigilantism.

In our study two situational characteristics were varied to measure their impact on support for vigilantism. Naturally, this research can be extended by varying other aspects related to the context. We varied the role of judges in response to the precipitating crime, but it would be worthwhile exploring the impact of other criminal justice agencies. Another study that we conducted on this topic (Haas 2010) shows this to be a promising approach, as we found police responsiveness to the precipitat- ing crime to also affect support for vigilantism.

Given that situational factors were found to be important determinants of support for vigilantism in our study, they may also help to explain the occurrence of vigilantism. This topic has received comparatively little attention in the empirical literature, even though some authors have identified a number of conditions that may induce vigilantism (Adinkrah 2005; Shotland 1976; Weisburd 1998). We would argue that vigilantes, just like those supporting vigilantism, are probably motivated by situational aspects in addition to a possible lack (or low level) of confidence in the

406 N.E. Haas et al.

criminal justice system. Likewise, the situation-specific reactions of the authorities to the precipitating crime are likely to play an important role in the events leading up to an act of vigilantism. Even if someone generally has a high level of confidence in the criminal justice system, he may resort to vigilantism when he perceives the authorities to have failed in a particular crime situation. In order to prevent vigilantism, the criminal justice authorities may be advised to put substantial effort into explaining their response to a precipitating crime, or lack thereof, to those involved. Using the experimental methodology that was employed in the current study, specific factors affecting people’s motivation to take the law into their own hands can be examined.

Most Western jurisdictions have abolished corporal punishment and the death penalty. In other words, when a vigilante physically assaults an offender, he accomplishes a type of punishment which cannot be realized through the criminal justice system. This feature of vigilantism may be appealing to some. Especially in response to a heinous crime, people may prefer for an offender to be punished corporally rather than through a prison sentence or community service. Sentiments such as ‘eye for an eye’ may play a role here: if an offender used violence against his victim, some might find that he should suffer a similar form of violence as a punishment, and not ‘get away’ with a nonviolent sentence. Such emotions are interesting to explore in future research on support for vigilantism. Similarly, we wonder what would happen if a vigilante does accomplish a type of ‘sentence’ that could be the outcome of a regular criminal justice procedure, such as compensation for the victim of the precipitating crime. Would it then still matter that the procedure is illegitimate, or would the outcome be dominant in determining public response? Research from the United States on death through capital punishment versus death through vigilantism (Skitka and Houston 2001) suggests that in such cases the outcome may matter more than the procedure.

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.

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.

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 407

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

408 N.E. Haas et al.

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 (α0.86, mean04.01, SD01.42) (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 (α0.84, mean03.62, SD01.39)

(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 (α0.88, mean05.01, SD01.60)

(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 (α0.96, mean04.30, SD0.82) (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

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 409

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 pro- tected 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.

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.

410 N.E. Haas et al.

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 character- ological 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.

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 411

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/topical

bumbackground/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. Com- parative 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.

412 N.E. Haas et al.

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 Criminol-

ogy, 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.

Nicole Haas received her PhD in criminology from Leiden University. She carried out her PhD and post- doctoral research at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR). As of April 1st she will conduct research in Buenos Aires, Argentina on public attitudes toward crime and police.

Jan de Keijser is associate professor in criminology at Leiden University. His work centers on public opinion on crime and punishment and on sentencing research.

Gerben Bruinsma is director of the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) and professor of environmental criminology at VU University Amsterdam. His research interests include theory, history of (geographic) criminology, juvenile delinquency and socio-spatial causes of crime.

Public support for vigilantism: an experimental study 413

Copyright of Journal of Experimental Criminology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.