Americans would give political opponents four extra months in jail and are more likely to free their allies following acts of political violence, research suggests.
The study, led by Dr Joseph Phillips of Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre, is the first to explore what factors influence people's views on the punishment of political violence.
The two nationally representative surveys with American citizens presented a nearly identical hypothetical scenario: that there was a protest in their state's capital city that descended into violence between protesters and counter-protesters, leading to numerous arrests.
Respondents evaluated multiple randomly generated profiles of alleged political violence perpetrators in a hypothetical protest gone wrong, with varying characteristics – including their crime, whether they were a Republican, Independent or Democrat, as well as their age, ethnicity, gender, occupation, marital status, parental status, and whether they were resident in the city or state in which the protest took place.
In the single-profile experiment, participants were presented with a single perpetrator at a time, with five perpetrators in total. For each perpetrator, they had to apply a legal sanction in the event they are found guilty and indicate, on a six-point scale, how likely it was the perpetrator was performing the act for a good cause.
In the double-profile experiment, participants were presented with two perpetrators, seven pairs in total, and had to decide which perpetrator they would let walk free without charge.
Dr Phillips said: "Our analysis of these experiments shows that Americans from both sides of the political spectrum take political violence seriously and want to punish it, especially as the act becomes more severe. Acts that threaten lives or irrevocably destroy property receive near-unanimous sanction.
Despite this, our research shows political views of the perpetrator play a clear role in shaping the sanctions people seek to give. Partisans, particularly those with more polarised views, are more likely to condemn and recommend harsher sanctions for their partisan opponents compared with non-partisan or co-partisan perpetrators.
"When respondents had to choose who to let free, they were 6% points more likely to let go of an in-partisan individual than an out-partisan. When they could freely choose a sanction, out-partisans were 2.4% points more likely to be incarcerated and received four extra months in jail than in-partisans.
"However, double standards factor much more into judgments of sympathy than of actual leniency. Given the option, most respondents wanted to incarcerate political violence perpetrators. Lacking the option to punish both perpetrators, many expressed a desire to do so. This suggests that despite their sympathies, Americans believe that acts of political violence are not acceptable."
When Push Comes to Shove: How Americans Excuse and Condemn Political Violence , is published in the journal Political Behaviour.
