Evaluating the Severity of Sanctions for Violations of Emergency Regulations: Rule-Related Predictors of Punitive Attitudes.

Abstract

In this research, we examine the determinants of citizens' beliefs about the severity of criminal and administrative sanctions attached to violations of COVID-19 mitigation laws in Russia, as well as extrajudicial sanctions employed in other parts of the world. Although criminological research has identified many predictors of punitive attitudes toward traditional criminal offenses, less is known about how citizens evaluate punishments for violations of newly introduced rules adopted under emergency conditions. The key explanatory variables in our study include beliefs in attribution of human behavior, self-commitment to compliance with COVID-19 mandates, trust in government, and the fear of COVID-19 infection. Data for the study come from 508 respondents from St. Petersburg, Russia's second-largest city, who participated in an online survey during the first wave of the pandemic in May 2020. Findings suggest that citizens who believe in the free-will explanations of human nature and those who are more likely to comply with pandemic-mitigating laws feel that the punishments imposed for violating the pandemic-related laws were not severe enough. Additionally, those who trust the government's effectiveness and integrity in controlling COVID-19 are more punitive, a finding contrary to crime-related punitiveness research. Together, these findings indicate that support for sanctioning pandemic-related violations is closely tied to rule-related evaluations, including responsibility attribution, institutional trust, and personal commitment to compliance. The study contributes to criminological research by showing that established explanations of punitive attitudes may operate differently when applied to newly institutionalized crisis rules.