Entrapment allegations in right-wing terrorism cases: A mixed-methods analysis
Entrapment allegations have been widespread in post-9/11 US terrorism prosecutions, but existing research focuses almost exclusively on neojihadi and left-wing prosecutions. It is thus unclear whether entrapment is also prevalent in right-wing terrorism cases. This article employs a mixed-method app...
| Autores principales: | ; |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2018
|
| En: |
International journal of law, crime and justice
Año: 2018, Volumen: 53, Páginas: 77-88 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | Entrapment allegations have been widespread in post-9/11 US terrorism prosecutions, but existing research focuses almost exclusively on neojihadi and left-wing prosecutions. It is thus unclear whether entrapment is also prevalent in right-wing terrorism cases. This article employs a mixed-method approach to analyze entrapment claims in right-wing terrorism cases. Quantitative analyses of a database of post-9/11 terrorism prosecutions show that right-wing cases have significantly fewer entrapment indicators than neojihadi and left-wing terrorism cases, and are far less likely to have particularly high entrapment scores. Detailed qualitative analyses of five right-wing terrorism investigations reveal that four cases feature potentially strong entrapment claims. However, a comparative analysis finds that these claims are significantly weaker than those in many neojihadi and left-wing cases. We theorize that micro-, meso- and macro-level mechanisms enabled the occasional emergence, but far lower prevalence and strength, of viable entrapment claims in right-wing terrorism investigations. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1756-0616 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.03.009 |
