RT Article T1 Entrapment allegations in right-wing terrorism cases: A mixed-methods analysis JF International journal of law, crime and justice VO 53 SP 77 OP 88 A1 Norris, Jesse J. A1 Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna LA English YR 2018 UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1682251241 AB 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. K1 Civil liberties K1 Counterterrorism K1 Entrapment K1 Right-wing terrorism K1 Sting operations DO 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.03.009