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