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

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.

Plain Language Summary

How People Judge Punishments for Breaking Emergency Rules

This study looks at how people decide whether punishments for breaking COVID-19 rules are too harsh or not harsh enough. We focus on people in Russia and examine both formal punishments, such as fines or legal penalties, and informal responses seen in other countries. Past research has identified many factors that shape opinions about punishment for traditional crimes, however, we know less about how people judge punishments for new rules introduced during emergencies like the pandemic. In this study, we focus on several key factors: whether people believe individuals are responsible for their actions, how willing they are to follow COVID-19 rules themselves, how much they trust the government, and how worried they are about getting infected. The study is based on an online survey of 508 people in St. Petersburg, conducted during the first wave of the pandemic in May 2020. The findings show that people who believe individuals have control over their actions, and those who are more willing to follow COVID-19 rules themselves, are more likely to think that punishments were not strict enough. We also find that people who trust the government to manage the pandemic tend to support stronger punishments. This is different from what we usually see in studies of crime, where higher trust in government is often linked to less support for harsh punishment. Overall, the results suggest that support for punishing pandemic-related rule-breaking is closely tied to how people think about responsibility, their trust in institutions, and their own commitment to following the rules. The study shows that ideas we use to explain attitudes toward punishment may work differently when applied to new rules created during a crisis.