Assessing Public Opinion Regarding Appropriate Responses to Would-be Mass Shooters: Applying a Balanced Justice Framework

Abstract

The unpredictable and widespread threat of mass shootings make them a concern that could affect anyone, anywhere. As such, being able to interrupt the process of planning and conducting a mass shooting represents a matter of public safety. Willingness to report, particularly on loved ones or associates, ultimately requires the public to be supportive of the interventions they think will be applied. In this study, we analyzed responses to an online “opt-in” survey (n = 274) that measured public opinion regarding how punitive (or therapeutic) the public at large suppose the sanctions for planning (but not [yet] conducting) a mass shooting should be. Our findings suggest the public is supportive of a balanced justice approach for both juveniles and adults, with and without mental illness, who plan a mass shooting when given the option.

Keywords

mass shooting threat assessment balanced justice public opinion pathways to intended violence

Introduction

Mass shootings are a profound social problem that extends well beyond the victims, offenders, and their families and friends. In addition to injuries, death, and loss suffered by those directly involved, mass shootings inflict vicarious trauma and fear of crime on the public at large (Lowe & Galea, 2017). Students, shoppers, concert- and festivalgoers, religious service attendees, and virtually anyone else could be a victim of a mass shooting. Reporting and social media posts after a 2023 school shooting at Michigan State University identified several students for whom the current shooting was not the first mass shooting that they had experienced first-hand (Bosman et al., 2023; Halpert, 2023). Schools regularly practice “active shooter drills” and law enforcement trains for mass shooting events. The frequency with which mass shootings occur makes mass shootings a regularity in the United Sates. The resulting public discourse casts mass shootings as ubiquitous, yet unpredictable. This is largely because predicting who may plan or conduct a mass shooting has proven challenging.

The pathways to intended violence framework points out that almost all mass shooters exhibit a pattern of alarming and risky behaviors prior to conducting mass shootings (Abel et al., 2022; Peterson et al., 2023; Silver & Silva, 2022). These include creating and viewing online screeds or manifestos, collecting weapons, and expressing right-wing, racist, sexist, or otherwise xenophobic ideologies. At the same time, most people who do such behaviors do not end up committing mass shootings. In other words, the pathway to violence is easily identified in hindsight, but significantly more complicated to predict beforehand. Additionally, research exploring the willingness of people who identify pathway behaviors to report them is inconsistent and focused on students. Sulkowski (2011) found almost 70% of college students were “at least somewhat willing” to report hypothetical threatening behaviors. Hollister et al. (2017) found student willingness to report rates as low as 48% regarding hypothetical threatening behavior. Findings are different for actualized threatening behaviors, however.

For instance, Hollister and colleagues (2014) found that 65 % of college students who had observed threatening behaviors (in real life) on their campus were unwilling to report. Subsequent studies suggest rates closer to 87% of college students are unwilling to report witnessing threatening behaviors (Hodges et al., 2016; Hollister et al., 2017). What these studies agree on is that factors outside the event itself influence the willingness to report, including campus connectedness (Sulkowski, 2011), feelings toward authorities (Hollister et al., 2014), and awareness of campus resources (Hodges et al., 2016). Analyzing how the public reacts to planning behaviors associated with mass shootings is therefore of key importance in understanding and preventing mass violence both in schools and outside of them (Haner et al., 2022; Schutten et al., 2022). Additionally, public opinions about how planning behaviors should be managed by the criminal justice system can help clarify the links between identifying pathway behaviors (i.e., planning a mass shooting) and reporting such behaviors to authorities.

This study draws on online surveys (n = 274) that assessed public opinion on the appropriate criminal justice sanctions that should be applied to defendants who had planned (but not committed) a mass shooting. We analyze the relative roles of offender age and mental health status in shaping public opinion about how defendants in such cases should be treated: through punishment, rehabilitation, or a balanced mix of both (i.e., “balanced justice; Maloney et al., 1988”). Our findings have import in further understanding how the public views mental health needs in relation to planned mass shootings. Given the need for public participation with law enforcement to “see something, say something,” it is imperative that the public feels that the situation will be handled effectively and fairly by the criminal justice system. This study therefore builds on a small but growing body of research focused on understanding the nuance of public perceptions of the handling of defendants who plan mass shootings but are discovered before an actual shooting has occurred.

Literature Review

Mass shootings have been identified as a growing threat to public safety that is both “rare” and “routine” (Peterson & Densley, 2019, p. 4). Mass shootings peaked in the 1980s/90s, but mass public shootings (i.e., random victims, no underlying crime) have been increasing over the last decade or so (Duwe, 2020). The indiscriminate nature of such crimes generates three major challenges to preventing mass public shootings (Peterson and Densley, 2021). First, mass shooters often display behaviors that suggest the possibility they may be planning a mass shooting, although not all of them do (Silver & Silva, 2022). Second, people who witness such behaviors are often reluctant to report their concerns to authorities (Sulkowski, 2011; Hollister et al., 2014), particularly if they mistrust the police or are unsure how the criminal justice system will respond to their report (Peterson et al., 2023). Third, mental health issues are bound to mass shootings in the public discourse, but the relationship between mental health and the criminal justice response to those who plan, conduct, and complete mass public shootings remains loosely understood (Skeem & Mulvey, 2020).

Pathways to Intended Violence

Research has identified a typology of eight warning behaviors that are predictive of future mass violence. These include three behaviors that are internally oriented and potentially innocuous, such as researching or imagining an attack, fixation on a charismatic person or perceived just cause, self-identification as a paramilitary crusader, and expressing support for previous shooters. Five additional externalizing behaviors include novel acts of violence, uncharacteristic “bursts” of activity, leaking information about a plan to a third party, indicating verbally, textually, or behaviorally that the potential shooter is running out of alternatives to a mass shooting, and the direct communication of a plan to conduct a mass shooting to prospective victims or police (Meloy et al., 2012, p. 265). Social media posts play an important role across these behaviors by providing both a source for inspiration (Peterson et al., 2023) as well as an outlet for expression of their own approval or desire to conduct a mass shooting (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019).

A sequence of pathway behavior types and experiences associated with mass shootings has also been identified in a sample of mass shooting cases where 12 or more victims were killed (Silver & Silva, 2022). First come stressors such as family, school, or work problems. After stressors come antisocial behaviors like aggression, isolation, and idealization or commission of violence. At this point in the sequence two outcomes¹ may occur: therapeutic treatment and/or suicide. If these are unsuccessful or do not happen, planning and preparations for the shooting itself may ensue. This sequence of pathway behavior types offers insight into developing opportunities to intervene and underscores the planning phase as perhaps the last chance for intervention. But to capitalize effectively on those opportunities requires an interdisciplinary approach that includes communities, schools, and families (Abel et al., 2022, p. 807). This is particularly important because social isolation has been identified in social network analysis to be central in the progression toward a mass shooting (West & Thomson, 2023).

Researchers have also begun to explore cases where mass shootings were planned or intended, but not successfully completed. For instance, Silva and Greene-Colozzi (2022) analyzed 14 cases that they labeled failed mass shootings, where the shooter “successfully made it to the arrival stage of the attack” but was unable to kill or injure anyone (p. 372). Eleven of their fourteen would-be shooters had conducted either high or low levels of planning prior to the event. Lower levels of planning involved recent gun allocation, single gun use, and a planning span of just a few days. Higher levels of planning involved reconnaissance, additional weapons, and protective gear. Importantly for the pathways to intended violence framework, 12 of the 14 would-be shooters did not “leak” any indication of their plans prior to initiating them (p. 378). Preventing mass shootings ultimately requires the interruption of the pathway to intended violence before plans can be put into action (i.e., failed mass shootings) or intervention after the arrival phase, but before injuries can be incurred (i.e., foiled mass shootings; Silva, 2022).

The importance of interrupting the pathway to intended violence is underscored by Silva’s (2022) finding that only 6% of their 546 identified mass shooting outcomes (p. 1,502) were classified as failed attempts, where the would-be shooter arrived at the target site, but was unable to inflict any casualties. What that means is if a shooter arrives at a target, at least one injury or death is likely. Accordingly, the most common outcome Silva identified were “attempted” mass shootings, meaning the shooter arrived and initiated an attack, but was unable to effect four or more casualties. On the other hand, the second-most common outcome were “foiled” shootings, where the would-be shooter was interrupted or apprehended prior to the arrival stage, allowing for no casualties. In a recent study of 194 foiled or “thwarted” mass shootings, Rocque and colleagues (2022) found that over half of their thwarted cases were reported by people close to the would-be shooter. Taken together, these studies suggest that continued research into what we refer to as “planned” mass shootings is warranted.

Mental Health and Mass Shootings

One of the most common public reactions in the wake of a mass shooting is to blame mental health issues (e.g., the shooter suffered from a mental health problem), and the mental health provision system (e.g., the system failed to treat the problem), but research reviews suggest the relationship is far from direct. The term “mental health” itself is often loosely defined in public settings, and often diagnosed differently by different clinicians. Mass shootings are also rare events despite their promulgation in the media, and the risk factors for conducting a mass shooting extend across mental health diagnoses (Skeem & Mulvey, 2020). Flawed perceptions of masculinity and feelings of failure as a man also play important but often overlooked roles in mass shootings, which are almost exclusively committed by men (Follman et al., 2019; Fox and Levin, 2017). Social isolation overlaps considerably across mental health diagnoses and like masculinity affects people with and without diagnoses or symptoms of mental health problems (West & Thomson, 2023).

Research on pathway behaviors to mass shootings and mental health often recommend that law enforcement agencies or social service institutions implement formal threat assessment procedures once potential shooters have been “red-flagged.” Still, the ability of authorities to become aware of potential threats at all depends heavily on families, friends, and associates such as teachers and coworkers to report the behaviors of people they know and may be reluctant to perceive as truly dangerous. As such, the public’s willingness to both “see something” and “say something” is a central concern for preventing mass shootings. To do this effectively, the public must be able to identify legitimately threatening behaviors (i.e., see something), and willing to report their concerns to people who can help (i.e., say something). Social isolation and mental health issues complicate this process and may make some members of the public reluctant to report concerning behavior to police for fear of punitive measures being taken out on a vulnerable person who, at least by then, had yet to engage in any illegal behavior. As such, it is important to understand public opinion about would-be mass shooters, particularly regarding their mental health status (Schutten et al., 2022).

Langman (2020) divided mental illness related to mass shootings into three types. Psychopathic shooters are characterized by narcissism, entitlement, and callousness. Psychotic shooters are characterized by symptoms commonly associated with schizophrenia, including hallucinations and paranoid thinking. Traumatized shooters, as opposed to the other two types, come from relatively dysfunctional homes characterized by drug use, physical abuse, and crime. Langman (2020) notes that the typologies are not mutually exclusive, but by typologizing mental illness associated with mass shootings beyond the vague concept of “mental health issues” represents an important step forward for research in this area. Data limitations in the current study did not allow for analysis of the relative roles of different types of mental health issues in public opinion regarding the handling of would-be mass shooters. The varied symptoms and processes that link psychopathy, psychosis, and childhood trauma with mass shootings likely individually shape public perceptions of blameworthiness for crime and deservedness of punishment, although this also remains an open question worthy of research.

Public Opinion and Balanced Justice

Public opinion is central to the development of criminal justice policy (Cullen et al., 2000). Contrary to “tough on crime” narratives that often dominate political endeavors and media reports, the American public tends to be supportive of treatment and rehabilitation for offenders (Burton et al., 2021). The relationship between policy and public opinion has been described as “thermostatic” where policy is shaped by public sentiment, and public sentiment evolves in response to policy change and outcomes (Pickett, 2019). Findings from one recent survey suggest that public opinion skews toward punitiveness for anyone who plans, attempts, or completes a mass public shooting at a school (Schutten et al., 2022). In subsequent analysis Schutten and colleagues uncovered some nuance regarding sentencing and rehabilitation. More serious outcomes of a mass shooting (e.g., injury or death) were associated with less belief in rehabilitation (see Table 4, p. 263), and higher ages and levels of severity were associated with endorsements of more punitive sentences (see Table 5, p. 264).

Much of this research dichotomizes the outcomes measured in public opinion into punitive and therapeutic or “inclusionary” categories (Burton et al., 2020). Violent crime is commonly perceived as the dividing line between public endorsement for punishment and rehabilitation (Cullen et al., 2000). However, offering a third option that combines punishment and rehabilitation may more accurately capture public opinion regarding violent offenders. For instance, people who believe that offenders can change tend to endorse “specific policies that would foster the inclusion, rather than the exclusion” of people convicted of crimes (e.g., reduced prison sentences; Burton et al., 2020, p. 729). In other words, it is possible that the public in the United States would support some third form of justice that blends punitiveness and rehabilitation opportunities for violent offenders. We define that third option as “balanced justice” which constitutes a blended sentencing schema that includes aspects of both punishment and reform.

Maloney et al. (1988) first developed the idea of a “balanced approach to justice” through their work with juvenile probation. Since then, support for balanced justice has been associated with public opinion regarding juvenile justice outcomes (Mears et al., 2015), drug offenders (Sloas & Atkin-Plunk, 2019), and justice-involved veterans (Atkin-Plunk & Sloas, 2019). Importantly for the current work, balanced justice has also been found to account for public opinion on sanctioning of violent offenders (Atkin-Plunk, 2020), as well as offenders with mental health issues (Sloas & Larrea, 2023). Taken together, these findings offer a framework for understanding the current period of transition in public opinion described by Burton and colleagues (2020, p. 713) and others (e.g., Pickett, 2019).

However, gaps remain in the growing body of research on balanced justice. First, university student samples are commonly used to measure endorsements for balanced justice, limiting generalizability (Mears et al., 2015, Sloas & Larrea, 2023). To address this gap, we deploy an opt-in survey sampling procedure that generated a nationally representative measure of public opinion. Second, studies of balanced justice to date have referred to “offenders” in general terms, perhaps dichotomizing into violent and non-violent offenders (Atkin-Plunk, 2020). To address this gap, we measure public opinion on sanctions associated with a specific crime, and one that resonates strongly in public opinion: mass shootings.

Methods

In the current study, we examine public opinions about sanctioning approaches for individuals who plan a mass shooting, while manipulating the age of the would-be shooter and their mental health status. The following research questions guide the current study.

Research question 1: To what extent do respondents support a balanced justice approach to sanctioning juvenile and adults, with and without a mental illness, who plan a mass shooting?

Research question 2: To what extent do respondents’ underlying beliefs regarding treatment and reform as well as demographic characteristics relate to sanctioning preferences for juveniles and adults, with or without a mental illness, who plan a mass shooting?

Data and Methods

The study uses opt-in survey data gathered from Lucid Theorem (Coppock & McClellan, 2019). Recently, the use of opt-in surveys has gained much notoriety in the field of criminal justice to move beyond traditional surveys (Drakulich & Denver, 2022; Graham et al., 2021). Opt-in surveys have many advantages over traditional surveys (i.e., pencil and paper, email, telephone), including higher quality self-reports from respondents (Chang & Krosnick, 2010) and can be completed in a relatively shorter time with less cost (Graham et al., 2021). Lucid Theorem uses quota sampling to match demographic characteristics from the U.S. Census such as age, gender, ethnicity, and region. Once a survey is designed in Qualtrics, respondents are selected to partake in the study. For example, Lucid partners with vendors such as My Points and AdGate Media who distribute the survey to respondents (Wu, 2023). Survey respondents are then compensated with $1 per survey completion. Data collection is completed within 48 hours of survey launch.

At the end of data collection, 274 respondents completed surveys that mirrored the demographic make-up of the U.S. For example, respondents for the current study were collected using quotas based on age, gender, race, income, and political preference. To ensure data quality, an attention check question was used in the study. Lucid’s approach is that when a respondent fails an attention check question, they are terminated from moving further. The attention check question for this study did not require any memorization from respondents. Table 1 shows the demographic make-up of survey respondents. For example, 47.8% of respondents were male, White (68.1%), with an average age of 44.85.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 276).

Variables	n	%	Mean	SD	Range
DV (juvenile mental illness)
Punishment	52	18.8
Balanced approach	157	56.9
Rehabilitation	67	24.3
DV (juvenile no mental illness)
Punishment	169	61.7
Balanced approach	84	30.7
Rehabilitation	21	7.7
DV (adult mental illness)
Punishment	75	27.2
Balanced approach	155	56.2
Rehabilitation	46	16.7
DV (adult no mental illness)
Punishment	179	65.3
Balanced approach	74	27.0
Rehabilitation	21	7.7
IV’s (juvenile mental illness)
Current treatments are effective	275		2.94	1.217	1–6
Successful reform is possible	276		2.87	0.888	1–5
Offenders are willing to work to reform	276		2.82	0.874	1–5
Offenders deserve treatment	276		3.63	1.191	1–5
IV’s (juvenile no mental illness)
Current treatments are effective	275		2.75	1.295	1–6
Successful reform is possible	275		2.68	0.959	1–5
Offenders are willing to work to reform	276		2.65	0.947	1–5
Offenders deserve treatment	274		3.04	1.302	1–5
IV’s (adult mental illness)
Current treatments are effective	275		2.98	1.304	1–6
Successful reform is possible	276		2.78	0.930	1–5
Offenders are willing to work to reform	275		2.82	0.930	1–5
Offenders deserve treatment	273		3.57	1.168	1–5
IV’s (adult no mental illness)
Current treatments are effective	273		2.71	1.375	1–6
Successful reform is possible	273		2.54	0.959	1–5
Offenders are willing to work to reform	274		2.60	1.027	1–5
Offenders deserve treatment	275		2.85	1.359	1–5
Controls
White	276	68.1
Male	276	47.8
Age	276		44.85	17.612	18–84
Income (<$49,999)	276	51.5
Conservative	276	22.5
Religiosity	276		3	1.428	1–5

Notes. DV = dependent variable; IV = independent variable.

Dependent Variables

Two primary dependent variables were assessed in the current study: support for balanced justice for juveniles with or without mental illness who plan a mass shooting and support for balanced justice for adults with or without mental illness who plan a mass shooting. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions toward sanctioning juveniles and adults with or without mental illness who plan a mass shooting: “Should punishment or rehabilitation be the goal of sentences for juveniles and adults with or without mental illness who plan a mass shooting?” The response options were coded: 1 = only punishment; 2 = mostly punishment; 3 = both equally; 4 = mostly rehabilitation; and 5 = only rehabilitation. For the analyses, we combined the response options into the following: 1 = only or mostly punishment, 2 = balanced justice, 3 = only or mostly rehabilitation. This allows us to examine support for punishment and rehabilitation as compared to balanced justice.

Independent Variables

We use four measures that are similar to prior studies and coincide, in part, with the formulation of balanced justice (see e.g., Mears et al., 2015; Sloas & Atkin-Plunk, 2019; Atkin-Plunk & Sloas, 2019; Atkin-Plunk, 2020). Respondents were asked to describe their perceptions of (1) the effectiveness of current treatment programs, (2) the ability of juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting to be rehabilitated, (3) whether juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting are willing to work toward being rehabilitated, and (4) whether juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting deserve access to rehabilitation services. Respondents were asked their perceptions regarding juveniles and adults separately.

Current Treatments are Effective

To capture this dimension, respondents were asked, “How ineffective or effective do you think current rehabilitation programs are at rehabilitating juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting?” The response options were coded: 1 = very ineffective; 2 = ineffective; 3 = somewhat ineffective; 4 = somewhat effective; 5 = effective; and 6 = very effective. Higher scores indicate a greater perception of treatment effectiveness for juveniles and adults.

Successful Reform is Possible

The survey items asked respondents: “How often is it possible to rehabilitate juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting?” The response options were coded: 1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = most of the time; and 5 = all of the time. Higher scores indicate a greater perception of juveniles and adults’ possibility of being rehabilitated.

Willing to Work to Reform

To capture this dimension, respondents were asked, “Now thinking in terms of cooperation with treatment professionals, how often are juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting willing to work toward being rehabilitated?” The response options were coded: 1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = most of the time; and 5 = all of the time. Higher scores indicate a greater perception of the willingness of juveniles and adults to work toward rehabilitation.

Deserve Treatment

The survey item asked respondents: “Do juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting deserve to be provided with access to rehabilitation programs?” The items were coded: 1 = definitely not; 2 = probably not; 3 = possibly; 4 = probably; and 5 = definitely. Higher scores indicate the belief that juveniles and adults deserve access to rehabilitation programs.

Control Variables

The analyses control for predictors of punitive attitudes supported by prior scholarship (Thielo et al., 2021). These controls include race (1 = white, 0 = other); sex (1 = female; 0 = male); age in years; household income (0 = <$49,999; 1 = $50,000+); and political preference, including liberal, moderate, and conservative (1 = yes; no = 0), with liberal as the reference group.

We coded household income as 0 = <$49,999; 1 = $50,000+. Researchers have found socioeconomic status (SES) to relate to punitive beliefs, where those with a higher SES are more likely to hold punitive beliefs compared to those with a lower SES (Redford & Ratliff, 2018). Research suggests various reasons for this, including those with a higher SES being less cognizant of the inequalities inherent in the criminal justice system and that the economically secure have a greater interest in the social order, which translates to more punitive beliefs (Redford & Ratliff, 2017).

Respondents’ belief in religiosity is also assessed as it has been established in prior scholarship as a correlate of punitive attitudes (see, e.g., Applegate et al., 2009). Religiosity is measured by the question: “How important would you say religion is in your life?” Responses were coded as 1 (very unimportant) to 6 (very important). Higher scores indicate that religion plays an important role in the respondent’s life.

Analyses

The analyses were carried out in two stages. First, descriptive statistics are presented for all variables. Second, the effects of the four independent variables on the dependent variables were explored using multinomial logistic regression. Models were checked for multicollinearity and all tolerances were above .1 and variance inflation factors were below 2.5 indicating multicollinearity is not of concern.

Results

As demonstrated in Table 1, nearly 57% of respondents supported a balanced justice approach to sanctioning juveniles with a mental illness (MI) who plan a mass shooting compared to 61.7% who supported a punishment-oriented approach for juveniles who plan a mass shooting without MI. Similar results are seen for adults (56.2 % with MI and 65.3% for punishment without MI).

Turning to the independent variables, Table 1 shows that respondents were likely to support treatment for juveniles and adults with and without MI who plan a mass shooting. Specifically, respondents are likely to believe that juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting deserve access to rehabilitation programs ( $\bar{x}$ = 3.63 out of 5). The same is true for juveniles without MI who plan a mass shooting ( $\bar{x}$ = 3.04 out of 5); adults with MI who plan a mass shooting $(\bar{x}$ = 3.57 out of 5); and adults without MI who plan a mass shooting ( $\bar{x}$ = 2.85 out of 5).

Table 2 presents the relative risk ratios from the multinomial logistic regression models examining support for a balanced justice or rehabilitative approach versus a punishment-oriented approach to sanctioning juveniles and adults who plan a mass shooting. Table 2, Model 1, shows the findings regarding balanced justice and rehabilitation for juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event. Results indicate that respondents who indicate juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment for sanctioning juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event (relative risk ratios = 2.128 and 3.556, respectively). Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 112.8 % and 255.6% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event.

Table 2.

Multinomial Logistic Regression of Public Support for a Balanced Justice Approach or a Rehabilitation Approach Versus Punishment Approach to Sanctioning Juveniles and Adults, With or Without a Mental Illness Who Plan a Mass Shooting.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	Juveniles MI Plan (N = 274)		Juveniles No MI Plan (N = 270)		Adults MI Plan (N = 269)		Adults No MI Plan (N = 271)
Variables	Balanced Justice	Rehabilitation	Balanced Justice	Rehabilitation	Balanced Justice	Rehabilitation	Balanced Justice	Rehabilitation
Independent variables
Offenders deserve treatment	2.128***	3.556***	1.723***	2.202**	2.387***	3.910***	2.070***	2.050***
Successful reform is possible	1.222	0.884	1.657*	3.183**	1.153	1.301	1.107	0.873
Offenders are willing to reform	0.747	3.270***	0.723	1.292	0.947	1.412	0.927	2.344*
Current treatments are effective	1.916***	1.919**	1.473**	0.869	1.486**	1.530*	1.568**	1.171
Control variables
White	1.135	0.607	1.241	0.142**	0.869	0.308*	1.24	0.582
Male	0.824	0.947	1.233	0.832	1.203	0.983	1.189	1.188
Age	1.021	1.034*	0.991	0.998	1.015	1.036**	0.991	0.957*
Income	1.141	1.279	1.176	1.231	1.005	1.062	1.094	0.784
Conservative	1.22	0.905	0.745	1.428	1.265	1.846	0.74	1.842
Religiosity	0.819	0.639*	0.834	0.474***	0.84	0.605**	0.867	0.845
Nagelkerke R²	0.391		0.352		0.339		0.384

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Additionally, respondents who believe juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event are willing to reform are more likely to support rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratio = 3.270). That is, for every one-unit increase in the belief that juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event are willing to be reformed, respondents were 127% more likely to support rehabilitation compared to punishment. Finally, results indicate that respondents who indicate a belief that current treatments are effective for juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment to sanctioning juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event (relative risk ratios = 1.916 and 1.919, respectively). Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 91.6% and 91.9% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event.

For the control measures, older respondents were 3.4% more likely than younger respondents to support rehabilitation versus punishment, whereas respondents who identified as being more religious were 36% less likely than respondents who were less religious to support rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratios = 1.034 and 0.639, respectively).

Model 2 shows the findings as it relates to balanced justice and rehabilitation for juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event. Results indicate that respondents who perceive juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event as deserving of access to treatment are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment to sanctioning juveniles with MI who plan a mass shooting event (relative risk ratios = 1.723 and 2.202, respectively). Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 72.3 % and 120.2% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event. Unlike Model 1, respondents who indicated that successful reform is possible for juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratios = 1.657 and 3.183, respectively).

Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 65.7% and 218.3% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event. Additionally, respondents who believe that current treatments are effective for juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event are more likely to support balanced justice versus punishment (relative risk ratio = 1.473). That is, for every one-unit increase in the belief that juveniles with no MI who plan a mass shooting event are willing to be reformed, respondents were 47.3% more likely to support balanced justice compared to punishment. For the control measures, White respondents were 85.8% less likely than non-White respondents to support rehabilitation versus punishment, whereas respondents who identified as being more religious were 52.6% less likely than respondents who were less religious to support rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratios = 0.142 and 0.474, respectively).

Model 3 shows the findings as it relates to balanced justice and rehabilitation for adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event. Results indicate that respondents who indicate adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment to sanctioning adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event (relative risk ratios = 2.387 and 3.910, respectively). Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 138.7% and 291% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event. Finally, results indicate that respondents who indicate a belief that current treatments are effective for adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment to sanctioning adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event (relative risk ratios = 1.486 and 1.530, respectively).

Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 48.6% and 53% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning adults with MI who plan a mass shooting event. For the control measures, Whites were 69% less likely to support rehabilitation versus punishment. Older respondents were 3.6% more likely than younger respondents to support rehabilitation versus punishment, whereas respondents who identified as being more religious were 39.5% less likely than respondents who were less religious to support rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratios = 1.034 and 0.639, respectively).

Model 4 shows the findings as it relates to balanced justice and rehabilitation for adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event. Results indicate that respondents who indicate adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment are more likely to support balanced justice and rehabilitation versus punishment to sanctioning adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event (relative risk ratios = 2.070 and 2.050, respectively). Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the belief that adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event deserve access to treatment, respondents were 107% and 105% more likely to support a balanced justice and rehabilitation sanction approach compared with a punishment approach to sanctioning adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event. Additionally, respondents who believe adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event are willing to reform are more likely to support rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratio = 2.344). That is, for every one-unit increase in the belief that adults with no MI who plan a mass shooting event are willing to be reformed, respondents were 134.4% more likely to support rehabilitation compared to punishment. For the control measures, older respondents were 4.3% less likely than younger respondents to support rehabilitation versus punishment (relative risk ratios = 0.957).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study is to explore public opinion about the appropriate handling of juveniles and adults, with and without a MI, who plan mass shootings. Much research exists discussing both pathways of intended violence (Meloy et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2023; Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019) and the role of mental health in mass shootings (Skeem & Mulvey, 2020; West & Thomson, 2023). This study, however, is the first to assess the principles of balanced justice to the handling of both juveniles and adults, with and without a MI, who plan a mass shooting.

To start, descriptive analyses demonstrated public support for a balanced justice approach for both juveniles (56.9% vs. 18.8%) and adults (56.2% vs. 27.2%) with MI who planned a mass shooting. Although research indicates the public has increased its support for punitiveness in recent years (Enns, 2014; Dunbar, 2022), our research found the public is more open to rehabilitation when given options. For example, the public supported the notion that juveniles and adults without MI who plan a mass shooting deserve access to treatment (x = 3.04 and 2.85 out of 5, respectively). This point is particularly interesting as the public may assume that people who plan a mass shooting have inherent mental health problems. In fact, some research suggests the link between mass shootings and mental health is weaker than the public may perceive (Skeem & Mulvey, 2020; Lankford & Cowan, 2020). Perhaps this shift in public opinion is because the individual did not actually carry out the mass shooting and is thus seen as more redeemable. Additionally, the same holds true for juveniles and adults who do have MI who plan a mass shooting that do deserve access to treatment (x = 3.63 and 3.57 out of 5, respectively). In this scenario, the public may believe that these individuals may be less blameworthy due to their MI. In fact, as Fox and Fridel (2016) suggest in their survey of public opinion regarding mental health and mass shootings, “63% of those surveyed believed that inadequacies in the mental health system are responsible for mass shootings in America” (p. 2). As a result, many scholars have contended that the public believes that MI may be one dispositional factor that can lead the public to be more inclined to believing in a reduction of punitiveness rather than situational factors such as failed gun control policies and school safety measures (Grasmick & McGill, 1994). To this end, Schutten and colleagues (2022) suggest that “treating the MI is treating the criminal proclivity at the same time” (p. 256). It could be for our study that those who are in the planning stages of a mass shooting may be more amenable to treating criminal proclivity by having access to treatment services.

Of particular interest in the multivariate models was how the public supported, significantly, both a balanced justice approach and rehabilitation approach as compared to punishment for both juvenile and adults, with and without a MI, who plan a mass shooting (see Table 2, Models 1–4). These findings highlight the importance of providing the public with more options in terms of sanctioning even with mass shooters. In addition, several control measures were significant, including religiosity. In Models 1–3, religiosity was inversely related to balanced justice and rehabilitation. Meaning more religious members of the public were more likely to support punishment. It could be individuals who identify as being religious deem mass shooters immoral even though it was planned and not carried out.

In this regard, our research adds nuance to the growing body of research regarding public opinion and measures of punitiveness regarding violent crimes. For instance, Burton and colleagues (2021) found that public support for expungement of criminal records was restricted to non-violent offenses (i.e., property and drug crimes). Our findings suggest that public opinion supporting rehabilitation may extend at least to would-be violent criminals. Our research question here limited responses to cases where someone planned but did not conduct a mass shooting. Nevertheless, mass shootings represent one of the most prominent and extreme crimes in contemporary American society, eliciting strong opinions, even for would-be mass shooters (Schutten et al., 2022). However, our findings regarding “mass shootings” are contrary to Schutten and colleagues’ (2022) work on “school shootings” which suggested that “. . .most Americans believe anyone who plans, attempts, or carries out a school shooting is a lost cause and should be punished severely” (p. 265).

Implications

An important aspect we discuss in this paper is the pathways to intended violence. For example, one of the last signs of future mass violence is planning and preparation before the commission of the shooting. If, for example, juveniles and adults, with or without a MI, who plan a mass shooting can be detected early enough (i.e., before the commission of a shooting) the public is more open to alternative sanctioning. As demonstrated in our findings, if treatments are perceived to be effective, the public is more open to a balanced justice approach to sanctioning. Treatment efforts will need to involve a collective effort on all fronts from criminal justice, medical, and education professionals (Reeping et al., 2020). This notion somewhat contradicts prior scholarship that discusses how the public, in general, is more inclined to hold punitive ideologies for individuals engaged in criminal endeavors (Cullen et al., 2000). For example, as Pickett and Baker (2014) suggest, the public most often supports questions in the affirmative regardless of the content of a question.

However, another body of research suggests that depending on how questions are asked and if response options are given, respondents may respond differently (Applegate et al., 2009). This approach has led many scholars to determine that Americans are more pragmatic in sanctioning preferences such as a balanced justice approach (Atkin-Plunk & Sloas, 2109; Atkin-Plunk, 2020; Mears et al., 2015; Pickett et al., 2013; Sloas & Atkin-Plunk, 2019; Sloas & Larrea, 2023; Unnever et al., 2010). For the current study, it is likely that the belief that a loved one who may have planned (but not yet committed) a mass shooting will be treated and rehabilitated would make the public more likely to report such behavior. In this way, public opinion could have an impact on an individual’s willingness to “say something” to law enforcement or other authorities if they “see something” that may indicate potential for a mass shooting. The common sequence of pre-shooting events suggests points for intervention, often involving different groups of professionals, family, and friends at different times (Silver & Silva, 2022).

Multidisciplinary risk assessment teams could therefore help the criminal justice system encourage public participation in cases where a mass shooting is planned but not (yet) committed. For instance, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have been used to assess risk for violence in young people including gang violence and violent radicalization. Community Connect (CC) was one such team that included members of law enforcement, educators, mental health professionals, and faith and community leaders (Ellis et al., 2022). Over 2 years, 15 referrals were submitted for the team’s review, and 12 of those were accepted for service provision in three phases. In phase 1, CC engaged with the youth and their family and assessed their needs. In phase two, CC referred youth to relevant services such as mental health services, and collaborated with providers to ensure the needs of the youth were being met. Phase three involved termination of a case “when youth is stably engaged in appropriate and relevant service(s) for a period of approximately 6 months” (Ellis et al., 2022, p. 1327).

Limitations

Two primary limitations warrant further discussion. First, opt-in survey systems such as Lucid Theorem do not meet the criteria to be considered a type of probability sample. For instance, not everyone has access to the internet, therefore, minimizing their non-zero chance of study participation (Graham et al., 2021; Thielo et al., 2021). Additionally, respondents participating in the study must ensure their profiles are updated every few months to increase the ability of proper quotas being selected. There is also the issue of not knowing whether respondents were recruited from the same suppliers mentioned previously. It would be beneficial to hear from survey respondents to better understand what suppliers they work with and ones they have joined. Second, we do not parse out specific types of MI for juveniles and adults. Skeem and Mulvey (2020, p. 88) have noted that measuring MI broadly and without reference to severity and persistence of symptoms may mask variation in public opinion. If given more specific options, the public may be more or less supportive of a balanced justice approach to sanctioning individuals with specific clinical characteristics who plan a mass shooting.

Directions for Future Research

This study is the first of its kind to use an opt-in survey platform like Lucid Theorem to better understand the public’s sanctioning preferences for juveniles and adults, with and without a MI, who plan a mass shooting. Future research might continue to explore the public’s perceptions of balanced justice for other mass shooter typologies. For example, how might the public perceive the notion of balanced justice when including questions of sanctioning preferences of juveniles and adults, with or without MI, who attempt, commit with injury, or commit a mass shooting resulting in death? Additionally, research in this area would benefit greatly from a more precise exploration of the effects of MI type (e.g., schizophrenia, depression) on punitive public sentiments. It is likely that increased specificity regarding types of MI would illuminate systematic variation. Taken together, these efforts may further tap into the dimensions of deservedness, redeemability, and “mental health” in the context of mass shootings.

Finally, pathways to intended violence research suggests that racism, sexism, antisemitism, and other forms of xenophobia play important roles in the development of mass violence (Abel et al., 2022; Peterson et al., 2023; Silver & Silva, 2022). Future research regarding mass shootings would benefit greatly from exploring how political radicalization (Jasko et al., 2022), social media algorithms (Wolfowicz et al., 2023), and fame seeking (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019) may influence the pathway to intended violence. Such research would generate important implications for understanding how perceptions of “whiteness,” toxic masculinity, and internet usage patterns may shape the processes leading to mass shootings and other forms of interpersonal violence.

Conclusion

This study adds to a growing body of literature as it relates to balanced justice (Atkin-Plunk, 2020; Atkin-Plunk & Sloas, 2019; Mears et al., 2015; Sloas & Atkin-Plunk, 2019; Sloas & Larrea, 2023). Specifically, we assess a balanced justice approach to sanctioning both juveniles and adults, with and without MI who plan a mass shooting. We discovered that the public’s view on sanctioning is not binary but more complex. When given more details on sanctioning preferences, the public is more likely to be supportive of using balanced justice for both juveniles and adults, with or without a MI, who plan a mass shooting if they believe they deserve access to treatment services.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Lincoln B. Sloas

Notes

Author Biographies

Lincoln B. Sloas, PhD is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. He received his PhD in Criminology, Law, and Society from George Mason University in 2015.

Gabriel Cesar, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. He received his PhD in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Arizona State University in 2018.

References

Abel

M. N.

Chermak

Freilich

J. D.

(2022). Pre-attack warning behaviors of 20 adolescent school shooters: a case study analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 68(5), 786–813.

Applegate

B. K.

Davis

R. K.

Cullen

F. T.

(2009). Reconsidering child saving: The extent and correlates of public support for excluding youths from the juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 55(1), 51–77.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

(2020). Should all violent offenders be treated equally? Perceptions of punishment and rehabilitation for violent offenders with varying attributes. Victims & Offenders, 15(2), 218–242.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Sloas

L. B.

(2019). Support for balanced justice and rehabilitation for justice-involved veterans. Criminal Justice Review, 44(2), 165–182.

Bosman

Lada

Tully

Mazzei

. (2023, February 14). Elementary School. high school. now college. Michigan State students are no strangers to mass shootings. The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/us/michigan-state-shooting-students-gun-violence.html

Burton

A. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. Graham

Butler

L. C.

Thielo

A. J.

(2020). Belief in redeemability and punitive public opinion: “Once a criminal, always a criminal” revisited. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(6), 712–732.

Burton

A. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Pickett

J. T.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. Thielo

A. J.

(2021). Beyond the eternal criminal record: Public support for expungement. Criminology & Public Policy, 20(1), 123–151.

Chang

Krosnick

J. A.

(2010). Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized Questionnaires: An experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 154–167.

Coppock

McClellan

O. A.

(2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1), 2053168018822174.

10.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Applegate

B. K.

(2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1–79.

11.

Drakulich

Denver

(2022). The partisans and the persuadables: Public views of black lives matter and the 2020 protests. Perspectives on Politics, 20(4), 1191–1208.

12.

Dunbar

(2022). Arguing for criminal justice reform: Examining the effects of message framing on policy preferences. Justice Quarterly, 39(7), 1524–1544.

13.

Duwe

(2020). Patterns and prevalence of lethal mass violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 17–35.

14.

Ellis

B. H.

Miller

A. B.

Schouten

Agalab

N. Y.

Abdi

S. M.

(2022). The challenge and promise of a multidisciplinary team response to the problem of violent radicalization. Terrorism and Political Violence, 34(7), 1321–1338.

15.

Enns

P. K.

(2014). The public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 857–872.

16.

Follman

Aronsen

Pan

(2019). A guide to mass shootings in America. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com

17.

Fox

J. A.

Fridel

E. E.

(2016). The tenuous connections involving mass shootings, mental illness, and gun laws. Violence and Gender, 3(1), 14–19.

18.

Fox

J. A.

Levin

(2017). Explaining mass shootings: Types, patterns, and theories. In Wilson

L. C.

(Ed.), The Wiley handbook of the psychology of mass shootings (pp. 36–55). Wiley & Blackwell.

19.

Graham

A. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Pickett

J. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2021). A new generation of survey research in criminology: Online opt-in surveys. The Criminologist, 46(6), 5–9.

20.

Grasmick

H. G.

McGill

A. L.

(1994). Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders. Criminology, 32(1), 23–46.

21.

Halpert

(2023, February 24). Victims identified in Michigan State University shooting. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64643042

22.

Haner

Sloan

M. M.

Pickett

J. T.

Cullen

F. T.

(2022). When do Americans “See Something, Say Something”? Experimental evidence on the willingness to report terrorist activity. Justice Quarterly, 39(5), 1079–1103.

23.

Hodges

H. J.

Low

E. C.

Viñas-Racionero

M. R.

Hollister

B. A.

Scalora

M. J.

(2016). Examining the reasons for student responses to threatening behaviors on a college campus. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3(3–4), 129–142.

24.

Hollister

Scalora

Hoff

Marquez

(2014). Exposure to preincident behavior and reporting in college students. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 1(2), 129–143.

25.

Hollister

B. A.

Scalora

M. J.

Hoff

S. M.

Hodges

H. J.

Marquez

(2017). College student reporting responses to hypothetical and actual safety concerns. Journal of School Violence, 16(4), 331–348.

26.

Jasko

LaFree

Piazza

Becker

M. H.

(2022). A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2122593119.

27.

Langman

(2020). Desperate identities: A bio-psycho-social analysis of perpetrators of mass violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 61–84.

28.

Lankford

Cowan

R. G.

(2020). Has the role of mental health problems in mass shootings been significantly underestimated? Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 7(3–4), 135–156.

29.

Lowe

S. R.

Galea

(2017). The mental health consequences of mass shootings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 62–82.

30.

Maloney

Romig

Armstrong

(1988). The balanced approach to juvenile probation. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 39(3), 1.

31.

Mears

D. P.

Pickett

J. T.

Mancini

(2015). Support for balanced juvenile justice: Assessing views about youth, rehabilitation, and punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 459–479.

32.

Meloy

Hoffmann

Guldimann

James

(2012). The role of warning behaviors in threat assessment: An exploration and suggested typology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(3), 256–279.

33.

Peterson

Densley

(2019). The violence project database of mass shootings in the United States. https://www.theviolenceproject.org

34.

Peterson

Densley

(2021). The violence project: How to stop a mass shooting epidemic. Abrams.

35.

Peterson

Densley

Spaulding

Higgins

(2023). How mass public shooters use social media: Exploring themes and future directions. Social Media + Society, 9(1), 20563051231155101.

36.

Pickett

J. T.

Mancini

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759.

37.

Pickett

J. T.

Baker

(2014). The pragmatic American: Empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology, 52(2), 195–222.

38.

Pickett

J. T.

(2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 405–428.

39.

Redford

Ratliff

K. A.

(2017). Pride and punishment: Entitled people’s self-promoting values motivate hierarchy-restoring retribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 303–319.

40.

Redford

Ratliff

K. A.

(2018). Retribution as hierarchy regulation: Hierarchy preferences moderate the effect of offender socioeconomic status on support for retribution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 75–94.

41.

Reeping

P. M.

Jacoby

Rajan

Branas

C. C.

(2020). Rapid response to mass shootings: A review and recommendations. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 295–315.

42.

Rocque

Gerdes

Fox

J. A.

Duwe

Clark

(2022). Averting tragedy: An exploration of thwarted mass public shootings relative to completed attacks. Criminal Justice Review, 48(3), 277–299.

43.

Silva

J. R.

(2022). Mass shooting outcomes: A comparison of completed, attempted, failed, and foiled incidents in America. Deviant Behavior, 43(12), 1487–1506.

44.

Schutten

N. M.

Pickett

J. T.

Burton

A. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. (2022). Punishing rampage: Public opinion on sanctions for school shooters. Justice Quarterly, 39(2), 252–275.

45.

Silva

J. R.

Greene-Colozzi

E. A.

(2019). Fame-seeking mass shooters in America: Severity, characteristics, and media coverage. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 24–35.

46.

Silva

J. R.

Greene-Colozzi

E. A.

(2022). An exploratory study of failed mass shootings in America. Security Journal, 35, 367–399.

47.

Silver

Silva

J. R.

(2022). A sequence analysis of the behaviors and experiences of the deadliest public mass shooters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP23468–NP23494.

48.

Skeem

Mulvey

(2020). What role does serious mental illness play in mass shootings, and how should we address it? Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 85–108.

49.

Sloas

L. B.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

(2019). Perceptions of balanced justice and rehabilitation for drug offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(7), 990–1009.

50.

Sloas

L. B.

Larrea

(2023). Rethinking sanctioning for offenders with mental health issues: A balanced justice approach. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(1), 51–64.

51.

Sulkowski

M. L.

(2011). An investigation of students’ willingness to report threats of violence in campus communities. Psychology of Violence, 1(1), 53.

52.

Thielo

A. J.

Graham

Cullen

F. T.

(2021). The opt-in internet survey. The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1, 274–279.

53.

Unnever

J. D.

Cochran

J. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Applegate

B. K.

(2010). The pragmatic American: Attributions of crime and the hydraulic relation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 431–457.

54.

West

S. J.

Thomson

N. D.

(2023). Exploring personal crises observed in mass shooters as targets for detection and intervention using psychometric network analysis. Psychology of Violence. 13(5), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000464

55.

Wolfowicz

Weisburd

Hasisi

(2023). Examining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 119–141.

56.

(2023). Public opinion on compensating different types of wrongful convictions. State University of New York at Albany.