Evaluating the Severity of Sanctions for Violations of Emergency Regulations

Rule-Related Predictors of Punitive Attitudes

Bibliographic Data

ID21513395
AuthorsAnna Gurinskaya (0000-0002-3943-9120, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA, corresponding author), Mahesh K Nalla (0000-0002-6337-7468, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA)
Year2026
Pages306624X261461614-306624X261461614
Publication date2026-06-23
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0306-624X • E-ISSN: 1552-6933
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0306624x261461614
PMID42334063
OpenAlexW7165677734
LanguageEN
References cited85

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

Attribution · Poison control · Punitive damages · Sanctions · Survey data collection · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Free Will and Agency · Human Factors and Ergonomics · Jury Decision Making Processes

Tools

Open DOI