When do we believe in vigilante justice?

Cyber vigilantism is on the rise. 

Readers familiar with TikTok or YouTube may have already seen some examples of it, such as videos showcasing "scambaiters" – people who waste the time of scammers by pretending to go along with their scheme. It can take less playful forms, however; both anti-fascist and fascist groups have used doxxing (revealing personal information) in attempts to silence each other, and according to one BBC report, even police investigations have used evidence gathered from vigilante "paedophile hunters."

Yet while cyber vigilantism abounds, we know less about how  the general public feels about these acts. In a recent paper published in Critical Justice Studies, Leanne Ireland of Mount Royal University, Calgary explores the associations between different understandings and perceptions of justice and support for cyber vigilantism. 

The paper defines cyber vigilantism as "harmful acts that people can undertake in response to perceived criminal acts and social deviance that occur in and through information systems." This definition touches both on responses to clear-cut crimes, and on acts that are socially deviant, but not criminal – like sexism, for example, or lower stakes acts like failing to pick up dog poo. 

For this study, 938 US-based adults (recruited online) first reported how much they endorsed acts such as "issuing threats to use potentially illegal cyber actions to pressure authorities to change their ways," and "sharing potentially private information about someone on social media to bring attention to their perceived wrongdoing." They also indicated how much they believed people have an obligation to obey law, responding to statements such as "you should follow the law even if you disagree."

Next, Ireland posed questions about procedural and distributive justice. Procedural justice focuses on authorities, particularly the police, and is concerned with "neutrality, trust, and respect," as well as on fair procedures within the criminal justice system. Distributive justice, on the other hand, focuses on "the equal distribution of services and outcomes across people and communities... regardless of differences such as socioeconomic position or race."

To measure belief in procedural justice, participants indicated how much they agreed with statements such as "police treat people with dignity and respect" and "police listen to people." Distributive justice was measured through statements such as "the law punishes everyone equally" and "police make all people feel safe regardless of what they look like."  Participants also provided their demographic information and political orientation. Whether or not they had ever been a victim of a crime, and how concerned they are about crime more generally, was also probed. 

As you might expect, those who believed less in procedural justice were more likely to endorse cyber vigilantism; Ireland suggests this is an issue of legitimacy. If someone feels state authorities are legitimate, they are less likely to see alternative methods of resolving conflicts as valuable. However, if they support the state and have faith in procedural justice, cyber vigilantism is likely to seem less necessary. 

Less expectedly, those who believed that the criminal justice system treats people equally regardless of their background also supported cyber vigilantism. In fact, the more they felt the state was equal for all communities, the more support they expressed. 

There are several reasons this might be the case. Firstly, those who believe the distribution of outcomes in the criminal justice system are equal may see these rights as overly protecting wrongdoers. Ireland suggests that some rights "may be seen as creating insecurity by protecting those who might do harm to society." Similarly, some may feel that particular crimes by particular people deserve harsher punishments than those typically given to the wider population: extremely distressing and emotionally stirring crimes, for example. Here, equality in the system is seen as preventing what some may perceive as a truly just punishment. 

Results were drawn from a broad sample of adults which, while increasing the generalisability of these conclusions, does beg further questions; for example, are some groups more in favour of cyber vigilantism than others? The team also notes that the research took place at a particular political moment, when the Black Lives Matter movement was reaching a crescendo across the world, shifting the ways many thought of the justice system. This, too, may have impacted results. 

There is ample room for extension of these findings. For instance, this study did not look at how people may see cyber vigilantism as an addition to traditional legal systems, as opposed to a replacement. Similarly, further research could look at cyber vigilantism in different contexts. Progressive groups engaging in hactivism could be seen more favourably than a fascist group doxxing an anti-racist activist, for example. Future studies looking into the nuances belief in cyber vigilantism could paint a more complete picture. 

Read the paper in full: https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2023.2254097