Christian nationalists’ views on punishing lawbreakers contingent on identity of victim and offender, study finds

LAWRENCE — “Love thy neighbor as thyself” remains one of the main tenets of Christianity. But for those who draw the ire of Christian nationalists, the favored biblical verse might be better characterized as “an eye for an eye.”

“How Christian nationalists react to criminal offenses depends on the type of crime and who the offender is and who the victim is,” said Kevin Mullinix, associate professor of political science at the University of Kansas.

His new article, “An Eye for an Eye? The Conditional Punitiveness of Christian Nationalists,” finds Christian nationalism shapes beliefs about who is most deserving of punishment in society in ways that are contingent on the identity of those involved and the extent to which the crime violates particular norms. The article appears in Political Science Quarterly.

According to a study by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released this year, approximately 70 million to 80 million Americans consider themselves Christian nationalists.

“If you were to talk to 10 different scholars, you probably would get 10 different definitions of Christian nationalism,” said Mullinix, who co-wrote the article with Brooklyn Walker of the University of Tennessee. Walker earned her doctorate at KU.

“I’m of the opinion that it’s a worldview rather than an identity — a worldview in which some people tend to believe the country was founded as a Christian nation and it is made up of and for Christians. This perspective encapsulates the belief that ‘real Americans’ are Christians,” he said.

Along with defining Christian nationalism, the professors also needed to narrow down the meaning of punitive. 

“When I analyze punitiveness, I examine people’s willingness to get tough on crime,” Mullinix said. “In this piece, I look at the severity of punishment preferences. Essentially, what do people think is the appropriate punishment for various crimes?”

The results of his research find that if looking at what is referred to as “general punitiveness” — such as support for three strikes laws or making sentences longer for all crimes or reducing privileges for prisoners — Christian nationalists appear more punitive. This is especially true in regard to championing harsher punishments for sexual crimes. 

Yet there’s a flip side.

“One of the most obvious examples is if we look at the reaction to protesters who broke laws when they entered the U.S. Capitol during January 6,” Mullinix said. “Christian nationalists are far more lenient to them. 

“Yet, we also see an inclination toward forgiveness in how they respond toward financial crimes. Regarding attitudes toward individuals who embezzled money or illegally used campaign funds for personal gain, on both those types of scenarios, Christian nationalism is associated with less punitiveness.”

To determine such attitudes, Mullinix implemented two studies that incorporated online surveys and experiments (of 1,977 and 599 respondents, respectively). For instance, one survey experiment involved asking respondents about an assault and battery, and participants were randomly assigned to one of three different descriptions. Some were told the victim was a man, some were told the victim was a woman, and others were told the victim was nonbinary.

“What we find is Christian nationalists are far less punitive when that victim is nonbinary. They are much more lenient toward the offender in those situations,” he said.

Mullinix, an expert in public opinion and public policy who has been at KU since 2018, has written extensively on topics involving justice policy reform. These include “The Feedback Effects of Controversial Police Use of Force” (Political Behavior, 2020), “Framing Innocence: An Experimental Test of the Effects of Wrongful Convictions on Public Opinion” (Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2019) and “Partisanship and Support for Restricting the Civil Liberties of Suspected Terrorists” (Political Behavior, 2022).

His debut book, “The Politics of Innocence: How Wrongful Convictions Shape Public Opinion” (NYU Press, 2023), argues that the adoption of reforms designed to reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions is dependent on the ideological leaning of a state, the governor’s partisanship and the presence of innocence advocacy groups.

“The broad takeaway from this article is that people’s willingness to get tough on crime and their willingness to punish criminal offenders is completely contingent on the crime itself — whether it being the characteristics of the victims or the characteristics of the offenders,” he said.

“Americans can look at the same crime yet reach very different conclusions about whether the offender deserves punishment. Christian nationalism helps explain some of that divide. But just as importantly, the effects of this worldview on these reactions depend on the details of the crime and who was involved.”