Do citizens care about due process rights when holding insurgent groups accountable for violence? We examine public perceptions of justice and fairness in judicial proceedings brought against suspected Islamic State (ISIS) militants and their supporters in Mosul, Iraq. We conducted a survey of Mosul residents and people in ISIS-affiliated displacement camps outside Mosul to evaluate public support for detainee due process rights. Using a trial and punishment survey experiment, we find that Mosul residents, while favoring capital punishment for ISIS involvement, are also sensitive to procedural due process rights of the accused. People with self-reported ISIS affiliations, in contrast, are more concerned with substantive due process, and do not see capital punishment outcomes as fair, regardless of procedural considerations. Although rebel group sympathizers and opponents have clashing perspectives on what constitutes equitable punishment for participation in insurgency, both recognize the importance of due process rights to long-term peace and security.
AbdulrazaqTallhaStansfieldGareth. 2016. “The Day After: What to Expect in post-Islamic state Mosul.” The RUSI Journal161, 3: 14‐20.
2.
BallietDanielWuJunhuiDe DreuCarsten KW. 2014. “Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin140, 6: 1556.
3.
BartolucciValentina. 2012. “Terrorism Rhetoric under the Bush Administration: Discourses and Effects.” Journal of Language and Politics11, 4: 562‐582.
4.
BauerMichalBlattmanChristopherChytilováJulieHenrichJosephMiguelEdwardMittsTamar. 2016. “Can war foster cooperation?” Journal of Economic Perspectives30, 3: 249‐274.
5.
BassGary Jonathan. 2014. Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton University Press.
6.
BenteleUrsula. 2003. “Does the Death Penalty, by Risking Execution of the Innocent, Violate Substantive Due Process.” Houston Law Review40, 5: 1359‐1386.
7.
BraithwaiteJohn. 2002. Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press.
8.
CanestaroNathan A. 2004. “Small Wars and the Law: Options for Prosecuting the Insurgents in Iraq.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law43, 73: 73‐140.
9.
CarothersThomas. 1998. “The Rule of Law Revival.” Foreign Affairs77, 2: 95‐106.
10.
CobbanHelena. 2015. Healing Nations after Genocide and War Crimes. Routledge.Amnesty after Atrocity?
11.
CockburnPatrick. 2014. The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising. New York: Or Books.
12.
CokerMargaretHasanFahil. 2018. The New York Times. April 17, 2018.A 10-Minute Trial, a Death Sentence: Iraqi Justice for ISIS Suspects
13.
CoxJoseph M. 2019. “Negotiating justice: Ceasefires, peace agreements, and post-conflict justice.” Journal of Peace Research: 0022343319879485.
14.
DarleyJohn M.PittmanThane S.. 2003. “The Psychology of Compensatory and Retributive Justice.” Personality and Social Psychology Review7, 4: 324‐336.
15.
DarleyJohn M.CarlsmithKevin M.RobinsonPaul H.. 2000. “Incapacitation and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment.” Law and Human Behavior24, 6: 659‐683.
16.
DavisDarren W.SilverBrian D.. 2004. “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America.” American Journal of Political Science48, 1: 28‐46.
17.
DavisDarren W.2007. Negative Liberty: Public Opinion and the Terrorist Attacks on America. Russell Sage Foundation.
18.
De JuanAlexanderPierskallaJan Henryk. 2016. “Civil War Violence and Political Trust: Microlevel Evidence from Nepal.” Conflict Management and Peace Science33, 1: 67‐88.
19.
DiamondLarry. 2005. “Building Democracy after Conflict: Lessons from Iraq.” Journal of Democracy16, 1: 9‐23.
20.
ElsterJon. 2004. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
21.
FearonJames D. 2007. “Iraq's Civil War.” Foreign Affairs86, 2: 2‐15.
22.
GibsonJames L.2004. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.” American Journal of Political Science48, 2: 201‐217.
23.
GronkePaulRejaliDariusDrenguisDustinHicksJamesMillerPeterNakayamaBryan. 2010. “US Public Opinion on Torture, 2001–2009.” PS: Political Science & Politics43, 3: 437‐444.
24.
HoodRogerHoyleCarolyn. 2015. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford University Press.
JervisRobert. 1978. “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics30, 2: 167‐214.
29.
JoesAnthony J.2006. Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency. University Press of Kentucky.
30.
KalyvasStathis N.2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge University Press.
31.
KalyvasStathis N.KocherMatthew Adam. 2007. “Ethnic Cleavages and Irregular War: Iraq and Vietnam.” Politics & Society35, 2: 183‐223.
32.
KaoKristenRevkinMara Redlich. 2018. Reintegrating Rebel Collaborators After Conflict in Iraq. June 23, 2018).To Punish or to Pardon? Reintegrating Rebel Collaborators After Conflict in Iraq
33.
KaplowJeffrey M.2016. “The negotiation calculus: Why parties to civil conflict refuse to talk.” International Studies Quarterly60, 1: 38‐46.
34.
KimNam KyuHongMi Hwa. 2019. “Politics of pursuing justice in the aftermath of civil conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution63, 5: 1165‐1192.
35.
KoestlerArthur. 2015. Darkness at Noon. Simon and Schuster.
36.
KoskenniemiMartti. 2002. “Between Impunity and Show Trials.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law6, 1: 1‐32.
37.
KritzNeil J., ed. 1995. Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes. US Institute of Peace Press.
38.
LatimerJeffDowdenCraigMuiseDanielle. 2005. “The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis.” The Prison Journal85, 2: 127‐144.
39.
LindE. AllanTylerTom R.HuoYuen J.. 1997. “Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73, 4: 767.
40.
LindeHans A. 1975. “Due Process of Lawmaking.” Nebraska Law Review55, 2: 197‐255.
41.
LoyleCyanneAppelBenjamin. 2017. “Conflict Recurrence and Postconflict Justice: Addressing Motivations and Opportunities for Sustainable Peace.” International Studies Quarterly61, 3: 690‐703.
42.
LyallJason. 2009. “Does indiscriminate violence incite insurgent attacks? Evidence from Chechnya.” Journal of Conflict Resolution53, 3: 331‐362.
43.
LyallJasonBlairGraemeImaiKosuke. 2013. “Explaining Support for Combatants During Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan.” American Political Science Review107, 4: 679‐705.
44.
MorrisStephen D.KlesnerJoseph L.. 2010. “Corruption and Trust: Theoretical Considerations and Evidence from Mexico.” Comparative Political Studies43, 10: 1258‐1285.
45.
O'DonnellGuillermo. 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: Why the Rule of Law Matters.” Journal of Democracy15, 4: 32‐46.
46.
PiazzaJames A. 2015. “Terrorist Suspect Religious Identity and Public Support for Harsh Interrogation and Detention Practices.” Political Psychology36, 6: 667‐690.
47.
PosenBarry R. 1993. “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict.” Survival35, 1: 27‐47.
48.
RaynorPeterRobinsonGwen. 2005. “Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice.” Springer.
49.
ReisigMichael D.LloydCamille. 2009. “Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents.” Police Quarterly12, 1: 42‐62.
50.
RobinsonGwenCrowIain D.. 2009. Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, Research and Practice. Sage.
51.
RubinPeter J. 2003. “Square Pegs and Round Holes: Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, and the Bill of Rights.” Columbia Law Review103, 4: 833‐892.
52.
RudolphChristopher. 2001. “Constructing an Atrocities Regime: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals.” International Organization55, 3: 655‐691.
53.
SambanisNicholasSchulhofer-WohlJonahShayoMoses. 2012. “Parochialism as a Central Challenge in Counterinsurgency.” Science336, 6083: 805‐808.
54.
SmithBrent L.DamphousseKelly R.JacksonFreedomSellersAmy. 2002. “The Prosecution and Punishment of International Terrorists in Federal Courts: 1980–1998.” Criminology & Public Policy1, 3: 311‐338.
55.
SouleimanovEmil AslanSirokyDavid S.. 2016. “Random or Retributive?: Indiscriminate violence in the Chechen Wars.” World Politics68, 4: 677‐712.
56.
SzászBéla. 1971. Volunteers for the Gallows: Anatomy of a Show-trial. London: Chatto and Windus.
57.
TankebeJustice.2009. “Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter?” Criminology47, 4: 1265‐1293.
TeitelRuti G.2000. Transitional Justice. Oxford University Press.
60.
TeitelRuti G.2015. Globalizing Transitional Justice. Oxford University Press.
61.
ThibautJohn W.WalkerLaurens. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.
62.
TribeLaurence H. 1975. “Structural Due Process.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review10, 2: 269‐321.
63.
TylerTom R.BladerSteven L.. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology press.
64.
TylerTom R.1994. “Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology67, 5: 850.
65.
TylerTom R.LindE. Allan. 1992.“ A relational model of authority in groups.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25, 115‐191. Academic Press.
66.
TylerTom R.2003. “Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law.” Crime and Justice30: 283‐357.
UslanerEric M.2004. “Trust and Corruption.” In The New Institutional Economics of Corruption, Lambsdorff, Johann Graf, Markus Taube, and Matthias Schramm, 90‐106. Routledge.
69.
VagtsDetlev F.2003. “Which Courts Should Try Persons Accused of Terrorism?” European Journal of International Law14, 2: 313‐326.
70.
ValentinoBenjaminHuthPaulBalch-LindsayDylan. 2004. “Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare.” International Organization4, 1: 375‐407.
71.
ValentinoBenjamin A. 2014. “Why we kill: The political science of political violence against civilians.” Annual Review of Political Science17, 1: 89‐103.
72.
WeissMichaelHassanHassan. 2016. ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. updated edition. Simon and Schuster.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
