Crime, Punishment, and War

What explains public support for war? In contrast to existing theories that focus on the costs and benefits of war, I argue that citizens draw on their moral values to form opinions about all types of violence, including the use of force by the state both domestically (in the form of law enforcement) and internationally (in the form of military action). In particular, I focus on beliefs about retributive justice, which holds that wrongdoing deserves to be punished and that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. Using original survey data, I show that individuals who endorse the principles of retributive justice are more likely to support the use of force by the state both domestically and internationally when that use of force is framed as a response to an act of wrongdoing. This perspective also produces new insights into the conditions that make interstate conflict more likely. Retributiveness varies not only across individuals but also across societies. Using cross-national data on the legality of the death penalty as a measure of societal-level retributiveness, I find that democracies that retain the death penalty are more likely to engage in militarized disputes than democracies that have abolished the death penalty.