Entrapment allegations in right wing terrorism cases: A mixed methods analysis
Abstract Entrapment allegations have been widespread in post 9/11 US terrorism prosecutions, but existing research focuses almost exclusively on neojihadi and left wing prosecutions. It is thus unclear whether entrapment is also prevalent in right wing terrorism cases. This article employs a mixed method approach to analyze entrapment claims in right wing terrorism cases. Quantitative analyses of a database of post 9/11 terrorism prosecutions show that right wing cases have significantly fewer entrapment indicators than neojihadi and left wing terrorism cases, and are far less likely to have particularly high entrapment scores. Detailed qualitative analyses of five right wing terrorism investigations reveal that four cases feature potentially strong entrapment claims. However, a comparative analysis finds that these claims are significantly weaker than those in many neojihadi and left wing cases. We theorize that micro meso and macro level mechanisms enabled the occasional emergence, but far lower prevalence and strength, of viable entrapment claims in right wing terrorism investigations.