Risk in Rampage: How Communities Negotiate Impunity for Vigilante Violence

• In Event: Comparative Perspectives on Responses to Crime and Insecurity

Abstract

Existing literature on vigilantism largely focuses on expounding factors that motivate citizens to take the law into their own hands. This paper draws on evidence from Indonesia to argue that while dissatisfaction with formal law-enforcement or high levels of insecurity can prompt communities to seek informal justice, the use of extra-legal violence depends on vigilantes’ perceived ability to get away with it. First, I present data from a nation-wide survey to demonstrate the preponderance of non-violent alternatives to vigilantism, such as mediation and social sanction, that are routinely used by citizens to circumvent the cumbersome legal system. While violent punishment is widely considered to be the ultimate deterrent against wrong-doing, communities are weary of engaging in vigilantism as they fear revenge attacks and legal reprisals from their victims. Second, I use nine in-depth case studies of lynching in Indonesia to show that when vigilantism does occur, it involves concerted efforts to reduce uncertainty about the repercussions of engaging in public violence against an alleged offender. I draw on over 120 interviews with victims and perpetrators of vigilantism as well as community leaders and local officials to illustrate the process through which communities classify offenses, ascertain victims’ socio-economic background to ascertain the risk of reprisals; and negotiate impunity with local law-enforcement agents. The paper concludes by challenging the prevalent portrayal of vigilantism as the impulsive reaction of frustrated citizens and demonstrates expectation of impunity as the central mechanism that facilitates violent societal responses to crime.

Author

• Sana Jaffrey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace