Public protest and police violence: Moral disengagement and its role in police repression of public demonstrations in Portugal.

Abstract

In recent years, in Portugal, public demonstrations of movements such as 'Que se Lixe a Troika: Queremos as NossasVidas de Volta' and 'Geração a `Rasca' have led to police repression highly scrutinized by mass media. However, a specific understanding is still lacking as to how police officers and civil society are construing the repression of this kind of event and also as to how moral agency is thereof inhibited. To police officers (as 'power-holders') and to civil society in general, this analysis is equally important in understanding the cognitive patterns supporting the resort and appeal to police violence. Drawing upon a qualitative research design developed in Portugal during 2011 and 2013, this paper discusses the processes of moral disengagement in regard to the repression exercised during social demonstrations, considering both the accounts of common citizens (Group 1) and police officers (Group 2). Results and discussion are centered on the main processes of moral disengagement, namely moral justification (behavior locus), displacement of responsibility (agency locus), dehumanization, and blame attribution (recipient locus). If to a certain extent the moral values (e.g., protection, public order) are aligned in both groups to justify violence, their mobilizations seem to emerge in quite different ways when it comes to social protest. Displacement of authority is a usual mechanism among police officers, but it is to a great extent contested by common citizens. Dehumanization and blame attribution emerged also as a major mechanism of moral disengagement mainly among police officers' group. However, empathy may reconfigure the support of these mechanisms, specifically when it comes to social protest. Strengths and weaknesses of the power of 'empathy' toward agency activation are discussed. We conclude with research implications and prospects.

Do state governments have the right to kill civilians to defeat international terrorism? Views from US, Israel and South Africa

“…This exploratory qualitative study adds to the growing literature addressing the role of MD and engagement in people's judgments concerning the acceptability of various forms of aggression and human rights violations (de Posada et al, 2018;Leidner, Castano, Zaiser and Giner-Sorolla, 2010;Malley-Morrison et al, 2015;Maltese and Baumert, 2019;Soares et al, 2018). It confirms widespread approval for governmental use of force in disparate nations, and what appear to be almost ready-made arguments in support of force when committed by one's own government.…”

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

“…Violence by some protesters is seen by some in the police and military as a legitimate trigger for state violence, aimed at protecting the public and public order (Drury et al, 2003;Kiguwa & Ally, 2018;Monaghan & Walby, 2012). Similarly, violence by opponents or state actors may be put forward by some group members as the justification for violence in retaliation or perceived group defense (Canetti-Nisim, Halperin, Sharvit, & Hobfoll, 2009;Canetti, Hall, Rapaport, & Wayne, 2013;Soares, Barbosa, Matos, & Mendes, 2018). Such constructions contribute to the escalation of violent protest movements over time.…”

Agreeing with moral disengagement statements: an experimental study with young adults

“…We also explored the mechanisms through which young adults develop higher levels of agreement with this type of discourse by examining the extent to which the effect of the stimuli varies across individuals who have distinct attitudes. For instance, given that the agreement with statements that promote violence is linked to the justification of police action as a means to prevent and reduce crime, we expected that those who have more favorable views toward law enforcement, operationalized here with trust items on the military police and the Armed Forces, should express higher agreement toward speech that relates to violence, and also higher levels of agreement when the statement originated from a politician, given that it personalizes the discourse (Soares, Barbosa, Matos, & Mendes, 2018). On the other hand, those who have low levels of trust in these institutions should not perceive the speech as more adequate when knowing a politician professed it.…”