{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02600896860986547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.488372093023256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public Support for the Punishment of Police Use of Force Errors: Evidence of Ideological Divergence and Convergence

It is widely believed that the public is ideologically divided with regard to law enforcement. Drawing on omission bias research, I challenge this assumption, arguing that such polarization is contingent on the type of use of force error officers commit. Three experimental studies demonstrate that, regardless of the suspect’s race, liberals are more likely than conservatives to punish a false-positive error (e.g., shooting an unarmed suspect), because they attribute responsibility to causes within the officer’s control. However, liberals and conservatives are equally unlikely to support punishing a false-negative error (failing to shoot an armed suspect), regardless of whether the suspect harms a fellow patrol officer or third-party civilian. Furthermore, bipartisan tolerance of false-negative errors is especially high among both liberals and conservatives if the withholding of force was intended to preserve the suspect’s life. Implications for theory and public policy are discussed.