The Limits of Legitimacy: Moral Agreement with Transgressions is a Stronger Predictor of General Deterrence than Punisher Legitimacy

Punishment is a critical mechanism through which society regulates behavior, yet its effectiveness depends on how observers interpret both the legitimacy of punishers and the morality of the act being punished. Across four experiments, we examine how moral agreement with a perpetrator’s behavior influences perceptions of punisher legitimacy and deterrence. Study 1 finds that when observers morally agree with a perpetrator, they perceive punishers as less legitimate and view punishment as less deterrent. Study 2 shows punisher legitimacy has only a mixed effect on moral evaluations and deterrence. Study 3, using a 2x2 design, finds moral agreement, but not punisher legitimacy, predicts deterrence. Study 4 replicates these effects in a criminal sample. Our results suggest deterrence is deeply intertwined with the morality ascribed to an act, superseding punisher legitimacy. These findings challenge traditional deterrence and procedural justice models, highlighting the importance of addressing moral disagreement in legal and policy contexts.