New research suggests criminalising nonviolent climate protesters may increase anger, reduce fear, and spur more disruptive—possibly covert—action.
Criminalising direct-action climate protests in the UK may be counterproductive, a new study argues, by hardening attitudes rather than deterring future activity.
The research focuses on how people emotionally respond to repression—and how those emotions shape what they do next.. In the first paragraph of Misryoum’s coverage. the key issue is clear: the same state response that aims to stop disruption can also make some protesters feel less fear and more resolve.
The study. conducted with anonymous survey data from 1. 375 members of an Extinction Rebellion mailing list. examines the experiences and expectations of repression among campaigners.. Researchers report that arrests. fines. surveillance. and long prison sentences given for actions such as road blocking or property damage may not reduce protest participation.. Instead, the work suggests repression can radicalise some activists—especially when it sparks anger or contempt.
What makes the findings stand out is the attention to emotion as a mechanism.. The study points to two broad patterns among those who had not yet faced repression.. For some, the prospect of crackdowns increased fear and weakened their intention to take disruptive action.. For others. the idea of repression triggered contempt or anger—feelings that then strengthened their plans to protest in the future.. Among those who already had been jailed. fined. arrested. or surveilled. repression was linked to lower levels of fear. and correspondingly higher intentions to act disruptively again.
Misryoum readers may wonder why the same policy tool—criminal penalties—could push people in opposite directions.. The study’s interpretation is that repression can interfere with a shared sense of legitimacy.. When protesters perceive they are denied a “legitimate route” to express discontent. they may conclude that noncompliance is justified. not only necessary.. That shift—from believing the rules must be followed to believing they don’t apply—can be a turning point in how movements strategise.
The UK has intensified its approach to climate protest in recent years, including high-profile cases involving road or motorway disruptions.. In some instances. protesters have faced multi-year sentences linked to planning protest actions. and broader debates have centred on whether defendants can present climate-related facts as part of their defence in court.
At the same time, the study’s implications extend beyond the courtroom.. It argues that repression may contribute to a move toward less visible tactics.. Researchers point to the possibility that crackdowns could help explain the emergence of covert actions in recent years. such as sabotage of digital infrastructure. including incidents involving internet cables.. The core idea is not that repression “causes” covert wrongdoing in a simple way. but that tighter public constraints can narrow the range of acceptable public protest and encourage alternative routes.
Misryoum also notes a wider policy tension: governments often claim they are protecting lawful protest while preventing serious disruption.. A UK Home Office spokesperson in the study’s discussion said the right to lawful protest is fundamental. while protests should not cross into serious disruption.. The spokesperson emphasised that existing laws give police wide powers to manage demonstrations and prevent disorder—while still protecting peaceful protest.
Still, the study’s findings suggest policymakers may be underestimating the political and social costs of criminalisation.. The researchers argue that alienating people from the state can magnify frustration instead of reducing it.. If repression becomes associated with contempt—rather than deterrence—it can also accelerate identity-building inside movements. creating a sense of shared fate and moral obligation to act.
There is also a public sentiment backdrop.. Earlier polling commissioned by a UK university reported that most people disapproved of disruptive climate actions associated with groups like Just Stop Oil.. Yet support for imprisonment was far lower than disapproval itself. and many respondents did not see punishment as the primary response.. That split—between disliking disruption and rejecting harsh penalties—matters for how enforcement decisions land in society.
Misryoum sees an immediate relevance for current legal review debates.. The UK government has commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. with attention on whether laws are “fit for purpose” and whether they strike a “fair balance” between freedom of expression and the right to protest. alongside community safety.. If the new study’s mechanism holds—where anger and reduced fear after repression increase future intent—then policymakers may need to consider not only whether disruption is controlled. but how enforcement shapes the movement’s emotional and strategic direction.
A careful takeaway, for Misryoum’s science and policy audience, is that deterrence is not only about legal severity.. It is also about legitimacy, emotional response, and perceived pathways for dissent.. As the climate crisis worsens and protest tactics evolve. the risk is that criminalisation intended to quiet demonstrations could instead intensify resolve—and possibly push some participants toward more clandestine forms of action.