Between a prosecutor and a convicted felon? Political allegiance, abolition, and felon's rights in the context of the 2024 U.S. presidential election

Abstract U.S. Republicans endorse more punitive beliefs and support for current systems of law and order, while Democrats tend toward greater acknowledgement of flaws in these systems and endorsement of reforms or even abolition of carceral systems. Yet, following Donald Trump's 2024 convictions on 34 felony counts, Republicans questioned the legitimacy of the legal system and continued to endorse Trump as a fit presidential candidate, while Democrats praised the justice system and construed Trump as unfit for office due to his felon status. In a mixed‐method study, we examined how political allegiance and abolitionist ideology shaped perceptions of Trump's felony charges and beliefs about the fitness of felons (including Trump specifically) to hold public office. Data from 196 politically diverse U.S. participants were collected immediately following Trump's re‐election. Results indicated Democratic identification and voting for Harris/Walz (vs. Trump/Vance) were generally associated with heightened endorsement of abolition. Yet, political party allegiance consistently trumped abolitionist ideologies in predicting felon‐in‐office beliefs. Republicans endorsed both general and Trump‐specific felon‐in‐office beliefs more strongly than Democrats; the role of abolitionist ideology in predicting felon‐in‐office beliefs was suppressed by political party identification. Qualitative analyses supported these findings; Republicans generally were unsupportive of Trump's convictions and endorsed his fitness for the presidency, while Democrats were supportive of Trump's convictions and argued his felony status rendered him unfit for the presidency. Our findings suggest that allegiance to one's political party, rather than one's ideology, appears to predict responses to Trump's convictions. We consider the implications of these findings for political and activist mobilization.