When lawmakers name bills after victims of tragedy—such as Megan’s Law or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993—public support surges, but this emotional boost may come at the expense of sound policymaking, according to research published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
Experiments testing victim-named legislation
The study examined whether eponymous bills—those named for victims—receive more public backing than identical bills without a name or story. Across three experiments, the answer was clear: They do.
“Our research shows that adding a victim’s name and story to a bill can dramatically increase public support, even when the policy itself hasn’t changed,” said lead author Krystia Reed, JD, Ph.D., of The University of Texas at El Paso.
“Victim narratives don’t just make legislation more memorable—they make it more persuasive. Sympathy can drive approval, which means voters and lawmakers may prioritize emotion over evidence.”
Researchers conducted a series of experiments involving more than 670 participants, including undergraduate students and a national sample of adults recruited online. In each experiment, participants read a proposed piece of legislation either with a victim’s name and story or without.
After reading the bill, participants were asked to do three things: first, vote on whether they approved or disapproved of the legislation, just as they might in a real election.
Next, they completed simple attention checks to confirm they understood the bill’s content. Finally, they answered questions about their emotional reactions (e.g., how sympathetic they felt toward victims or perpetrators) and whether they viewed those groups as fully human or less human. These measures helped researchers explore the psychological factors behind support for victim-named laws.
Sympathy, persuasion, and policy risks
Participants were significantly more likely to approve bills that included a…
Not surprising. Legislators have been doing that for years. It’s also how they get their less-than-ethical measures passed, by burying them in a bill with a nice title.
Named bills are easier to remember instead of acronym bills that become laws as they do today wherever bills are proposed and laws are passed. You can see it today all over. Sure, some named bills are acronyms too, AWA or IML for example, but overall you don’t fear monger with acronyms as you can with names to begin with.
This is why those who propose these bills need to be called out for what they are doing with fear mongering and seeking political credibility for their re-election campaigns or their campaigns for another office.
“Memorial” and “honor” laws named after a victim is just lawmakers getting an easy win at the expense of efficacy.