Public perceptions of the seriousness of crime have long been presented as an indicator of actual crime seriousness, which features prominently in contemporary criminal policy. However, doubts persist on the policy relevance of such perceptions, among others, because their predictors and the extent of consensus about them in our pluralistic societies are unclear. Against this background, we examine the extent to which conservation values, legal cynicism, and religiosity drive public crime seriousness perceptions and generate heterogeneity. A general population survey in Belgium eliciting 1,278 valid responses indicates a limited impact of these values, attitudes, and beliefs on crime seriousness perceptions, with exception of the “mala prohibita” considered. Of the three predictors, conservation values have the most consistent impact across different crimes. Moreover, our findings suggest that crime seriousness perceptions are still largely consensual, thus allaying one concern for their use for policy-making purposes.
AdriaenssenA.PaoliL.KarstedtS.VisschersJ.GreenfieldV. A.PleysierP. (2018). Public perceptions of the seriousness of crime: Weighing the harm and the wrong. European Journal of Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1477370818772768
2.
AleksynskaM.ChiswickB. R. (2013). The determinants of religiosity among immigrants and the native born in Europe. Review of Economics of the Household, 11, 563–598.
3.
AlterA. M.KernochanJ.DarleyJ. M. (2007). Transgression wrongfulness outweighs its harmfulness as a determinant of sentence severity. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 319–335.
4.
AshworthA. (2006). Principles of criminal law. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
BottomsA.TankebeJ. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 119–170.
7.
CharlierR.DickensC.OlbrechtsC.PattynM.SavenbergS.VanhyfteC.WoutersP. (2006). Nationaal politieel veiligheidsbeeld—Image policière nationale de sécurité [National police security image]. Brussels, Belgium: Federale Politie.
8.
De LeeuwE. D.HoxJ. J.DillmanD. A. (2008). The international handbook of survey methodology. New York: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
9.
EisnerM.MurrayA. L.RibeaudD.AverdijkM.GelderJ. L. (2017). From the savannah to the magistrate court: The roots of criminal justice in evolved human psychology. In JannB.PrzepiorkaW. (Eds.), Social dilemmas, institutions, and the evolution of cooperation (pp. 61–84). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
10.
European Social Survey. (2004). Source questionnaire (Round 2, 2004/05). London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys.
11.
European Social Survey. (2010). ESS round 5 source questionnaire. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys.
12.
EvansS. S.ScottJ. E. (1984). The seriousness of crime cross-culturally: The impact of religiosity. Criminology, 22, 39–59.
13.
FeatherN. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 571–587.
FlemingS. (1981). The closed mind and the judgement of crime: A replication of the Sellin-Wolfgang index. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 5, 51–64.
GreenfieldV. A.PaoliL. (2013). A framework to assess the harms of crimes. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 864–885.
18.
HaidtJ. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1001.
19.
HawkinsD. F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2, 207–230.
20.
InnesM. (2014). Signal crimes: Reactions to crime and social control. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21.
KarstedtS. (2013). Trusting authorities: Legitimacy, trust and collaboration in non-democratic regimes. In TankebeJ.LieblingA. (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 127–156). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
22.
KarstedtS. (2015). Charting Europe’s moral economies: Citizens, consumers and the crimes of everyday life. In Van ErpJ.HuismanW.Vande WalleG. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of white-collar and corporate crime (pp. 57–88). London, England: Routledge.
23.
KirkD. S.MatsuedaM. (2011). Legal cynicism, collective efficacy and the ecology of arrest. Criminology, 49, 443–471.
24.
KirkD. S.PapachristosA. V. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1190–1233.
25.
KwanY. K.IpW. C.KwanP. (2000). A crime index with Thurstone’s scaling of crime severity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 237–244.
26.
LynchJ. P.DannerM. J. (1993). Offense seriousness scaling: An alternative to scenario methods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 309–322.
27.
MentorK. W.DorneC. K. (1998). The association between right-wing authoritarianism and perceived seriousness of deviant acts: A research note. Deviant Behavior, 19, 73–87.
28.
MietheT. D. (1982). Public consensus on crime seriousness: Normative structure or methodological artifact?Criminology, 20, 515–526.
29.
MietheT. D. (1984). Types of consensus in public evaluations of crime: An illustration of strategies for measuring “consensus.”The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 459–473.
30.
NewmanG. R. (1976). Comparative deviance: Perception and law in six cultures. New York, NY: Elsevier.
31.
NivetteA. E.EisnerM.MaltiT.RibaudD. (2015). The social and developmental antecedents of legal cynicism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 270–298.
32.
O’ConnellM.WhelanA. (1996). Taking wrongs seriously. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 299–318.
33.
PickettJ. T.CullenF. T.BushwayS. D.ChiricosT.AlpertG. (2018). The response rate test: Nonresponse bias and the future of survey research in criminology and criminal justice. The Criminologist, 43, 7–11.
34.
ReisigM. D.WolfeS. E.HoltfreterK. (2011). Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: The nonconfounding effect of low self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1265–1279.
35.
RobertsJ. V. (2011). The future of state punishment: The role of public opinion in sentencing. In TonryM. (Ed.), Retributivism has a past. Has it a future? (pp. 101–129). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
36.
RobertsJ. V.StalansL. J.IndermaurD.HoughM. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37.
RobinsonP. H.DarleyJ. M. (2007). Intuitions of justice: Implications for criminal law and justice policy. Southern California Law Review, 81, 1–68.
38.
RobinsonP. H.KurzbanR. (2007). Concordance and conflict in intuitions of justice. Minnesota Law Review, 91, 1829–1907.
39.
RosenmerkelS. P. (2001). Wrongfulness and harmfulness as components of seriousness of white-collar offenses. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 308–327.
40.
RossiP. H.HenryP. H. (1980). Seriousness: A measure for all purposes? In KleinM. W.TeilmannK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation (pp. 489–505). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
RossiP. H.WaiteE.BoseC. E.BerkR. E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224–237.
42.
RybergJ.RobertsJ. V. (2014). Popular punishment: On the normative significance of public opinion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
SampsonR. J.BartuschJ. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of violence: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review, 32, 777–804.
44.
SchwartzS. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
45.
SchwartzS. H.BoehnkeK. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.
46.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC. … KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688.
47.
SellinT.WolfgangM. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
StylianouS. (2003). Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: What have we learned and what else do we want to know. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 37–56.
50.
StylianouS. (2004). The role of religiosity in the opposition to drug use. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 429–448.
51.
TonryM. (2015). The fog around cost-of-crime studies may finally be clearing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 653–671.
52.
TourangeauR. (2017). Presidential address: Paradoxes of nonresponse. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 803–814.
53.
VoetenM. J.Van den BerckenJ. H. (2003). Lineaire regressieanalyse [Linear regression analysis]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhof.
54.
WaegeH. (1997). Vertogen over de relatie tussen individu en gemeenschap: Ontwikkeling en validering van meetinstrumenten in het kader van survey-onderzoek [Essays about the relationship between individual and community: Development and validation of measurement instruments for survey research]. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
55.
WarrM. (1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crimes?Criminology, 27, 795–822.
56.
WhitmanJ. Q. (2003). Harsh justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
57.
WikströmP.-O. H.OberwittlerD.TreiberK.HardieB. (2012). Breaking rules: The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
58.
WillisG. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59.
WolfgangM.FiglioR. M.TracyP. E.SingerS. J. (1985). National survey of crime severity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
60.
YoungJ. (2007). The vertigo of late modernity. London, England: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
