The seriousness of crime or ‘crime seriousness’ bears on at least four areas of criminal policy (sentencing, criminalization, crime control and prevention) but is poorly defined. After providing a novel conceptualization of crime seriousness, this article explores the logic – or normative philosophical principles – behind the public’s assessment of crime seriousness and considers how the public’s logic aligns with legal principles and policy requirements. A general population survey administered in 2014 in Belgium and eliciting 1278 valid responses indicates that the public’s logic is more moralist than consequentialist and raises doubts about the validity of public perceptions of crime seriousness as an indicator of crime seriousness for policy-making.
AdriaenssenA (2017) Publieke ernstpercepties van criminaliteit en het verband met televisiegebruik: Een kwantitatieve studie bij de Vlaamse bevolking. The Hague: Boom.
2.
AlterAMKernochanJDarleyJM (2007) Transgression wrongfulness outweighs its harmfulness as a determinant of sentence severity. Law and Human Behavior31(4): 319–335.
3.
AshworthA (2006) Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BottomsA (2014) Civil peace and criminalisation. In: DuffRAFarmerLMarshallSERenzoMTadrosV (eds) Criminalisation: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232–269.
5.
BraithwaiteJ (2004) Restorative justice and de-professionalization. Good Society13(1): 28–31.
6.
CharlierRDickensCOlbrechtsCPattynMSavenbergSVanhyfteCWoutersP (2006) Nationaal politieel veiligheidsbeeld – Image policière nationale de sécurité. Brussels: Federale Politie.
7.
De LeeuwEDHoxJJDillmanDA (eds) (2008) The International Handbook of Survey Methodology. New York: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
8.
DuffRA (2007) Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law. London: Hart.
DuffRA (2014) Towards a modest legal moralism. Criminal Law and Philosophy8: 217–235.
11.
EisnerMMurrayALRibeaudDAverdijkMGelderJ-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. Berlin: de Gruyter, 61–84.
12.
European Council (2009) Council decision establishing the European police office (Europol). Official Journal of the European UnionL121: 37–66.
13.
EvansSSScottJE (1984) The seriousness of crime cross-culturally – The impact of religiosity. Criminology22(1): 39–59.
FeinbergJ (1984) Harm to Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GreenfieldVAPaoliL (2013) A framework to assess the harms of crimes. British Journal of Criminology53(5): 864–885.
17.
GreenfieldVAPaoliLZoutendijkA (2016) The harms of human trafficking: Demonstrating the applicability and value of a new framework for systematic, empirical analysis. Global Crime17(2): 152–180.
18.
HartHLA (1968) Punishment and Responsibility. Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
HerzogS (2003) Does the ethnicity of offenders in crime scenarios affect public perceptions of crime seriousness? A randomized survey experiment in Israel. Social Forces82(2): 757–781.
20.
HillyardPTombsS (2007) From ‘crime’ to social harm?Crime, Law & Social Change48: 9–25.
21.
HusakD (2007) Overcriminalisation: The Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
IgnatansDPeaseK (2016) Taking crime seriously: Playing the weighting game. Policing10(3): 184–193.
23.
InnesMFieldingN (2002) From community to communicative policing: ‘Signal crimes’ and the problem of public reassurance. Sociological Research Online7(2).
24.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
25.
KarstedtS (2015) Charting Europe’s moral economies: Citizens, consumers and the crimes of everyday life. In: Van ErpJHuismanWVande WalleG (eds) The Routledge Handbook of White-collar and Corporate Crime. London: Routledge, 57–88.
26.
KwanYKIpWCKwanP (2000) A crime index with Thurstone’s scaling of crime severity. Journal of Criminal Justice28(3): 237–244.
27.
KwanYKChiuLLIpWCKwanP (2002) Perceived crime seriousness: Consensus and disparity. Journal of Criminal Justice30(6): 623–632.
28.
LynchJPDannerMJ (1993) Offense seriousness scaling: An alternative to scenario methods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology9(3): 309–322.
29.
MacCounRJ (1998) Toward a psychology of harm reduction. American Psychologist53(11): 1199–1208.
30.
MietheTD (1982) Public consensus on crime seriousness: Normative structure or methodological artifact?Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal20(3–4): 515–526.
MooreSM (1997) Placing Blame. A Theory of Criminal Law. Oxford: Clarendon.
33.
NordgrenLMcDonnellMH (2011) The scope-severity paradox: Why doing more harm is judged to be less harmful. Social Psychological and Personality Science2(1): 97–102.
34.
O’ConnellMWhelanA (1996) Taking wrongs seriously. British Journal of Criminology36(2): 299–318.
PaoliLAdriaenssenAGreenfieldVAConickxM (2016) Exploring definitions of serious crime in EU policy documents and academic publications: A content analysis and policy implications. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. DOI: 10.1007/s10610-016-9333-y.
37.
PartonDAHanselMStrattonJR (1991) Measuring crime seriousness. Lessons from the National Survey of Crime Severity. British Journal of Criminology31(1): 72–85.
38.
PeaseK (1988) Judgements of offence seriousness: Findings from the 1984 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office.
39.
PickettJTCullenFTBushwaySDChiricosTAlpertG (2018) The response rate test: Nonresponse bias and the future of survey research in criminology and criminal justice. The Criminologist43(1): 7–11.
40.
PiqueroNLCarmichaelSPiqueroAR (2008) Assessing the perceived seriousness of white-collar and street crimes. Crime & Delinquency54(2): 291–312.
41.
RatcliffeJH (2014) Towards an index for harm-focused policing. Policing9(2): 164–182.
42.
RobertsJV (2011) The future of state punishment: The role of public opinion in sentencing. In: TonryM (ed.) Retributivism Has a Past. Has It a Future?Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–129.
43.
RobinsonPHDarleyJM (2007) Intuitions of justice: Implications for criminal law and justice policy. Southern California Law Review81(1): 1–68.
44.
RosenmerkelSP (2001) Wrongfulness and harmfulness as components of seriousness of white-collar offenses. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice17(4): 308–327.
45.
RossiPHHenryPH (1980) Seriousness: A measure for all purposes? In: KleinMWTeilmannKS (eds) Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 489–505.
46.
RossiPHWaiteEBoseCEBerkRE (1974) The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review39(2): 224–237.
47.
RotheDLKauzlarichD (2014) Towards a Victimology of State Crime. New York: Routledge.
48.
RubinEL (1999) Minimizing Harm: A New Crime Policy for Modern America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
49.
SellinTWolfgangME (1964) The Measurement of Delinquency. Oxford: Wiley.
50.
SellinTWolfgangME (1991) The psychological scaling of the seriousness of crime. Citation Classics Commentaries8: 20.
SheleyJF (1980) Crime seriousness ratings: The impact of survey questionnaire form and item context. British Journal of Criminology20(2): 123–135.
53.
ShermanLW (2007) The power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm. The 2006 Joan McCord Prize Lecture. Journal of Experimental Criminology3(4): 299–321.
54.
ShermanLWNeyroudPWNeyroudEC (2016) The Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CHI): Measuring total harm from crime based on sentencing guidelines. Policing10(3): 171–183.
55.
SimesterAPVon HirschA (2011) Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation. London: Hart.
56.
StylianouS (2003) Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: What have we learned and what else do we want to know. Journal of Criminal Justice31(1): 37–56.
57.
TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) (2008) Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European UnionC115: 47–199.
58.
TonryM (2011) Can twenty-first century punishment policies be justified in principle? In: TonryM (ed.) Retributivism Has a Past: Has It a Future?New York: Oxford University Press, 3–29.
59.
TonryM (2015) The fog around cost-of-crime studies may finally be clearing. Criminology & Public Policy14(4): 653–671.
60.
TusikovN (2012) Measuring organised crime-related harms: Exploring five policing methods. Crime, Law and Social Change57(1): 99–115.
61.
Von HirschA (2017) Deserved Criminal Sentences. London: Hart.
62.
Von HirschAAshworthA (2005) Proportionate Sentencing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
Von HirschAJareborgN (1991) Gauging criminal harms: A living standard analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies11(1): 1–38.
64.
WalklateS (2007) Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan.
65.
WarrM (1989) What is the perceived seriousness of crimes?Criminology27(4): 795–822.
66.
WhiteR (2011) Global Environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives. Portland, OR: Willan.
67.
WikströmPOOberwittlerDTreiberKHardieB (2012) Breaking Rules. The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People’s Urban Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68.
WillisGB (2005) Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
69.
WolfgangMFiglioRMTracyPESingerSJ (1985) National Survey of Crime Severity (NCJ-96017). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
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.
