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.

Although several empirical studies on punitivity have appeared in the last few decades, this body of research stays under-theorized and rather vague because of the lack of a clear definition of the concept of punitivity and the different methodologies used to measure it. Focusing on individual punitivity (punitive attitudes), this literature review article presents some important substantive and methodological achievements of and challenges to this body of research. Despite existing knowledge and the already extensive literature on the topic, this article aims to add an innovative element by (a) providing a clear, thorough and multidimensional operationalization of the concept of punitive attitudes that can be used in future research, by (b) not only reviewing the existing literature, but also being critical of and nuancing some of the main research findings, and by (c) making concrete suggestions to advance research in this area.

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.

No abstract

No abstract