The study of crime suffers from an inattention to the social consequences of criminal acts. Conceiving crimes within the larger context of '%hazard, " data are reported on the relative seriousness of conventional and white-collar crimes, as well as other hazards, using a sample of Washington state respondents. The results indicate that there is an inverse relationship between the perceived likelihood of a hazard and its seriousness. Generally, the more immediate the threat of a hazard, such as white-collar crimes, the more serious it is perceived to be. There are also implications from these consequences for perceptions of institutional effectiveness and interpersonal reIationshQs. This suggests that future studies of the consequences of criminaliw, especially white-collar and corporate violations, might be directed toward the notions of risk and, eventually, social trust.It has only been recently that sociologists have begun to examine the social costs of crime-the costs of crime for the social community, the social fabric. While there is seemingly no end to the number of estimates of physical and financial loss from crime, sociologists have failed to develop a conceptual base for determining the impact of crimes on the structure of interpersonal and institutional relationships in a community. This is particularly puzzling because sociologists have long indicated that white-collar crime especially has serious consequences for the sense of trust in communities and shared understandings of appropriate behavior (Sutherland, 1983;Cohen, 1966). This paper reports suggestions and preliminary research for such a conceptualization.
CRIME AS HAZARDA hazard is a danger or the cause of some danger. Crime is both like and unlike other hazards. Like other hazards, crimes pose risk to persons, property, and/or moral sensibilities. Victimization from crime is similar to victimization from other hazards, such as natural disasters. In each case, life and/or property are at risk without reasonable expectation of retaliation-in the case of most crimes because the criminals are either not known to their victims or, in any case, because the law prohibits direct retaliatory action. In * We wish to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Social Research Center at Washington State University and National Science Foundation grant SES-8020864. A number of persons were involved in the larger study of which this is a part, but we would like particularly to thank Don Dillman for his advice in constructing the questionnaire. CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 23 NUMBER 3 1985 389