The Seriousness of Offenses: An Evaluation by Offenders and Nonoffenders

Figlio, Robert M.

doi:10.2307/1142782

Cited by 72 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although certain risks are associated with using a sample of undergraduates, at least four points, aside from convenience, merit consideration. First, the crime severity literature has long relied on such samples, and comparisons of undergraduate attitudes with those of other social groups and with the population at large generally have failed to reveal substantial differences (Akman, Normandeau, and Turner 1967;Figlio 1975;Kelley and Winslow 1970;Sellin and Wolfgang 1964;Velez-Diaz and Megargee 1971).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crime seriousness and punitive severity: An assessment of social attitudes

Durham

1988

Justice Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American penal policy appears to be shifting away from practices based upon the rehabilitative ideal and toward those consistent with the retributively based justice model. Yet despite the appearance of a variety of reforms based upon desert, several problems associated with the model have yet to be resolved. This paper focuses on the difficulty of identifying a basis for the development of a scale of proportionality between crime and punishment. The use of public sentiment as a basis is considered, and the results of a survey of attitudes regarding appropriate punishment for crime are discussed. The results of this assessment appear to provide little evidence that citizens agree on the appropriate punitive response for criminal activity.American penal policy appears to be undergoing substantial changes. Perhaps the most significant change involves the fall from grace of the rehabilitative rationale (W. Bailey 1966;Lipton, Martinson, and Wilkes 1975; Martin, Sechrest, and Redner, 1981;Martinson 1974; Sechrest, White, and Brown, 1979). Although the rehabilitative model continues to be championed (e.g., Cullen and Gilbert 1982), it seems clear that legislative initiatives have moved away from policies based on the hope, expectation, or even intention of rehabilitation.Perhaps the most conspicuous challenger for the position occupied formerly by rehabilitation is what has variously been referred to as the "commensurate deserts," "just deserts," or "justice" model of punishment. This model is predicated primarily on the idea that punishment should be based on the seriousness of the offense (von Hirsch 1976(von Hirsch , 1985. Lest the model appear oversimplified, it ought be noted that various advocates of the justice model operationalize it differently. Although Morris (1974) rejects the use of prior record in the determination of punishment, for example, yon Hirsch (1981) finds prior record an acceptable variable for inclusion in the sentence-determination process.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crime seriousness and punitive severity: An assessment of social attitudes

Durham

1988

Justice Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rankin, 1979). More importantly, previous research has shown a remarkable degree of consensus in crime seriousness ratings across diverse subgroups in our society; that is, various social characteristics have not been found to influence the way in which the public perceives the seriousness of legal violations (Figlio, 1975;Thomas et al ,1976;Velez-Diaz and Megargee, 1970). Thus, Rossi et al (1974: 231, 227) concluded that in their Baltimore sample, "the amount of consensus among subgroup averages is impressive .…”

Section: Have Attitudes Really Changed?mentioning

confidence: 96%

The Seriousness of Crime Revisited: Have Attitudes Toward White‐Collar Crime Changed?

Cullen

Link

Polanzi³

1982

Criminology

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social commentators have often observed that the public is indifferent to white-collar criminality. However, the gruwing attention that white-collar crime has received in recent years raises the possibility of changes in thepublic'sperceptions of such violations. By replicating Rossi et al.'s sumey in 1972 of the seriousness of 140 offenses, the present research presents data indicating that white-collar crime has increased in seriousness more than any other offense category, trut that it is still viewed as less serious than most other forms of illegality. When different types of white-collar crime were analyzed, we found considerable variation in ratings, with high a degree of seriousness attributed to offenses involving physical harm. Further, while all categories of white-collar criminality increased in seriousness, attitudinal changes have been particularly apparent toward two types, Violent and Corporate Price-Fixing.It has long been asserted that white-collar crime does little to excite moral indignation in thegeneral public. Early in this century, E. A. Ross (1907: viii) decried the lack of concern about the evils of"new varietiesof sins"-business violations-when he commented that "in today's warfare on sin, the reactions of the public are about as serviceable as gongs and stink-pots in a modern battle." Three decades later, Sutherland (1940: 11) similarly observed that whitecollar criminality flourishes "because the community is not organized solidly against that behavior," AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank Carol Skiles and Richard Schaefer for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

show abstract

“…The research literature in crime seriousness begins with Sellin and Wolfgang's The Measurement of Delinquency ( 1964). Subsequent investigations have focused on three major areas: (1) the relative seriousness of white-collar, property, and violent crimes (e.g., Rossi et al, 1974; Schrager and Short, 1980;Cullen et al, 1982); (2) the extent of subgroup variation (e.g., age, sex, race, income) in the rankings of crime serious ness (Rossi et al, 1974;Figlio, 1975;Hawkins, 1980); and (3) within-and cross-cultural replication of the original Sellin-Wolfgang seriousness scale and other scales of seriousness (Akman et al, 1967;Velez-Dias and Megargee, 1970;Hsu, 1973;Newman, 1976). The results of these efforts have been remarkably consistent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Consensus on Crime Seriousness Normative Structure or Methodological Artifact?

Miethe¹

1982

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on public perceptions of crime seriousness is reviewed Two explanations for subgroup consensus are advanced as dternatives to the dominant view that ratings of crime seriousness reflect an underlying w m t i v e structure. It is argued that a normative explanation is plausible only after dismissing these alternative explanations. Research and data analytic strategies are proposed to evaluate the plausibility of these alternative explanations and suggestions are offered for future research in crim seriousness and the measurement of normative phenomena.

show abstract

The Seriousness of Offenses: An Evaluation by Offenders and Nonoffenders

Cited by 72 publications

References 1 publication

Crime seriousness and punitive severity: An assessment of social attitudes

Crime seriousness and punitive severity: An assessment of social attitudes

The Seriousness of Crime Revisited: Have Attitudes Toward White‐Collar Crime Changed?

Public Consensus on Crime Seriousness Normative Structure or Methodological Artifact?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About