Public perceptions of the seriousness of crime: Weighing the harm and the wrong
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818772768 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818772768
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(2) 127 –150
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818772768
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Public perceptions of the
seriousness of crime: Weighing
the harm and the wrong
An Adriaenssen
KU Leuven, Belgium
Letizia Paoli
KU Leuven, Belgium
Susanne Karstedt
Griffith University, Australia
Jonas Visschers
KU Leuven, Belgium
Victoria A. Greenfield
George Mason University, USA
Stefaan Pleysier
KU Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
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.
Corresponding author:
Letizia Paoli, Faculty of Law, KU Leuven, H. Hooverplein 10, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
Email: Letizia.Paoli@law.kuleuven.be
772768EUC0010.1177/1477370818772768European Journal of CriminologyAdriaenssen et al.
research-article2018
Article
128 European Journal of Criminology 17(2)
Keywords
Crime seriousness, harm, wrong moralism, criminal policy, public opinion, sentencing, penal
policy, criminalization, crime control, crime prevention
Introduction
The seriousness of crime, or ‘crime seriousness’, features prominently in at least four
areas of contemporary criminal policies: sentencing, criminalization, crime control and
prevention. In several jurisdictions (for example, Finland, Sweden, the UK and several
US states), sentencing guidelines explicitly require the severity of the penalty to be pro-
portionate to the seriousness of the offence, which, in turn, depends on a combination of
the harm done or risked through the commission of the offence and the offender’s culpa-
bility (for example, Von Hirsch and Ashworth, 2005); in others (for example, France,
Germany, Italy), maximum sentences reflect the presumed seriousness of the offence.
Crime seriousness also constitutes an important criterion for deciding whether to crimi-
nalize particular conduct (Ashworth, 2006: 35–42). In addition, scholars and practition-
ers have promoted seriousness as a tool for allocating resources and identifying priorities
in crime control and prevention (for example, Office for National Statistics, 2016;
Sherman et al., 2016). At the same time, ‘serious crime’, which typically encompasses
transnational organized crime, such as drug and human trafficking, has become an organ-
izing framework for criminal policy in the European Union (EU)1 and elsewhere (Paoli
et al., 2016).2
To establish the seriousness of crime, policy-makers have turned to the considerable
body of research on public perceptions of crime seriousness that has emerged from Sellin
and Wolfgang’s 1964 landmark study, and demonstrated a consensus across social groups
and countries in the ranking of crimes (see Stylianou, 2003, for a review). England and
Wales, for example, accounted for public perceptions in the development of sentencing
guidelines (see Sentencing Guidelines Council, 2004). In their turn, several Anglo-
American law enforcement and policy-making agencies use sentencing guidelines or
data as benchmarks for prioritizing prosecution and allocating resources (for example,
UK Metropolitan Police Service in Tusikov, 2012) or for mapping crime trends (for
example, Office for National Statistics, 2016). The Belgian police (Charlier et al., 2006)
also factor public concern for different crimes into their long-term priorities.
Scholars who, in line with Sellin and Wolfgang (1964, 1991), view public perceptions
of seriousness as an important measure of crime seriousness for policy-making support
these policy developments, at least conceptually. In their theory of ‘intuitive justice’,
Robinson and Darley (for example, 2007) argue that the public can give nuanced and
sophisticated assessments of both the offence seriousness and the offender’s blamewor-
thiness.3 They contend that only such ‘empirical deserts’ can guarantee the legitimacy
and moral credibility of criminal policy. In the extreme, Tonry (2015: 665), argues that
the ‘literature on citizens’ rankings of the seriousness of crime tell us all we need to know
for purposes of sentencing and corrections policy’.
By comparison, other scholars (for example, Roberts, 2011; Von Hirsch and Jareborg,
1991) stress the limitations and risks of relying solely on public opinion in sentencing,
To continue reading
Request your trial