Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 309–322 | Cite as

Offense seriousness scaling: An alternative to scenario methods

  • James P. Lynch
  • Mona J. E. Danner
Article

Abstract

The use of crime scenarios in sample surveys is the principal method for assessing public valuations of crime seriousness. The adequacy of this method is heavily dependent upon the a priori assumptions of the researchers constructing these scenarios. If crucial attributes of crime incidents are omitted from these descriptions of a crime, then resulting seriousness scores and weights will be in error. This paper proposes an alternative method of assessing crime seriousness—the Hedonic Price Index approach—that is not as dependent upon the prior assumptions of those building scenarios. This approach can be used as a complement to scenario methods to further our understanding of the evaluation of crime seriousness.

Key words

seriousness scaling scenarios seriousness scores 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akman, D. D., Normandeau, A., and Turner, S. (1967). The measurement of delinquency in Canada.Crim. Law Criminal. Police Sci. 58:330–337.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, C. L. (1981).Using Hedonic Indexes to Measure Housing Supply Response to Housing Allowances, Rand, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Berndt, E. R. (1991).The Practice of Econometrics: Classic and Contemporary. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Blum-West, S. R. (1985). The seriousness of crime: A study of popular morality.Deviant Behav. 6:83–98.Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein, A. (1974). Seriousness weights in an index of crime.Am. Sociol. Rev. 39:854–864.Google Scholar
  6. Blumstein, A., and Cohen, J. (1980). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public's view.Law Soc. Rev. 14:223–261.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, B. G., and Collins, J. J. (1985).Crime Victimization in the District of Columbia: A Report to Congress and the District of Columbia Government, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  8. Cullen, T., Link, G., and Polanzi, W. (1982). The seriousness of crime revisited: Have attitudes toward white-collar crime changed?Criminology 20:83–102.Google Scholar
  9. Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Travis, L. F., III, and Wozm'ak, J. F. (1985). Consensus in crime seriousness: Empirical reality or methodological artifact?Criminology 23:99–118.Google Scholar
  10. Durham, A. M., III (1986). The use of factorial survey design in assessments of public judgments of appropriate punishment for crime.J. Quant, Criminol. 2:181–190.Google Scholar
  11. Figlio, R. M. (1975). The seriousness of offenses: An evaluation by offenders and nonoffenders.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 66:189–200.Google Scholar
  12. Follain, J. R., and Malpezzi, S. (1980).Dissecting Housing Value and Rent: Estimates from Hedonic Indexes for 39 Large SMSAs, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Galvin, J. M.List versus Transaction Price as Dependent Variables in a Hedonic Price Function for New Automobiles, Unpublished M.A. thesis, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons, D. C. (1969). Crime and punishment: A study in social attitudes.Soc. Forces 47:391–399.Google Scholar
  15. Gottfredson, S. D., Young, K. L., and Laufer, W. S. (1980). Additivity and interactions in offenses seriousness scales.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 17:26–41.Google Scholar
  16. Hsu, M. (1973). Cultural and sexual differences on the judgment of criminal offenses: A replication study of the measurement of delinquency.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 64:348–353.Google Scholar
  17. Jacoby, J. E., and Dunn, C. S. (1987). National Survey on Punishment for Criminal Offenses. Executive Summary prepared for presentation at the National Conference on Punishment for Criminal Offenses, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  18. Miethe, T. D. (1982). Public consensus on crime seriousness: Normative structure or methodological artifact?Criminology 20:515–526.Google Scholar
  19. Miethe, T. D. (1984). Types of con sensus in public evaluations of crime: An illustration of strategies for measuring “consensus.”J. Crim. Law Criminol. 75:459–473.Google Scholar
  20. Miethe, T. D. (1987). Stereotypical conceptions and criminal processing: the case of the victim-offender relationship.Just. Q. 4:571–593.Google Scholar
  21. Normandeau, A. (1966). The measurement of delinquency in Montreal.J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 57:172–177.Google Scholar
  22. Pease, K., Ireson, J., and Thorpe, J. (1974). Additivity assumptions in the measurements of delinquency.Br. J. Criminol. 14:256–263.Google Scholar
  23. Reidel, M. (1975). Perceived circumstances, inferences of intent and judgments of offense seriousness.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 66:201–208.Google Scholar
  24. Rossi, P. H., and Anderson, A. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In Rossi, P. H., and Nock, S. (eds.),Measuring Social Judgments, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Rossi, P. H., and Nock, S. L. (1982).Measuring Social Judgements: The Factorial Survey Approach, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., and Berk, R. E. (1974). Seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences.Am. Sociol. Rev. 39:224–237.Google Scholar
  27. Rossi, P. H., Simpson, J. E., and Miller, J. L. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the crime.J. Quant. Criminol. 1:59–90.Google Scholar
  28. Sebba, L. (1984). Crime seriousness and criminal intent.Crime Delinq. 30:227–244.Google Scholar
  29. Sellin, T., and Wolfgang, M. E. (1964).The Measurement of Delinquency, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, D. G., Scheppele, K. L., and Stinchcombe, A. L. (1979). Salience of crime and support for harsher criminal sanctions.Soc. Problems 26:413–424.Google Scholar
  31. Thomas, C. W., Cage, R. J., and Foster, S. C. (1976). Public opinion on criminal law and legal sanctions: An examination of two conceptual models.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 67:110–116.Google Scholar
  32. Velez-Diaz, A., and Magargee, E. (1971). An investigation of differences in value judgments between youthful offenders and nonoffenders in Puerto Rico.J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 61:549–553.Google Scholar
  33. Warr, M. (1989). What is he Perceived seriousness of crimes? Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  34. White, G. F. (1975). Public responses to hypothetical crimes: Effects of victim offender status and seriousness of offense on punitive reactions.Soc. Forces 53(3):411–419.Google Scholar
  35. Wilman, E. A. (1981).External Costs of Coastal Beach Pollution: An Hedonic Approach, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  36. Wolfgang, M. E., and Figlio, R. M. (1984). The severity of crime.BJS Bulletin, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., Tracy, P. E., and Singer, S. I. (1985).National Survey of Crime Severity, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • James P. Lynch
    • 1
  • Mona J. E. Danner
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Justice, Law and Society, School of Public AffairsThe American UniversityWashington, DC
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and Criminal JusticeOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk

Personalised recommendations