Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 59–90 | Cite as

Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the crime

  • Peter H. Rossi
  • Jon E. Simpson
  • JoAnn L. Miller
Article

Abstract

This paper presents an exposition of how the factorial survey approach may enhance empirical assessments of the complex judgment principles involved in public views of just punishments for convicted offenders. Ratings of the appropriateness of sentences given across 50 typical crimes obtained from a household sample (N=774) of the Boston SMSA and several special-interest samples in 1982 are examined in three alternative ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression equations. These analyses show there is not a one-to-one direct relationship between public perceptions of the seriousness of criminal acts and desired sanctions. Crime seriousness is modified by the characteristics of the offenders and victims and by the consequences of the crimes. Preferred punishments also vary in severity by demographic, experiential, and attitudinal characteristics of the persons who make the judgments.

Key words

factorial surveys vignette studies crime seriousness just punishments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berk, R. A., and Rossi, P. H. (1977).Prison Reform and State Elites, Ballinger Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S. E., Tonry, M. E. (eds.) (1983).Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform, National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Boydell, C. L., and Grindstaff, C. G. (1974). Public opinion towards legal sanctions for crimes of violence.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 65: 113–116.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1980).Criminal Victimization in the United States, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law (1978).National Survey of Crime Severity: Final National Level Geometric Means and Ratio Scores by Offense Stimuli Items, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  7. Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., and Polanzi, C. G. (1982). The seriousness of crime.Criminology 20: 83–102.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbons, D. C. (1969). Crime and punishment: A study in social attitudes.Soc. Forces 47: 391–397.Google Scholar
  9. Gross, H., and Von Hirsch, A. (1981).Sentencing, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hagan, J., and Bumiller, K. (1983). Making sense of sentencing: A review and critique of sentencing research. In Blumstein, A.,et al. (eds.),Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform, National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, V. L., and Rytina, S. (1980). Social consensus on norms of justice: Should the punishment fit the crime?Am. J. Sociol. 85: 1117–1144.Google Scholar
  12. Kmenta, J. (1977).Elements of Econometrics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  13. National Opinion Research Center (1983).Codebook for General Social Survey, NORC, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Rose, A. M., and Prell, W. E. (1955). Does the punishment fit the crime? A study in social evaluation.Am. J. Sociol. 61: 247–259.Google Scholar
  15. 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, Calif.Google Scholar
  16. Rossi, P. H., and Henry, J. P. (1980). Seriousness: A measure for all purposes? In Klein, M. W., and Teilmann, K. S. (eds.),Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  17. Rossi, P. H., and Nock, S. (eds.) (1982).Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  18. Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C., and Berk, R. A. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences.Am. Sociol. Rev. 39: 224–237.Google Scholar
  19. Sellin, T., and Wolfgang, M. E. (1964).The Measurement of Delinquency, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1980).Crime and Punishment: Changing Attitudes in America, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  21. 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

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter H. Rossi
    • 1
  • Jon E. Simpson
    • 1
  • JoAnn L. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.Social and Demographic Research InstituteUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations