The students were asked to rate 32 different types of crimes on a 10-point scale of offense seriousness. Crime classifications included crimes against persons, white collar crimes and other crimes by respectable people, political crimes of the powerful and powerless, crimes against property, and drug and other victimless crimes. The participants were also asked to indicate whether the penalties for these crimes should be death, prison, probation, fines, psychiatric treatment, or no penalty at all. There was substantial agreement between high-class and low-class students as to how crimes should be ranked in terms of seriousness. In general, students from both high-class and low-class backgrounds rated crimes and assigned penalties in a corrollary manner. There was also close agreement between seriousness of crime and suggested penalty for both groups. Major deviations were child beating, bank robbery, and auto theft. Child beating was ranked high in severity by both groups, but 18th in suggested penalty. The other two crimes were ranked near the middle of the list in severity, but in the top five in suggested penalty. In cases where crimes had economic or political significance, lower class respondents rated their seriousness higher than higher class ones. Both groups rated crimes which threaten the interests of the powerful (governmental overthrow, participation in prohibited demonstrations, and vandalization of a store selling contaminated food) as less serious. Crimes against persons resulted in the highest punitive ratings, followed by white collar and political offenses, and finally by crimes against property. These findings gave little support to the consciousness manipulation hypothesis, according to which a false consensus was expected, derived from assumed manipulation of lower class crimes perceptions in the interests of the dominating upper class. Instead, respondents in this study indicated an increased concern, relative to other types of offenses, with the threats posed by offenses of the powerful in support of their particular interests. A footnote and 11 references are provided.