skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 120605 Find in a Library
Title: What Is the Perceived Seriousness of Crimes?
Journal: Criminology  Volume:27  Issue:4  Dated:(November 1989)  Pages:795-821
Author(s): M Warr
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 27
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Survey data from Dallas residents form the basis of this analysis of whether individuals' judgments of the seriousness of crimes reflect normative evaluations of wrongfulness or factual judgments about their harmfulness to victims.
Abstract: A sample of 665 persons randomly selected from the telephone directory received mailed questionnaires in September 1987. Usable responses came from 336 people, most of whom were white. Results showed that normative evaluations and factual judgments represent two distinct dimensions and that the conventional categories of crime (personal, property, public order) systematically differ on the two dimensions. Where crimes are perceived to be more wrong than harmful, seriousness reflects perceptions of wrongfulness. Where crimes are perceived to be more harmful than wrong, harmfulness predominates. However, a substantial minority of participants do not perceive differences in the moral gravity of crimes and judge seriousness solely on the basis of harmfulness. Results indicate that judgments about seriousness are more structured and complex than commonly supposed and that conventional measures of seriousness may mask or obscure distinct mechanisms of evaluation. Figures, tables, footnotes, and 19 references.
Main Term(s): Crime seriousness measures
Index Term(s): Offense classification; Public Opinion of Crime
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=120605

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.