Foreword | Acknowledgements | Tables & Figures | Executive Summary | Introduction | Levels of knowledge about crime and the criminal justice system | Attitudes to criminal justice professionals | Crime seriousness | Sentencing practice | Aims of sentencing | General discussion/concluding remarks | References | Appendices
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Rankings of crime seriousness
4.3 Comparison with other research
4.4 Summary
There is an extensive body of literature on how the public evaluate the seriousness of different crimes. Roberts and Stalans (1997) suggest that research on public perceptions of seriousness is important for several reasons. Firstly, if the public have a very different view of the seriousness of a crime from that of judges, they are going to respond negatively to the sentences judges impose. Judges are also concerned to try to some extent to reflect public opinion in the sentences they hand down.
In the first question of the survey, respondents were given a list of six cards, each containing a short description of a crime:
This question was an introductory one. That is, it was reasonably simple to answer and was a lead-in to following questions. However, we were also interested in exploring the relationship between perceived crime seriousness and sentencing practice in addition to seriousness of each crime relative to other crimes.
These crimes were selected in consultation with Ministry of Justice policy staff. They chose some crimes on the basis that they might become the subject of future policy development. Other crimes were ones that were attracting public attention at the time.
Respondents were asked to arrange the cards in order, from the most serious to the least serious. Table 4.1 presents the means, standard deviations, median and modal values for each of the six crimes. The larger the values for the standard deviation, the greater the variation between individuals in the ranking of crimes. For example, consensus amongst respondents was greatest in the ranking of possession of cannabis, where the standard deviation was 0.99. Variation between individuals was greatest for smuggling heroin, where the standard deviation was 1.42.
Table 4.1 Mean rankings of crime seriousness
| Mean | Standard deviation | Median | Mode | |
|
Burglary with a weapon |
2.41 |
1.33 |
2 |
1 |
|
Importing heroin |
2.45 |
1.42 |
2 |
1 |
|
Male assaults female |
2.97 |
1.33 |
3 |
3 |
|
Drunk driving |
3.20 |
1.38 |
3 |
3 |
|
Fraud |
4.40 |
1.13 |
5 |
5 |
|
Possession of marijuana |
5.58 |
0.99 |
6 |
6 |
Further analysis was undertaken examining the proportion of respondents who ranked each of the crimes among the top two, in the middle, or among the bottom two. Figure 4.1 shows the results of this analysis.
While definite trends emerge, and some crimes were clearly considered to be more serious than others, it can also be seen that there was a large degree of variability in the ranking of crimes.
Both Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show that possession of cannabis was ranked the least serious of all the crimes, with a mean ranking of 5.58. Nearly four out of five respondents (79%) gave possession of cannabis a sixth place ranking and a further 11% gave it a fifth place ranking. Fraud of $50,000 had a mean value of 4.40 and 59% ranked fraud as one of the two least serious crimes. Only 9% ranked fraud as first or second most serious.
Figure 4.1 Relative rankings of crime seriousness
Burglary with a weapon and importing heroin were ranked the most serious of the crimes, with means of 2.41 and 2.45 respectively. Over half the sample ranked these crimes either first or second. Only about one in 10 respondents considered these crimes to be of relatively low seriousness.
A man assaults his female partner and drunk driving were the crimes most likely to be ranked as being of medium seriousness. Just under half ranked these crimes in either third or fourth place. However, a significant minority also ranked these crimes as being of relatively high seriousness. The crime of male assaults female had a mean ranking of 2.97 and that of drunk driving of 3.2.
Table 4.2 further shows the variability in the ranking of the crimes. Only in the case of possession of marijuana did more than half of the respondents allocate a particular rank position. For the crimes of male assaults female and drunk driving, one-fifth to a quarter of respondents ranked the crimes in second, third or fourth position.
Table 4.2 Relative rankings of crime seriousness
| Rank | Burglary with a weapon % | Importing heroin % | Male assaults female % | Drunk driving % | Fraud % | Possession of marijuana % |
| 1 | 32.2 | 37.8 | 15.5 | 12.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 |
| 2 | 27.0 | 17.8 | 23.7 | 21.0 | 8.3 | 2.0 |
| 3 | 18.6 | 14.9 | 26.8 | 24.8 | 11.7 | 2.9 |
| 4 | 13.5 | 21.9 | 19.9 | 21.1 | 19.9 | 3.9 |
| 5 | 7.4 | 5.8 | 10.9 | 16.7 | 48.5 | 10.9 |
| 6 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 10.7 | 79.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Note: Totals may not exactly add up to 100% due to rounding.
Respondents who ranked burglary with a weapon as one of the two most serious crimes were more likely to:
Respondents who rated importing heroin as one of the two most serious crimes were more likely to:
Respondents who ranked male assaults female as one of the two most serious crimes were more likely to:
Respondents who ranked drunk driving as one of the two most serious crimes were more likely to:
Respondents who ranked fraud as one of the two least serious crimes were more likely to:
Respondents who ranked cannabis possession as one of the two least serious crimes were more likely to:
As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, there is a considerable body of research that has examined the question of crime seriousness. Generally, most research consists of presenting respondents with a range of crimes and asking them, using varying methodologies, to rate the seriousness of these crimes. Results generally show that violent offences are ranked seriously and victimless crimes fall near the bottom of the hierarchy (Durham III 1988).
Two New Zealand studies have examined the question of crime seriousness. Davis and Kemp (1994) surveyed 155 Christchurch residents on their perceptions of the seriousness of 25 crimes. Bratcher (1997) surveyed 181 New Zealand residents and asked participants to rate the seriousness of 10 crimes. While both studies used different methodologies to rank the seriousness of crimes, they found similar results. Offences against the person – rape, murder, child molestation and armed robbery – were the most seriously ranked crimes. Possession of cannabis or other drugs was ranked relatively low. Similarly in our survey, we found that most of the respondents ranked possession of 10 grams of marijuana as being one of the two least serious crimes.
Aggravated burglary and smuggling heroin were considered to be the most serious crimes by respondents to our survey. These findings are in keeping with Bratcher’s study, where ‘selling drugs’ was ranked the most serious crime next to violent crimes against the person.
While there appears to be some consistency in the average rankings of crime seriousness, there is also a large degree of variation between individuals in their perceptions of crime seriousness. Durham III (1988) states that ‘…when the response distributions are examined without the aid of such summary techniques, it appears that popular sentiment is far from consensual’ (p. 149). We found that with the exception of possession of cannabis (where the majority agreed that this was the crime of least seriousness), no other rank position for a crime was supported by more than half of the respondents. Davis and Kemp (1994) also found considerable individual variation in seriousness estimates.