an approach to assessing crime severity
In 1977, the US Department of Justice conducted an interesting auxiliary study as part of the National Crime Victimization Survey. They asked 60,000 people how severe 204 crimes were (each person rated 25 criminal events). Yes, yes, interpersonal utility alert; but let's go on. On a scale where 10 = "a person steals a bicycle parked on the street", here are some of the study findings:
0.6 = a person trespasses in the backyard of a private home
1.5 = a person intentionally shoves or pushes a victim. No medical treatment is required.
3.2 = a person breaks into a building and steals property worth $10 (1977)
4.9 = a person snatches a handbag containing $10 (1977) from a victim on the street
6.2 = a person beats a victim with his fists. The victim requires treatment by a doctor but not hospitalization.
6.2 = an employee embezzles $1000 (1977) from his employer.
7.9 = a person intentionally hits a victim with a lead pipe. No medical treatment is required.
9.0 = a person, armed with a lead pipe, robs a victim of $1000 (1977). No physical harm occurs.
11.8 = a person stabs a victim with a knife. No medical treatment is required.
15.5 = a person breaks into a bank at night and steals $100,000 (1977)
17.7 = an employer orders one of his employees to commit a serious crime
17.8 = a person intentionally shoots a victim with a gun. The victim is wounded slightly and does not require medical treatment.
21.2 = a person kidnaps a victim.
22.9 = a parent beats his young child with his fists. The child requires hospitalization.
27.9 = a woman stabs her husband. As a result, he dies.
32.7 = an armed person skyjacks an airplane and holds the crew and passengers hostage until a ransom is paid.
39.2 = a man stabs his wife. As a result, she dies.
47.8 = a parent beats his young child with his fists. As a result, the child dies.
52.8 = a man forcibly rapes a woman. As a result of physical injuries, she dies.
72.1 = a person plants a bomb in a public building. The bomb explodes and 20 people are killed.
There are also the malum prohibitum offenses, such as:
0.5 = a person takes part in a dice game in an alley
1.3 = two persons willingly engage in a homosexual act
1.6 = a person is a customer in a house of prostitution
3.2 = an employer illegally threatens to fire employees if they join a labor union
4.6 = a person cheats on his Federal income tax return
6.5 = a person uses heroin
8.5 = a person sells marijuana to others for resale
20.6 = a person sells heroin to others for resale
33.8 = a person runs a narcotics ring
There are all sorts of things wrong with this survey (and a few inconsistencies and methodological flaws), but at root it has a deep appeal. As Benson has queried (here, p.80), "More significant is the question of how to determine the so-called 'punitive' or unmeasurable damages portion of restitution reflecting the harms associated with the invasion of a person’s property rights." This study is one possible way to assess community standards of this sort. I have elsewhere suggested that mediation case studies could form the basis for arbiters, but casework takes time to build. Surveys could provide an independent assessment of severity. But if that's the case, why not just have, say, 12 people chosen at random to learn all the facts of the case and do an on-the-spot survey. Hmm, maybe there's something to the jury system after all.
Comments (4)
It is outrageous that there is a 11.3 point gap between a husband stabbing his wife to death and a wife stabbing her husband to death. It is equally outrageous that running a narcotics ring is rated more serious than a wife stabbing her husband to death.
The fact that some people look at the same statement twice, with gender roles reversed, of course, and come to such a different valuation of the crime's seriousness is really crazy. They must assume that domestic violence (literally murder) by females is more often justified, even though the question implies nothing about self-defense. That stereotype is not a good sign for the health of morality in civil society, but it probably says even more about the attitudes of public schools and the big media.
Published: November 1, 2007 9:01 PM
I agree with Brent. This is what stuck out to me as well, the double standards and utter lack of a sense of proportion.
Published: November 1, 2007 9:31 PM
What I would find more interesting are the answers to these questions:
A man uses a handgun to threaten another man into giving him $1000.
A group of men (mob) threaten multiple individuals and businesses with retribution if they don't pay "protection" money of $1000 apiece.
A group of men (government) threaten the entire populace of a nation with retribution if they don't sacrifice 35% of their earned income apiece.
All are acts that contain a threat of violence against the individual. We imprison individuals if they are convicted of the first two - we re-elect those whom subject us to the third.
Published: November 2, 2007 1:20 AM
1 in 32 Americans was under penal control in 2006. Prosecutors routinely make one to two years incarcerated a condition of Probation, so the number of incarcerated Americans is even higher. By example, Mother's Against Drunk Driving received $110 in government grants for every $1 spent on lobbying between 1998 and 2004. They are a name, a brand, one of the fronts used by politicians and attorneys to hide the fact that a staggering array of attorney organizations, prisons for profit and others who generate wealth from crime legislation use to rape our liberty. RID, which is older than MADD, but accepts no special interest funding, you've likely never heard exists. Not only that, DUI death is primarily a form of accidental suicide rather than homicide by a ratio of 4:1. The solution to DUI death is to limit 'on premises' alcohol if the objective were protection of citizens, as opposed to a government monopoly on transferring wealth from the many to the few using 'crime' as a conduit. The vast majority of crime in America today involves only a single individual. Given the historical perspective that a crime must involve at least 2 people (excluding crime by government), we call this attack on liberty fascism when other countries do it, yet we are wrongly convinced it is necessary and justifiable when our government does it.
Published: November 2, 2007 5:10 PM