NCJ Number
16322
Date Published
1974
Length
24 pages
Annotation
BACKGROUND, METHODLOLOGY, AND RESULTS OF AN EXPERIMENT TESTING TWO MODELS OF HOW LAWS ARE CREATED, LEGITIMATED AND APPLIED BY MEASURING RELATIVE CRIME SERIOUSNESS AND LENGTH OF SENTENCE ASSIGNED BY VARIOUS GROUPS.
Abstract
THE TWO CONFLICTING MODELS ARE FIRST DESCRIBED. THE 'CONSENSUS' MODEL SUGGESTS THAT LAWS ARE A CODIFICATION OF THE VALUES OF THE PEOPLE, REFLECTING A HIGH DEGREE OF CONSENSUS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND THE DEGREE OF LEGAL SANCTIONS TO BE IMPOSED FOR EACH OFFENSE. THE 'CONFLICT' MODEL STATES THAT LAWS ARE GROUNDED IN THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN INTEREST GROUPS, EACH HAVING DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE LAW AND THE MOST POWERFUL GROUPS HAVING THEIR VIEWS LEGITIMIZED BY THE COERCIVE POWER OF THE STATE. TO TEST THESE THEORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES ON THE RELATIVE SERIOUSNESS OF VARIOUS CRIMES AND THE LENGTH OF SENTENCE THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR EACH CRIME WERE SENT TO 7,229 HOUSEHOLDS, OF WHICH 3,334 REPLIED. RESPONSES WERE TABULATED ACCORDING TO SEX, RACE, AGE, INCOME LEVEL, OCCUPATIONAL PRESTIGE AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL. FOR BOTH THE RANKING OF CRIME SERIOUSNESS AND THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE LENGTH FOR EACH CRIME, CONSISTENCY OF RANKING BETWEEN ALL GROUPS WAS REMARKABLY HIGH, THUS SUPPORTING THE CONSENSUS THEORY. FOR ALL GROUPS, CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS WERE PERCEIVED TO BE SERIOUS WHILE VICTIMLESS CRIMES ARE VIEWED AS RELATIVELY MINOR OFFENSES.