Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness: A Comparison of Social Divisions in Israel

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Herzog

Crime seriousness research indicates that respondents from varying social and cultural groups rank the perceived seriousness of offenses similarly, with violent offenses as the most serious, followed by property, economic, and victimless offenses. It has also consistently been found, however, that the specific ratings of offenses by respondents from different social groups often differ. Because Israel is considered a deeply divided society, this article focuses on the comparison of public perceptions of the seriousness of varied criminal offenses between respondents belonging to varying central social groups in the countiy. As expected, the findings show similar, albeit not identical, rankings of offenses and important differences in the rating of specific offenses across groups. These findings are interpreted in the context of the Israeli society.

1988 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16
Author(s):  
Robert J. Gebotys ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Bikram Dasgupta

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
An Adriaenssen ◽  
Letizia Paoli ◽  
Susanne Karstedt ◽  
Jonas Visschers ◽  
Victoria A. Greenfield ◽  
...  

The seriousness of crime or ‘crime seriousness’ bears on at least four areas of criminal policy (sentencing, criminalization, crime control and prevention) but is poorly defined. After providing a novel conceptualization of crime seriousness, this article explores the logic – or normative philosophical principles – behind the public’s assessment of crime seriousness and considers how the public’s logic aligns with legal principles and policy requirements. A general population survey administered in 2014 in Belgium and eliciting 1278 valid responses indicates that the public’s logic is more moralist than consequentialist and raises doubts about the validity of public perceptions of crime seriousness as an indicator of crime seriousness for policy-making.


Author(s):  
Martin G. Helander ◽  
Halimahtun M. Khalid

Most research on disaster use a social vulnerability approach. Social vulnerability to disaster is dynamic process that is rooted in culture, gender, ethnicity, age and other power relationships. This assumes that disasters are effects of human constructs due to their use of natural and built environments. Disaster risk is socially distributed in ways that reflect social divisions existing in society. Hence, our study investigated the effects of cultural groups and gender on risk attitudes for two types of disasters, namely natural and human-induced disasters. Risk attitude in this study is a summative of five components: risk identification, cognition, affect, trust and behavior. There were significant differences in risk attitudes between cultural groups, namely, Malaysian and Indonesian, and genders at three levels of situation awareness: perception, comprehension and projection. In addition, the study revealed utility of using attitudes and experience of disasters in psycho-cultural analysis of social vulnerabilities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document