A SCALE OF SERIOUSNESS OF CRIMES'

admin

A SCALE OF SERIOUSNESS OF CRIMES'
From time to time in the statistical treatment of criminal data
it becomes necessary to evaluate the previous criminal records of
delinquents, and to distinguish degrees of criminality in habitual
offenders. The adequacy of the indices most commonly used is
sometimes questioned since they offer no particular discrimination
between major and minor crimes. Early in the present century
Goring3 attempted to supplement the most common index, i.e., number
of previous convictions, by making two additional indices based
on a combination of the number of previous convictions and the
time elapsing between the first and last convictions
In 1922 Clark' developed a scale for grading 15 juvenile offenses.
This scale was based on the judgments of 50 university
faculty members and students and 50 other persons engaged in social
and educational work. The scale was later revised by Mursell 5 who
also added a formula for calculating a recidivistic index.
About 1926 John E. Slawsonc developed another index to evaluate
the past criminal records of delinquents he was studying. His
method involved the construction of a seriousness scale for previous
records based on the total time incarcerated. Sentences involving
fines were evaluated by considering a one dollar fine as the equivalent
of one day incarcerated.
More recently, the Gluecks7 have devised a dichotomous classification of crimes with respect to seriousness based primarily on
the severity of the legal sentences; but, in some cases, supplemented
by personal judgments of the authors.
The purpose of this study is to explore the possibilities of scaling
previous criminal records of recidivists by means of a scale of seriousness
based on the judgments of a group of professional persons
and derived by the use of the paired comparison technique."
It is further desired to apply this scale to a number of recidivistic
cases to determine the feasibility of its use, and the discrimination
it offers in comparison with other indices.
Method and Results
A questionnaire arranged in accordance with the paired comparison
technique was sent out to 158 persons in the professions
indicated in Table I. Sixteen categories of crimes were used, following,
in general, the categories employed by the Federal Bureau
of the Census.9 Two changes were made. Embezzlement and fraud
were taken from the subcaptions under larceny and placed in
independent categories. Secondly, the general category of sex offenses
was eliminated and rape and sodomy were made independent
categories. The 16 items were then paired, once each with every
other, and the resulting 120 pairs were incorporated in a questionnaire.
Position of the items with respec4 to each other, and the
position of the respective pairs were controlled by making the
questionnaire in two forms, A and B, the order of the pairs in form
A being the reverse of form B. Equal number of each form were
sent out. With each questionnaire an explanatory letter and a
supplementary sheet defining the crimes under each catagory were
included.
The returns are shown in Table I. Eighty judges out of 158
returned the questionnaire. Letters were received from 13 who
did not return a questionnaire, offering instead various criticisms
as to why the questionnaire could not be answered. Many felt
unable or unwilling to make any comparison of the crimes in the
abstract, feeling that the individual aspects should be available to
make an evaluation. This point of view overlooks the fact that in
judging a criminal record we seldom have more than was offered in the questionnaire. The differentiating circumstantial material,
either extenuating or aggravating, is usually lacking. Yet a judgment
must be made.
The results of the questionnaires returned were tabulated in
a percentage chart as shown in Table II. This chart shows the
percentage of the judges who chose the crime at the top of the
column as more serious than the crime of the corresponding row.
For example, the top entry in the first column is 47.5. This means
that 47.5 per cent of the judges believed assault to be more serious
than burglary. A similar chart was then made with the percentages
translated into standard deviations, expressed in sigma units. This
latter chart and Thurstone's paired comparison technique were used
to obtain the scale values. Assuming the zero scale value to fall
at -2.896 sigma, the values shown in Table III were obtained.
Inspection of the Seriousness Scale shows that Homicide stands
out alone with a seriousness value of 5.24, which is considerably
above the seriousness of other crimes. The differences between the others, successively considered, are not reliable. But it is important
to consider the probable errors, which must be regarded
as the measures of agreement among the judges as to the seriousness
of any one crime. In this connection it is interesting to note
the relatively stable position of burglary, robbery and larceny, as
indicated by their relatively small probable errors. Sodomy shows
considerable fluctuation. This contrast is not surprising, since theO
seriousness of predatory crimes such as burglary, robbery and larceny,
is not in controversy, either in law or professional circles,
whereas the seriousness of sodomy is

source:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2798&context=jclc