Exportación e Importación

OFFICERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF OFFENSE SERIOUSNESS

This chapter draws on officers’ accounts to answer the question: Why do officers believe that some offenses are more serious than others? The three major perspectives on offense seriousness and their relation to police work are reviewed, leading to three sets of hypotheses. These hypotheses are then related to participants’ explanations of what makes offenses the most or least serious in their experience. The chapter concludes by summarizing the findings as relates to prior work.

Offense Seriousness

More than two centuries ago, Beccaria (1995 [1764]) and Bentham (1988 [1781]) suggested that punishment should fit the crime. In other words, the more serious is an offense then the more severe should be the government sanction.49 If more serious crimes should be punished more severely, then what makes an offense “serious”? Is seriousness a universal property, a sociocultural construction, or dependent on the characteristics of offenders and victims?

Beccaria and Bentham equate seriousness with harm. In Beccaria’s words (1995 [1764], p. 21):

49

The assumptions and reasoning behind this premise are (1) some crimes are more harmful to society and individuals than others; (2) more harmful crimes are more important to deter with the threat of punishment; (3) the likelihood of a person committing one or another crime depends on its potential benefits and costs; and thus (4) “[i]f an equal punishment is laid down for two crimes which damage society unequally, men will not have a stronger deterrent against committing the greater crime if they find it more advantageous to do so” (Beccaria 1995 [1764], p. 21). Additionally, Bentham (1988 [1781]) added that it is a waste of

[W]e can make out a scale of wrong actions, of which the highest grade consists in those which spell the immediate destruction of society, and the lowest those which involve the smallest possible injustice to private participants. Between these two extremes are … gradations from the highest to the lowest, all the actions which are inimical to the public good and which can be called crimes. Sellin and Wolfgang (1964) specified this view by creating a “seriousness scale.” Rather than rank legally defined categories (e.g., “homicide,” “burglary,” and “underage

drinking”), they ranked offenses from most to least serious according to: whether they involve injury, theft, property damage, or threats; who is victimized; and whether adults or only juveniles can be guilty of the crime. They classified offenses into two broad classes, I and II, and ten categories, A through J. Class I offenses are the most serious. In this class, the most serious is that in which a victim is physically injured (Category A), followed by crimes involving property loss through theft (Category B) and property damage (Category C). “Class II” offenses are defined as less serious because they involve no injury, theft, or damage. The most serious Class II type involves physical injury threatened (Category D) followed—from most to least serious—by property loss threatened (Category E), primary victimization (Category F), secondary victimization (Category G), tertiary victimization (Category H), mutual victimization (Category I), and status offenses (Category J).50

50

Note that for any given offense to fit within a particular category, it cannot involve any of the earlier categories’ defining characteristics. Primary victimization is that against a specific person; secondary victimization is against an organization (e.g., businesses and churches); tertiary victimization is an offense

Another approach defines and measures offense seriousness by the amount of punishment it receives in practice.51 This position focuses on the de facto law, assuming it represents “collective feelings” of disapproval (see Durkheim, 1982 [1895]). Crimes subjected to more law enforcement in practice, therefore, are deemed more serious. Broadly, felonies are more serious than misdemeanors because the former are punished more harshly on average. Or a particular offense is deemed more serious as the average number of days served in prison increases (see e.g., the discussion of De Castro’s work in Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964, p. 47-49).

Nested in the public disapproval perspective is the theory that a crime’s frequency determines its seriousness. Stated differently, the more common is an offense in a

community then the less severely it is punished, as the collective disapproval of it is generally less strong (see Durkheim, 1982 [1895]). Cooney and Burt write (2008):

Regardless of its substance [i.e. a deviant act’s nature and harm], prevalence affects the seriousness of deviance, as measured by the severity of the sanctions or punishment it evokes. The more prevalent deviance is, the less severe the

punishment it attracts at the case level. Indeed, should the conduct become extremely prevalent, it may even be legislatively decriminalized (p. 493).52 A similar, albeit different, approach to defining seriousness is that of Black (1976). He too suggests that an offense’s seriousness equates to the amount of law applied to it. Instead of citing public disapproval, which is the property of a collective, he theorizes that offenses are subject to more governmental social control—i.e., they

51

This position essentially flips that of Beccaria and Bentham on its head.

52

Cooney and Burt (2008) find, for example, that in communities where murder is more common, homicide defendants are less likely to be convicted and, if convicted, the length of the prison sentence is

become more serious—depending on the social geometry of the case. Specifically, he suggests offenses are more serious when committed by lower status actors (persons or groups), against higher status actors, who are less intimate with each other or less similar culturally.

To summarize, there are three major perspectives on offense seriousness. One defines it by the amount of harm done to victims and society (Beccaria, 1995 [1764]); Bentham, 1988 [1781]; Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). Another equates offense seriousness with the amount of law enforcement reaction it receives, which reflects public

disapproval (Durkheim, 1982 [1895]; Cooney & Burt, 2008). A third proposes that offense seriousness—as measured by subjection to formal control—varies according to the status of persons involved in each case and the social distance between them (Black, 1976). Thus the first, second, and third perspectives view offense seriousness,

respectively, as a universal property, a cultural construction, and dependent on the characteristics of offenders and victims.

Offense Seriousness and Police Work

If formal control increases directly with an offense’s seriousness, do the police act more vigorously when they view a crime as more serious? Answering that question involves determining what offenses officers view as serious and what guides those assessments. Do officers equate seriousness with harm, public disapproval, commonness, the status of and social distance between offenders and victims, or another factor?

Little research has been conducted on officers’ perceptions of offense seriousness. The most notable work in this regard is that of Klinger (1997), who is a former officer himself (Klinger, 2006). In his seminal work on the ecological theory of police response,

Klinger (1997) touches on all three perspectives of offense seriousness. In agreement with Sellin and Wolfgang’s (1964) ranking system, for instance, Klinger (1997, p. 295) suggests that murder is the most serious crime and, therefore, always receives the most vigorous police attention. In line with the public disapproval perspective (see Durkheim, 1982 [1895]), Klinger (1997) proposes that “officers increasingly define more serious deviant acts as normal with increasing district-level deviance” and therefore “believe that fewer deviant acts warrant vigorous police intervention than will their peers in lower crime districts” (p. 294).53

And supporting Black’s (1976) assertion that offense seriousness depends on who is involved, Klinger (1997) states that “police officers believe that crimes involving undeserving victims”—referring to deviants and criminals, or who Black would label as persons of low normative status—“deserve less vigorous action than crimes involving deserving individuals as victims” (p. 294). Thus, all three perspectives on offense seriousness may affect officers’ perceptions.

Klinger’s (1997) work has two interrelated limitations that this chapter addresses. First, he assumes that officers within districts hold fairly similar perceptions of offense seriousness, insofar as to cause differences in police vigor across districts. That may be true, but an open question is whether officers within a district vary significantly in their perceptions of offense seriousness? A second, related, limitation is officers’ own perceptions of what makes offenses more or less serious are left unspecified. Although Klinger synthesizes prior studies on police work, he does not present any qualitative data or statistics bearing on the matter. His use of the word “serious” appears to represent

53

Klinger (1997) notes that exceptions to this general principle are murder and offenses jeopardizing officer safety, which are handled with equal vigor regardless of the district crime rate. While that may be true, Cooney and Burt (2008) find that in communities where murder is more common, homicide

harm, but this word is never defined. Klinger explains that officers in high crime districts view deviance as relatively normal and generally respond to it less vigorously, but he does not specify whether officers in higher crime districts actually view offenses as less serious per se. Similarly, he suggests that officers respond less vigorously to offenses against undeserving victims, but does not examine whether officers view these offenses as less serious.

Campus Officers’ Most and Least Serious Offense Experiences

In the current study, participants were asked to describe the most and least serious crimes they had handled on campus generally, and to explain what about these cases creates their reported level of seriousness. They were also asked to describe the most serious and least serious alcohol crimes (DUI, underage drinking, fake ID possession, public drunkenness) they had handled on campus, and to explain why each offense is that level of seriousness. The reason for asking about alcohol crimes specifically is the

majority of offenses handled by campus officers are alcohol violations (CSACU, 1994; Sloan, 1994; Wechsler et al., 1994; Wechsler, 1996, 2001).

The three major perspectives on offense seriousness suggest a series of

hypotheses about what factors officers should cite in explaining offenses as the most or least serious in their experience. According to the harm perspective, officers should perceive injurious offenses as more serious than ones involving theft or property damage; see those offenses as more serious than ones involving mere threats; and consider those to be more serious than—from most to least harmful—primary, secondary, tertiary, and mutual victimizations; officers should deem status offenses as the least serious (Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). The public disapproval perspective suggests officers should base an

offense’s seriousness on whether it is a felony or misdemeanor and how much

punishment it could incur; and, view more common offenses as less serious (Cooney & Burt, 2008; Durkheim, 1982 [1895]). And drawing on Black’s (1976) theory of law, perhaps officers should consider offenses to be more serious when committed by a low status person, against a high status victim, and they are far in social distance (i.e., culturally distinct or a stranger).54

The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. First, participants’ perceptions of what they believe to be the most serious crime of any type they have handled are examined; then the focus is narrowed to alcohol offenses. This is followed with an examination of the least serious experiences generally and, in turn, those related only to alcohol.

Officers’ Most Serious Crime Experiences Generally55

Participants most frequently cited violent crimes (n=8), including assault (n=3), robbery (n=3), sexual assault (n=1), and unlawful weapons possession (n=1), as the most serious crime they had personally handled on campus. Property crime and drug/alcohol crime are tied as the second largest category, with four officers citing each. The property crimes include auto theft (n=2), auto break-in (n=1), and petty larceny (n=1). The

drug/alcohol crimes are DUI (n=3) and felony possession with intent to distribute, or drug dealing for short (n=1).

54

Black’s (1976) theory of law does not make predictions about officers’ perceptions of offense seriousness, as he focuses purely on what officers do, and not at all on what they believe. Thus, the assertion that police will rank offense seriousness according to the characteristics of offenders and victims is an extension of Black’s (1976) theory.

55

As my focus is on what officers perceive as the most serious crime that they have handled, it is not necessary to know what other—perceptually less serious—crimes they have handled. Nevertheless, such information would be important to know as it would allow for useful comparisons. Not asking officers about any crimes they have handled is arguably an oversight, but one that could be easily remedied in a

Violent crimes. Three officers stated that assault is the most serious crime they handled on campus. Below, each participant describes a memorable incident:

Officer Vance: We had an assault and kidnapping. … It was a female student

who was in a same-sex relationship with another student and she, apparently they had broken up and the other one didn’t take it so well. So she came into Laconte [a classroom building] one night late [while the victim was working] on a project and kept her in the room. I think the one that she was beating in the room actually ended up pepper spraying her ’cause she had been nervous about her coming back. She called and reported it to us later that night.

---

Officer Dillon: A guy was attacked, defended himself with a knife. … I got a call to the dorm saying that an individual was attacked … by two different people. … [H]e defended them off with a knife. As we started doing an investigation, it was determined that the two individuals were upset with the victim because of the way he was treating his girlfriend and they came into Columbia with the intent to basically assault him. … [T]he young lady called him [the victim] and said she wanted to talk to him, basically set him up to be ambushed. These guys jumped him [and] he pulled out his knife and stabbed both subjects. … one of them actually had to go to the hospital to get surgery done on him. And at that point we ended up charging the two suspects with lynching.

---

Officer Combs: Domestic violence, I’ve had two of those. It happened near Claussen’s Inn in 5 Points. It was a husband and wife who were out drinking. The

husband assaulted her three times throughout the night. And then she let me know that a week prior, he had kept her hostage, tied up in their room for three days, while their kids were out in the living room. …The second [incident] was a boyfriend/girlfriend who was attending the girlfriend’s daughter’s graduation. … [T]he high school graduations are at the Coliseum; they were attending that. He got upset about something that was going on in the graduation, decided he was going to storm out. He was asked to leave actually, and so she followed him out to make sure that he was okay, and to make sure that he was going to go back to the car and wait on them. And then he got angry and shoved her and somehow—I don’t know if he punched her and knocked her to the ground or if it was just a shove—she had a few bruises that were starting to come up on her and so they went ahead [and arrested him]. She didn’t want to press charges, but we had another party that witnessed the entire thing.

All three officers cited assault as the most serious crime they had handled, but the circumstances of each incident differed. Three factors were named as to why these are the most serious offenses in their experience. One is that this crime involves physical injury to the victim. As Officer Dillon said of his experience, “It dealt with more of a life or death situation.” Officer Combs made a similar evaluation, while also noting that the crime is a felony:

Officer Combs: Just because the two [assaults] that I dealt with [involved] hands on violent aggression from one person to another. I mean we’ve had other felonies happen on campus that I’ve dealt with, but that was the most personal and the most detrimental at the moment.

Officer Vance suggested that assault was the most serious incident because he had yet to handle a more serious crime. As he explained,

Officer Vance: The crime on campus is not as serious as [that in] a city or county. We don’t deal with [serious crime]. I’ve never gotten a sexual assault or that’d probably be the most serious … since it’s so damaging to the victim’s psyche.

This participant does not explain what it is about assault per se that makes it his most serious experience, but rather alludes to his belief that there are more serious crimes; in doing so, he suggests that sexual assault is especially serious because of the

psychological harm it can cause victims.

Three participants classified robbery as the most serious crime they had handled. Officer O’Hare described his experience:

Officer O’Hare: [T]wo females were walking back from the Vista [an area of

downtown] and the male jumped them and beat them up pretty bad and stole their purses and fled on foot. But like I said, the females had pretty significant injuries. One girl had a cut to her face, contusions. The other girl was scraped up pretty bad from being thrown to the ground. So that was probably the worst armed robbery I’ve seen. Of course we’ve had assaults that were person-on-person type assaults, but I mean I guess from a violent standpoint that’s probably the most violent crime I’ve seen that’s serious.

He deemed this incident as the most serious because “to me serious is classified as a person being injured, something like that.”

recalled an assault:

Officer Wilson: Alright, went over to Bates House [a dorm], we had gotten a call about an assault victim over there. When I got on scene, I found this kid whose face had multiple lacerations. He was bleeding fairly heavily, so he got hauled off to the hospital. We investigated for a couple hours at least on scene. Finally figured out that he was the suspect and that he had attempted to assault the victim. The victim that struck him in the face, it was self-defense. And that was pretty much end of story. That was the end of it. He went to the hospital, got stitched up. … Alcohol was involved, … the suspect [was drunk].

After describing that assault, he remembered another crime in which he had been peripherally involved:

Officer Wilson: Actually … I need to change it ’cause there was one that I think it was more serious. An armed robbery that I dealt with on Greene Street … [I]t was probably about 2 o’clock, 3 o’clock in the morning. … We went out with City of Columbia Police, immediately after it happened. We found a student who was on the side of the street. He had been robbed and [we] found out that he