Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T13:54:02.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Sergio Herzog
Get access

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 57 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Senior lecturer at the Institute of Criminology, the Faculty of Law, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem—interests lie in the areas of criminology, criminal justice systems and social pyschology.

References

1 See, e.g., Finkel, N.J., Burke, J.E. & Chavez, L.J., Commonsense Judgments of Infanticide: Murder, Manslaughter, Madness, or Miscellaneous?, 6 (4) Psychol. Pub. Pol'Y, & L. 1113 (2000)Google Scholar.

2 See, e.g., Rossi, Patrick & Berk, Richard, Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared (1997)Google Scholar. Rossi, Patrick Henry & Henry, J. Patrick, Seriousness: A Measure for All Purposes?, in Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation (Klein, Malcolm W. & Teilmann, Katherine S. eds., 1980)Google Scholar; Thomas, Charles W., Cage, R. & Foster, S., Public Opinion on Criminal Law and Legal Sanctions: An Examination of Two Conceptual Models, 67 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 110–116 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Warr, Mark, Gibbs, Jack & Erickson, Maynard, Contending Theories of Criminal Law: Statutory Penalties Versus Public Preferences, 19 J. Res. Crime & Delinq. 25–46 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, e.g., Rossi & Berk, id.; Thomas et al. id.; Warr et al. id.

4 See Levi, Michael & Jones, Sandra, Public and Police Perceptions of Crime Seriousness in England and Wales, 25 Brit. J. Criminology 234 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. O'Connell, Michael & Whelan, Anthony, Taking Wrongs Seriously: Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness, 36 Brit. J. Criminology 299 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Sellin, Thorsten & Wolfgang, Marvin Eugene, The Measurement of Delinquency (1964)Google Scholar.

6 See, e.g., Evans, Sandra S. & Scott, Joseph E., The Seriousness of Crime Cross-Culturally: The Impact of Religiosity, 22 Criminology 39 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Levi & Jones, supra note 4; Newman, Graeme R., Comparative Deviance: Perception and Law in Six Cultures (1976)Google Scholar. Scott, J. & Al-Thakeb, Fahad, The Publics Perception of Crime: Scandinavia, Western Europe, the Middle East and the United States, in Contemporary Corrections: Social Control and Conflict (Huffed., C. Ronald, 1977)Google Scholar; Van Dijk, Jan J. M. & Van Kesteren, John, The Prevalence and Perceived Seriousness of Victimization by Crime: Some Results of the International Crime Victims Survey, 4 European J. Crime, Crim. L. & Crim. Just. 48 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolfgang, Marvin Eugene, Figlio, Robert, Tracy, Paul & Singer, Simon, The National Survey of Crime Severity (1985)Google Scholar. Rossi, Peter, Waite, Emily, Bose, Christiane & Berk, Richard, The Seriousness of Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differences, 39 Am. Soc. Rev. 224 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Cullen, Francis, Link, Bruce, Travis, Lawrence, & Wozniak, John, Consensus in Crime Seriousness: Empirical Reality or Methodological Artifact?, 23 Criminology 99 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Levi & Jones supra note 4, O'Connell & Whelan supra note. 4.

8 Levi & Jones id.; O'Connell & Whelan id.; Sellin & Wolfgang, supra note 5; Walker, Monica, Measuring the Seriousness of Crimes, 18 Brit. J. Criminology 348 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See, e.g., Levi & Jones id.; Rossi et al. supra note 6; Sellin & Wolfgang, id.

10 Evans & Scott, supra note 6; Newman supra note 6; Scott & Al-Thakeb, supra note 6.

11 See Rossi & Henry, supra note 2; Thomas et al, supra note 2; Warr et al. supra note 2.

12 See, e.g., Heller, Nelson, & Thomas McEwen, Applications of Crime Seriousness Information in a Police Department, 12 J. Res. in Crime & Delinq. 44 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levi & Jones supra note 4; O'Connell & Whelan, supra note 4.

13 See, e.g., Cullen et al., supra note 7; Miethe, Terance D., Types of Consensus in Public Evaluations of Crime: An Illustration of Strategies for Measuring Consensus, 75 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 459 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. O'Connell & Whelan, id.; Rossi & Henry, supra note 2.

14 See, e.g., O'Connell & Whelan id.; Rossi et al., supra note 6; Walker, supra note 8.

15 Evans & Scott, supra note 6.

16 Hansel, Mark, Citizen Crime Stereotypes—Normative Consensus Revisited, 25(3) Criminology 455, 456 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 O'Connell & Whelan, supra note 4.

18 Blum-West, Stephan, The Seriousness of Crime: A Study of Popular Morality, 6 Deviant Behavior 83 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cullen et al., supra note 7; Miethe, supra note 13.

19 See Ichilov, Orit, Teaching Civics in a Divided Society: The Case of Israel, 13 Int'l Stud. Soc. Educ. 219 (2003)Google Scholar; Smooha, Sammy, Internal Divisions in Israel at Forty, 20 Middle E. Rev. 26 (1988)Google Scholar. Smooha, Sammy & Hanf, Theodor, The Diverse Modes of Conflict-Resolution in Deeply Divided Societies, 33 Int'l J. Comp. Soc. 26 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yaish, Meir, Class Structure In a Deeply Divided Society: Class and Ethnic Inequality in Israel, 1974-1991, 52 Brit. J. Soc. 409 (2001)Google Scholar.

20 For the purpose of this study, victimless offenses were defined in a broad way, in order to juxtapose them with victim crimes, in which there are specific victims suffering direct harm. Therefore, victimless offenses included false tax declaration, drug selling, bribery, illegal sexual relations with a minor, and illegal abortions.

21 See, e.g., Levi & Jones, supra note 4; Sellin & Wolfgang, supra note 5.

22 The most recent Israeli telephone directories (2000) provided the sampling framework, and a systematic random sampling method was applied. According to formal data of the Ministry of Communications, 98 percent of households in Israel have telephones, although among certain groups of the population (e.g., Arabs) this percentage is a little lower (around 95 percent). Based on these data, the percentage of people not listed in the directories is fairly low. In order to obtain a representation of minority social groups in the country, Arabic and Russian-speaking interviewers were employed in cases of Arab and new immigrant respondents.

23 Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Israel (2005) [hereinafter CBS] available at http://wwwl.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnatonenew.htm (last visited 2-2-06).

24 See Rossi et al., supra note 6; Sellin & Wolfgang, supra note 5; Warr, Mark, What Is the Perceived Seriousness of Crimes,? 27 Criminology 795–821 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See Blum-West, supra note 18; Walker, supra note 8.

26 See, e.g., Cullen et al., supra note 7; Levi & Jones, supra note 4; O'Connell & Whelan, supra note 4; Rossi et al., supra note 6; Walker, supra note 8.

27 CBS, supra note 23.

28 In the context of discriminatory reference to Arabs by Jewish institutions, cultural and religious contexts need to be taken into account. However, these questions were not addressed, in the current study.

29 See, e.g., Dwairy, Marwan, Cross-Cultural Counseling: The Arab-Palestinian Case (1998)Google Scholar; Goldscheider, Calvin, Israel's Changing Society: Population, Ethnicity, and Development (1996)Google Scholar.

30 See, e.g., Levy, Shlomit, Levinsohn, Hanna, & Katz, Elihu, Beliefs, Observances and Social Interaction Among Israeli Jews in the Jewishness of Israelis 1–37 (Liebman, Charles S. & Katz, Elihu eds., 1997)Google Scholar. Nussbaum, S., The Jewish Identify Research Project: a Background Paper, 10(1) Soc. Papers 1–61 Google Scholar.

31 See, e.g., Junger, Marianne & Polder, Wim, Religiosity, Religious Climate and Delinquency Among Ethnic Groups in the Netherlands, 33 Brit. J. Criminology 416 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Levy et al., supra note 30.

33 Goldscheider, supra note, 29, at 41.

34 See, id.

35 Azmon, Yael & Izraeli, Dafna Nundi, Introduction: Women in Israel—A Sociological Overview in Women, in Israel Studies of Israeli Society (Azmon, Yael & Izraeli, Dafna N. eds., 1993)Google Scholar Goldsciieider, id.

36 CBS, supra note 23; Goldscheider, id.; Kraus, Vered, Secondary Breadwinners: Israeli Women in the Labor Force (2002)Google Scholar; Kulik, Liat, The Impact of Gender and Age on Altitudes and Reactions to Unemployment: The Israeli Case, 43 Sex Roles 85 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See, e.g., Rossi & Berk, supra note 2; Rossi & Henry, supra note 2; Thomas et al., supra note 2; Warr et al., supra note 2.

38 See, e.g., Levi & Jones, supra note 4; O'Connell & Whelan, supra note 4; Rossi et al., supra note 6; Warr, id.; Wolfgang et al., supra note 6.

39 See, eg., Smooha, Sammy, Israel: Pluralism and Conflict (1978)Google Scholar; Smooha, supra note 19.

40 Corbett, Claire & Simon, Frances, Police and Public Perceptions of the Seriousness of Traffic Offenses, 31 Brit. J. Crim. 153–164 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cullen et al., supra note 7; Miethe, supra note 13; Rossi & Henry, supra note 2.

41 Haj-Yahia, Muhammad M., Predicting Beliefs About Wife Beating Among Arab Palestinian Men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 19 J. L. Fam. Issues 595 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haj-Yahia, Muhammad M., Perceptions of Abusive and Violent Husbands by Engaged Arab Men in Israel, 138 J. Soc. Psychol. 772 (1998)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

42 Evans & Scott, supra note 6.

43 Id.

44 Curry, Theadore R., Conservative Protestantism and the Perceived Wrongfulness of Crimes: A Research Note, 34 Criminology 453 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Evans & Scott, supra note 6; Scott & Al-Thakeb, supra note 6.

46 Brownmiller, Susan, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)Google Scholar; Dobash, R. Emerson, & Dobash, Russel P., Violence Against Wives: A Case Against Patriarchy (1979)Google Scholar.

47 Dashkov, G. V., Quantitative and Qualitative Changes in Crime in the USSR, 32 Brit. J. Criminology 160 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Rosner, Lydia, The Soviet Way of Crime: Beating the System in the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. (1986)Google Scholar.

49 See Rattner, Arye, Crime and Russian Immigration—Socialization or Importation? 38 Int'l J. Comp. Soc. 235 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 See O'Connell & Whelan, supra note 4; Rossi et al., supra note 6; Walker, supra note 8.

51 See Mesch, Gustavo S., Perceptions of Risk, Lifestyle Activities and Fear of Crime, 21 Deviant Behavior, 47 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Goldscheider, supra note 29.

53 Blum-West, supra note 18; Cullen et al., supra note 7; Miethe, supra note 13.

54 Goldscheider, supra note 29.