7/18/2019 Individual Perception on Crime Severity among College Students Wayne LaPre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/individual-perception-on-crime-severity-among-college-students-wayne-lapre 1/1

Individual Perception on Crime Severity among College Students

Wayne-Thomas La Pre

University of La Verne 

INTRODUCTION

  Studies investigating jurors and the length of sentence they render a person

convicted for a crime tend to focus on factors affecting ho they perceive the crime and

their past e!periences of that crime "#indlay$ %&&'( )arcus$ Lyons * +uyton$ %&&&, .factor that is rarely loo/ed into$ is hat an individual studies hile in college and the type

of educational degree they receive This is an important factor hen loo/ing intoperceptions of crime seriousness 0ecause even though students attend college to

receive an education$ unless they are speciali1ing in the crim inal justice field$ they ould

not 0e formally educated in the las of society nor /no the degree of severity ofparticular crimes In addition$ a student ould not share the same attitudes as another

student ho has received formal training in the criminal justice field "Wimshurt$ )archetti

* .llard$ %&&2,

  3ven though previous studies have not investigated college major as a main factor ofcrime perception$ studies have investigated victimi1ation .s a result$ they have

indicated that there are 4 types of victimi1ation( felony victims$ misdemeanor victims andnon-victims "Smith * Torstensson$ '556( Win/el$ '557, # elony victims are classified as

people ho ere a victim of a felony crime #elony offenses are crimes hich are

punisha0le 0y death and8or imprisonment in a state prison "West$ %&&2, In addition$

felony crimes are considered the most severe type of crime in estern society)isdemeanor victims are classified as people ho ere a victim of a misdemeanor

crime )isdemeanor crimes are all crimes other than a felony crime and includepunishments of payments$ fines or 0y im prisonment not to e!ceed one year "W est$

%&&2,

The severity of a crime ould also affect an individual9s perception of that crime andsentencing appropriate to that crime This could 0e an important issue 0ecause

depending on the level of severity a crime is$ our perceptions ould vary as ell as hat

e thin/ that person should receive for prison time ":er1og$ %&&4, It is also important to0e a0le to determine ho severe a crime is 0ecause hat one individual may consider

severe$ another individual may consider it as m oderately severe or as non-severe 3ven

though this area is im portant to investigate$ this could cause some potential pro0lems$0ecause individuals do not alays share the same perception regarding crime severity

+enerally$ most research on this topic has not ta/en into consideration theeducational level of the participants$ as ell as if they ere a victim of a crime In

addition little research has 0een done in the area of ho particular college students

"criminology and psychology, perceive crime seriousness Therefore$ these issues

inspire the current research ;oes a person9s college major and victim type affect thepunishment "length of sentence, they give to convicted criminals for various crimes< The

main o0jective of this study is to e!amine ho college major "psychology andcriminology, and victimi1ation type "felony victim or misdemeanor victim or non-victim,

influence college student9s perception of crime seriousness

METHOD

Participants

  The participants in this e!perimental study ere forty-eight undergraduates that ere

psychology majors "n=%7, and criminology majors "n=%&, at the University of La V erne>f the 27 participants$ '2?@ classified themselves as victims of felony crimes$ '%A@

as victims of m isdemeanor crimes$ and 6%5@ as non-victims Participants included

46A@ Latinos8 :ispanics$ 4'4@ 3uro-.mericans$ '&2@ .frican .mericans$ and ?4@ .sian .mericans )ost participants ere female "7'4@,

Instruments

  This e!periment as a %!4!4 mi!ed design$ post-test only e!perimental design$ usinga demographic survey and vignettes ith Buestions regarding length of punishment for 4

different crimes The demographic Buestionnaire included Buestions regarding gender$age$ ethnicity$ college major and victimi1ation

  The independent varia0les for this study ere college major "psychology or

criminology, and victimi1ation type "felony victim$ misdemeanor victim or non-victim,

  The dependent varia0le as the length of sentence given for each crime

 Procedure

  Participants signed up for various times to participate in the e!periment hich as heldat the University of La Verne9s psychology la0 .t the psychology la0$ participants ere

given a consent form and the researcher e!plained hat the consent form consisted of

and ho to find out the results of the e!periment upon completion of the research >ncethe participants agreed to participate in the e!periment they signed the researcher9s copy

of the consent form and returned it to the researcher >nce all the consent forms ere

return from participant$ they ere given a pac/et hich contained a ?-item demographicBuestionnaire and 4 vignettes in randomi1ed order descri0ing a different crime ta/ing

place The crimes that ere descri0ed in the vignettes ere se!ual assault$ 0attery and

petty theft  .fter the participants read each vignette they ere as/ed to assume the role of a juror

determining the sentence length for the person convicted in each crim e scenario They

ere then as/ed to assign the minimum num0er of time that person should go to prison .fter the e!periment as completed the participants ere de0riefed$ than/ed and offered

and 0everages and snac/s ere offered

RESULTS

   . repeated measures 4-ay .>V. "% D % D 4, as used to test the four hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

  The first hypothesis tested that criminology students ill give more serious punishment

"longer sentence, for various crimes than psychology students Eesults indicted that thereere no significant differences 0eteen criminology majors ")='66A$ S;= A5A, and

psychology majors ")= %?&6$ S;=?25, on length of punishment given$ contrary to hat

as hypothesi1ed #"%$7%,='2 pF&A$ GH=76

Hypothesis 2 

  The second hypothesis tested that the victim type ould affect sentence length given

to crimes Eesults indicated no significant differences among victim types on length of

punishment given$ contrary to hat as hypothesi1ed #"2$7%,='AA pF&A$ GH=%& SeeTa0le ' for m eans and standard deviations

Hypothesis 3

  The third hypothesis tested if there as an interaction among college type$ victimtype and type of crime Specifically it as e!pected that criminology students ho

ere felony victims ould perceive the se!ual assault vignette as the most severe

crime$ hen compared to other groups Eesults$ hoever$ indicated that there ereno interaction effects of college major$ type of victim$ and type of crime on length of

punishment and$ therefore$ this did not support the hypothesis #"2$7%,='6 pF&A$

GH=5A

Hypothesis 4

  The fourth hypothesis tested hether the type of crime ould affect the

punishment given It as hypothesi1ed that the more severe the crime "se!ualassault,$ the longer the sentence rendered Eesults indicated significant differences

in punishment given among the various types of crime$ #"%$7%,='&%4 p&&'$ GH=%&

Post hoc tests shoed that the se!ual assault crime ")= 45%%$ S;= 6'&, as givensignificantly longer "p &A, punishment than the 0attery crime ")= '65'$ S;= 6'6,

and the theft crime ")= 7?'$ S;= %&?, There ere no significant differences

0eteen theft and 0attery crimes See #igure ' for m ean length of sentence

CONCLUSION

J The perpetrator in the se!ual assault vignette as given a longer punishment

than perpetrators in either 0attery or petty thief vignettes

J There ere no differences in crime perceptions among college majors or victim

types

 ;espite the significant finding of crime type on crime perception$ this study could

0e limited in that there as a lac/ of information regarding if participants ere

previously convicted of a crime This is important 0ecause if a participant asprevious convicted of a crime then their outloo/ on crime seriousness ould 0e

different from someone ho has never 0een convicted of a crime #or e!ample$ if a

person as convicted for driving under the influence of a controlled su0stance ";UI,they ould not perceive this crime as seriousness as someone ho has never 0een

convicted of a ;UI .nother limitation of this study as that there as a small sample

si1e of participants +ender comparisons ere not e!amined either Perhaps if thesample si1e as larger and gender com parisons ere e!amined the study may have

yielded different results

#uture research may ish to incorporate gender as a factor to see ho males andfemale perceive crime as ell as if there are any differences 0eteen the to groups

#urthermore$ if e are a0le to e!amine ho people ho ere previously convicted ofa crime ould perceive crime serious$ this could have an impact on juror selection

This ould 0e interesting to e!amine 0ecause prosecutors might possi0ly try and get

non-convicted people on a jury and the defense might try and get convicted people

on the jury #uture researchers may ish to e!amine those factors pertaining toperceptions of crime seriousness

Presented at the 7?th .nnual Western Psychological .ssociation Convention$ Palm Springs$ C. .pril %6-4&$ %&&?

7

6

35

8.34

9.46

3.90

33.12

11.42

21.19

 Felony Victim

Misdemeanor Victim

Non-Victim

nSMVictim !y"es

20

28

5.95

6.49

17.75

26.07

 #riminolo$y

%syc&olo$y

nSM#olle$e Ma'or 

Ta0le '

Means and Standard Deviations of College Major and Victim Type forLength of Punishment 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

   L  e  n  g   t   h  o   f   S  e  n   t  e  n  c  e

   i  n  m  o  n   t   h  s

t!e of c"ime

Se#$%& %ss%$&t '%tte" theft

#igure 'Mean Length of Sentence in Months for type of crime