The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Measuring Public Perceptions of Appropriate

Prison Sentences, Executive Summary

Author(s): Mark A. Cohen ; Roland T. Rust ; Sara Steen

Document No.: 199364

Date Received: April 2003

Award Number: 1999-CE-VX-0001

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Measuring Public Perceptions of Appropriate 

Prison Sentences 

ABSTRACT 

This study tested several new methodologies designed to elicit meaninghl public input 

on criminal justice policy issues such as the appropriate sentence for convicted offenders, 

the parole decision, allocation of government hnds towards crime prevention programs, 

and the public’s willingness to pay to reduce crimle. Based on a nationally representative 

survey of 1300 U.S. adults, we found that the public largely concurs with current 

sentencing decisions about incarceration and sentence length - with the exception of 

certain crimes - particularly drug offenses (which the public believes are dealt with too 

harshly) and certain white collar crimes (which the public believes are not dealt with 

harshly enough). We found strong support for spending more money than currently to 

reduce crime below current levels. However, much of that support is for increased 

prevention programs targeted at high-risk youth, more police on the street, and for drug 

treatment programs for nonviolent offenders - rather than money for more prisons. The 

typical household would be willing to pay between $75 and $150 per year for crime 

prevention programs that reduced crimes by 10% ron their communities. In the aggregate, 

these amounts imply a willingness to pay to reduce crime of about $23,000 per burglary, 

$60,000 per serious assault, $213,000 per armed robbery, $225,000 per rape and sexual 

assault, and $9.1 million per murder. 

e 

a 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Measuring Public Perceptions of Appropriate 

Prison Sentences* 

October 2002 

Mark A. Colhen 

Owen Graduate School of Management 

Vanderbi 1 t University 

Nashville, TN 37203 

mark. cohen@owen. vanderbil t . edu 

(615) 322-6814 

Roland T. Rust 

Robert H. Smith School of Business 

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 20742 

rmst@rhsmith.umd.edu 

301 -405-4300 

Sara Steein 

University of Colorado-Boulder 

Boulder, CO 80303 

steen@col.oradio.edu 

* This project was supported by Grant No. 1999-CE-VX-0001, awarded by the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Additional 

support for this project was provided from the U.S. Sentencing Commission through NIJ. 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent 

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission. We are grateful for many thoughtful discussions and comments received 

from our Project Monitor, Akiva Liberman (NIJ), and from Linda Maxfield (US. 

Sentencing Commission), neither of whom share any blame for the contents of the report. 

Special thanks to the survey team at Roper Starch: Kevin Bray, Project Director; 

Kathleen Barringer, Project Manager; Robert Benford; and Nicolas A. Holt, PhD. 

Additional research assistance was provided by Gabrielle Chapman, Achintya Ray, Mihir 

Shah, and Simon Tidd. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 

Lawmakers, judges and parole officers make important public policy decisions 

about who serves time in prison and for how long. Yet, we how little about how the 

public views these sentences. Prior research has systematically examined the public’s 

perception of the “seriousness” of crimes and arrived at numerical rankings of 

seriousness that have been used in various policy arenas. Since sentencing goals are 

multidimensional, “seriousness” cannot necessarily be translated directly into appropriate 

sentences. A few studies have examined the public’s perception of appropriate sentences 

for crimes. These studies generally ask unconstrained questions that do not involve the 

hard choices policy makers must face in balancing spending priorities and crowded 

prisons. They also do not look at the important parole decision, Nhich is often more 

relevant than the “nominal” sentence. 

This research project was designed to test several new methodologies for eliciting 

0 

information on the public’s preferences towards sentencing and parole of criminal 

offenders. It partly relies upon the well-established methodology used by Wolfgang et al. 

(1 985) and others, whereby a sample of the U.S. ]public is asked to react to a series of 

crime vignettes. Although this approach has mostly been used in previous studies on 

crime seriousness, a few studies have used this approach to gauge the public’s attitude 

towards sentencing. These studies have generally been limited to a few crimes in one 

state, and more recently (Rossi and Berk, 1995 arid 1997), on federal crimes. One of the 

main purposes of these public opinion surveys has been to compare existing sentencing 

practice to the public’s preferred approach. 

\ 

1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Although the approach taken here is similar to that employed by earlier studies of 

the public’s attitude towards sentencing, there are several important differences: (1) this 

study focuses on crimes normally encountered b:y local criminal justice agencies - such as 

burglary, robbery and assault; (2) the study focuses on the parole decision in a 

constrained choice setting by providing respondents with a more realistic policy setting in 

which to make decisions; and (3) the study incoqporates explicit tradeoffs of various 

crimes and sentences in order to better understand the true preferences of the public. In 

addition, this project has explored two new methodologies designed to elicit information 

e 

on the public’s willingness-to-pay for crime prevention and control policies. 

The constrained-choice setting used in this study is particularly important, since 

previous studies have often concluded that the public’s preferred Tsntences are 

considerably more severe than actual sentencing practice. Previous authors have 

hypothesized that the higher sentence lengths demanded by the public are partly due to 

the lack of constraints placed on respondents as compared to those normally faced by 

policy makers in the real world. It is easy to call for doubling prison lengths, for 

example, when you are not expecting to pay higher taxes in exchange for this 

hypothetical answer. This project explicitly addresses this issue by offering a series of 

paired comparisons from which respondents must choose. For example, respondent were 

asked to choose which of two offenders should spend the next year in prison given the 

fact that only one cell is available. Respondent were also asked to choose between the 

expansion of alternative crime prevention programs verses a specified tax rebate. Finally, 

adopting a methodology from the envirormental economics literature, where similar 

problems in valuing public goods are found, we elicited information on respondents’ 

i 

2 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
willingness-to-pay for crime reduction strategies. By revealing their perceived benefit 

from reducing crime, respondents provided us with new estimates of the cost of crime. 

The policy relevance of this proposed project is self-evident. Seriousness 

rankings based on public opinion surveys have been used extensively in both the 

academic and policy arenas. Examples of policy-relevant applications include: Heller 

and McEwen ( 1975), who use seriousness rankings in the process of allocating police 

patrols; and van den Haag (1 982) who advocates the use of seriousness rankings in 

determining appropriate sentences for convicted criminals. Rossi and Berk (1 995 and 

199’7) compare public preferences for sentencing to the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

Guidelines for crimes that are common in the Federal system. Finally, estimates of the 

“cost of crime” are being used in criminal justice policy analysis (see e.g., Cohen, 1998; 

Rajkumar and French, 1997). Yet, there are only a few existing studies of the cost of 

crime, and all of them use the same methodology that has the subject of some controversy 

in the literature. This study utilizes a new methodology to estimate the public’s 

willingness-to-pay for crime control programs. 

A. Survey Method 

The goal of the survey design was to administer a nationally representative 

sample survey of 1300 Americans, age 18+, using a carefully designed survey. Thus, the 

survey development stage was deemed to be the rnost crucial part of the research project. 

Among the issues that were addressed during this stage were: the appropriate format for 

the survey (e.g. telephone, mail, or some combination), survey length, ability of 

respondents to understand complex questions, finding apprcpriate language for the ‘\ 0 

3 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
questions so that the meaning received was the same as intended, and whether the survey 

could move from section to section without intmducing respondent bias from previous 

sections. 

After conducting an extensive literature review, an initial draft questionnaire was 

prepared for discussion purposes. This questionnaire was sent to a panel of eight experts, 

Three focus groups were held to observe participants’ reactions to the revised draft 

survey instrument and to obtain feedback on how to create a more effective survey. 

Participants were screened to obtain a cross-section of the general population. 

Participants were asked questions about their ability to comprehend the crime scenarios 

and to make an informed judgment about appropriate sanctions. 

After extensive revisions of the survey instrument based 02 the feedback we 

received from the focus groups, eleven cognitive interviews were conducted, each of onehour duration. Cognitive interviewing allows researchers to test the structure and content 

of a questionnaire on a one-on-one basis with the respondent. During these cognitive 

interviews, respondents were asked to “think aloud” while determining how to answer a 

question. This “think aloud” method allows researchers to uncover how respondents are 

interpreting each question. Further revisions to the questionnaire were made based on the 

results of these cognitive interviews. 

The final stage of survey development was to pretest the revised instrument with 

live telephone interviews. A total of eleven completed interviews were administered, 

’ The panel members were: Prof. Glenn C. Blomquist, Dept. of Economics, Univ. of Ky; 

Prof. Colin Loftin, Criminal Justice, SUNY Albany; Prof. Gary F. Jensen, Sociology, 

Vanderbilt University; Dr. Deborah Faulkner, Nashville Police Dept.; Dr. Linda Drazga 

Maxfield, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Prof. Daniel S. Nagin, Public Policy, CamegieMellon; Dr. Brian Jay Ostrorn, National Center for State Courts; and Prof. Mark Wan, 

Sociology, Univ. of Texas. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
with an average length of 27.5 minutes. Further modifications were niadz, primarily to 

shorten the length of the interview. 

The final survey was programmed for computer assisted telephone interviews 

(“CATI”). This approach allowed for complex branches, single and multiple responses, 

open-ended text answers, and random rotation of text insertions for the vignettes. It also 

reduces the frequency of invalid data by not permitting answers that are outside the scope 

of the options provided in the question, while retaining the ability to allow respondents to 

answer “other” and specify their answers with text. 

Telephone interviews were conducted with a sample that is representative of the 

entire United States population of adults age 18 or over. Interviews were conducted 

between May 16,2000 and August 8,2000. A random digit dial sample of 4,966 phone 

numbers yielded a total of 1,300 completed interviews - a 43% response rate. This 

response rate is based on a very conservative approach for measuring response rates for 

survey research. Using a method often reported in other studies, our response rate would 

be 58%. 

The data are weighted to adjust for probabilities of selection and to adjust for nonresponse on age, sex, education and race. Results of this study can be projected to the 

population of people who are 18 years of age or older living in the fifty United States, 

including the District of Columbia. However, our sample has somewhat fewer low 

income individuals and Latinos, due to the inability of the study to contact individuals 

who do not have telephones and who do not speak English. 

In addition to comparing our sample demographics to the US. population, w- are 

able to compare some oftheir attitudes towards crime and other social ills. Several ofthe 

5 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
introductory questions on the survey were patterned after the questions found in the 1998 

General Social Survey (“GSS”). Thus, we asked respondents whether they thought we 

were spending too much, too little, or about the right amount on police and on drug 

treatment programs. Overall, our sample’s responses are strikingly similar to the GSS 

responses. 

The survey was designed with several checks to ensure that respondents 

understood the questions, could respond with some rationality and consistency, and were 

not biased by the wording of previous questions. In particular, we checked the news 

media for high profile criminal events that might influence the short-term response 

pattern of respondents and potential interviewer bias. We also designed the survey with 

several checks to ensure that the respondent understood the questions and that the 

responses followed some reasonable amount of logic and consistency. 

B. Summary of Results 

(1) Appropriate Punishment 

The survey included 13 different scenarios that were analyzed using the 

traditional open-ended approach employed by Rossi and Berk (1995) and previous 

authors. The first five scenarios were early screener questions designed to ensure that the 

respondent could understand English and the questions; and thus the responses were 

limited to the idout decision and length of prison (if any). The remaining 8 scenarios 

included numerous alternative sanction options. 

Unlike previous studies that have had extensive factorial designs, we limited the 

number of factors to vary in order to increase the sample sizes that can be used for \\ 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
comparison purposes. Our primary interest is in comparing and contrasting the traditional 

open-ended approach to the parole decision, examining constrained choices when there is 

fixed prison capacity, and other innovative methods of surveying the public. Thus, we 

limited the number of parameters to vary. In all cases but one, the offender was identified 

to be a 28 year-old single man. The exception was an instance of Medicare fraud, where 

the offender was a 40 year-old single man. These ages were set to the median age of 

convicted offenders. 

(a) Screener Questions: In/Out and Delportation Decisions 

Each respondent was asked two of five screener questions: 

B 1) A 28-year-old single man was convicted of robbing a bank at gunpoint and 

threatening to kill the teller if she did not give him the money in her drawer. He 

escaped with $10,000. Prior to this offense, he had served 2 previous prison 

sentences each more than a year. 

B2) A 28-year-old single man, a citizen of another country, was convicted of 

illegally entering the United States. Prior to this offense, he had served two 

previous prison sentences each more than a year. One of these previous sentences 

was for a violent crime and he had been deported back to his home country. 

B3) A 28-year-old single man, a citizen of another country, was convicted of 

illegally entering the United States. Prior to this offense, he had never been 

imprisoned before. 

B4) A 28-year-old single man was convicted of making 10 counterfeit driver’s 

licenses that had his own picture on them, but used the names and Social Security 

numbers of other persons. He was caught before he could use these fake IDS. 

Prior to this offense, he had never been imprisoned before. 

B.5) A 28-year-old single man was convicted of making $400 of counterfeit U.S. 

dollars on his home computer and printer. He tried to spend the counterfeit 

money at the shopping mall. Prior to this offense, he had never been imprisoned 

before. 

In each case, respondents were asked first whether or not the offender should be 

hent to prison. If yes, a follow-up question asked IFor the prefa-red length of time. Tf the 0 

7 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
respondent did not choose a prison sentence, an additional follow-up question was asked 

e to elicit “why” no prison time was given. In the case of questions B2 and B3 (involving 

illegal aliens), if the respondent indicated that the offender should be deported, an 

additional follow-up was asked to determine whether or not a period of incarceration 

shouid precede deportation. 

Table 1 reports on the results of the five xreener questions. 99.3% of 

respondents chose prison for scenario 1, the bank robber with a prior record. The mean 

sentence length for that offender was nearly 18 $5 years. About 2/3 of respondents chose 

prison for the identify theft and counterfeiting offenders (neither of whom had prior 

criminal records), 65.3% and 63.2% respectively. The mean prison length for these 

offenders was 64.7 and 54.4 months respectively. These figures trmslate into an 

“expected sentence” of 41.3 months for the identity theft and 33.0 months for the 

a counterfeiting crime. 

A significant number of respondents preferred to deport the illegal immigrant 

rather than impose a prison sentence. For the illegal immigrant without any prior criminal 

record, 35.8% chose deportation, 24.4% chose prison, while 2.2% did not respond. The 

remaining 37.6% chose neither deportation nor prison. As shown in Table 2, when asked 

on follow-up, only a few respondents mentioned alternative sanctions for the illegal 

immigrant. Many indicated they should be allowed to stay in the US. and/or that illegal 

immigration should not be considered a crime. 

For the last two crime scenarios - identity theft and counterfeiting, the largest 

percentage of individuals who did not call for a piison sentence suggested that an 

alternative sentence would be more appropriate (216.7% for identify theft and 43.8% for 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 1 

Decision to Incarcerate by Crime Scenario 

(Section B - Screener Questions) 

4 - Identity theft 

5 - Counterfeiting 

65.3 1.2 64.7 41.3 -- N/A 

63.2 .8 54.4 33.0 1.6 N/A 

calculated based on total who responded prison. Three individuals chose death 

penalty for scenario ffl. One individual chose death penalty for scenario #2. 

prison. Percentage calculated relative to overall N. 

“Determined from response to question asked of’those who did not respond “yes” to 

counterfeiting). Many other individuals indicated that these crimes were “minor” or noted 

the fact that they were first time offenders. However, because these were open-ended 

questions, we do not know if these individuals would have preferred alternative sanctions 

or no sanction at all. 

9 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Tabie 2 

Reasons Given for Not Incarcerating by Crime Scenario 

immigrant, no priors; B4=identify theft, no priors; BS=counterfeiting, no priors. 

(b) Main Scenarios with Alternative Salnctions: Unconstrained Decisions 

The main scenarios used in the survey consisted of eight different crimes. Seven 

of these eight scenarios had a factorial design where 50% were written with no prior 

offenses, and the remaining 50% had offenders with “two previous prison sentences, each 

more than one year.” One scenario involved a physician convicted of Medicare fraud. 

Since it would be unrealistic to have a physician with two prior offenses still being abie 

to practice medicine, that scenario did not have a prior offense option. These eight 

scenarios were: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
a 1) A 28-year-old, single man has been convicted of beating a stranger. No 

weapon was used. The victim was seriously injured, but will recover fully. 

2) A 28-year-old, single man has been convicted of possession of 1 gram of 

cocaine, worth about $150. 

3) A 28-year-old, single man has been convicted, with several others, of taking 

part over a four-month period in selling marijuana. He was caught with 10 

pounds of marijuana, worth about $10,000. The offender was a street-level dealer 

who bought drugs from a wholesale dealer and sold directly to users. 

4) A 28-year-old, single man has been convicted of robbing a 28 year old male 

stranger at gunpoint, stealing $400 from him. The victim was not hurt. 

5) A 28-year-old, single man has been convicted of robbing a 28-year-old 

[homosexual, black, Jewish] male at gunlpoint, stealing $400 from him. The 

victim was not hurt. The offender waited outside a [gay book store, black church, 

synagogue] to rob the first [gay, black, Jewish] person he saw. 

6) A 28-year-old, single man has been convicted of breaking into a stranger’s 

home and stealing $500 when no one was home. 

7) A 40-year-old single male doctor was convicted of submitting $400,000 in 

false Medicare claims to the government. 

8) A 28-year-old male was convicted of charging $30,000 on credit cards stolen 

from strangers. 

Note that scenario #5 is the identical underlying offense as scenario ki4 - armed robbery 

of $400 without injury. However, scenario #5 includes additional information indicating 

that the offender targeted a minority group for the crime. Thus, scenario #5 has an 

additional hate crime component and can be directly compared to scenario #4. 

In each case, respondents were asked first whether or not the offender should be 

punished. If yes, a follow-up question was asked, “Which punishment or punishments 

would you choose?” The respondents were given the choice of, (a) prison, followed by 

supervision, (b) supedision, (c) payment of fine or restitution, or (d) electronic 

0 monitoring & home confinement. If the respondelit requested a form ofpunisliment not 

11 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
listed, this was also recorded. In the case of prison or electronic monitoring, a follow-up 

a was asked to determine the length of the sentence. In the case of a fine or restitution, the 

respondent was asked for the dollar amount. 

Since multiple responses were permitted, there are numerous ways to report the 

results. Table 3 reports on the weighted distribution of preferred sentences for each of the 

8 crime scenarios with no prior offenses, allowing for multiple responses. Thus, for 

example, 41.6% of respondents indicated that incarceration was warranted for the first 

scenario (assault) without prior offenses. The mean prison sentence for those who 

imposed one was 36.4 months. These figures can be converted into an “expected” prison 

sentence based on the probability of a prison sentence and the length of the sentence 

conditional on prison. Thus, an offender convicted of the first scenario has an “expected” 

prison sentence of 15.5 months (41.6% x 36.4 months = 15.5 months). Similar 

0 calculations are shown for home monitoring. In the case of assault with no prior offenses, 

Table 3 

Preferred Sentence for Offenders with No Prior Offenses 

Multiple Response (Weighted) 

12 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 4 

Prefeired Sentence for Offenders with Prior Offenses 

Multiple Response (Weighted) 

Scenario N Incarceration 

% AV~. EX^. 

152 63.4 58.3 38.9 

2 - Drug Poss. 177 55.4 46.4 21.2 

3 - Drug Deal. 150 71.5 64.0 15.3 

152 76.3 65.2 49.1 

160 78.7 54.5 42.6 

173 70.4 61.2 42.2 

176 58.9 79.4 45.7 

- 

Home Monitor Fine Super. Other 1 

14.8 27.4 4.1 22.2 13.1 2.0 1 

21.1 15.8 3.3 12.7 17.4 0.6 

12.2 30.4 3.7 14.1 6.2 0 

16.1 41.0 6.1 15.4 8.1 0.3 

12.6 14.2 1.6 15.1 12.2 0.1 

11.3 18.5 2.1 23.3 11.9 0 

11.3 54.1 5.5 40.8 18.1 0 

oio j ~vg. j ~xp YG % 9; --j 

_____-~-____~~ - 

15.4% of respondents called for home monitoring, with the mean time being 3 1.2 

months. Thus, the "expected" time in home monitoring is 4.3 months. Finally, 27.1% of 

respondents specified a fine and 22.9% supervision. Table 4 contains the same 

information for offenders with prior sentence. 

Comparing Tables 3 and 4, it is clear that the public is in favor of a substantial 

increase in both the incarceration rate and the length of incarceration for repeat offenders. 

The percentage of respondents who prefer some period of incarceration is between 1.3 

times and 2.7 times as high for repeat offenders as it is for first-time offenders. The 

largest difference is for drug possession, where 5 4.4% of respondents would incarcerate 

repeat offenders as opposed to only 20.7% who would incarcerate first-time offenders. A 

similar ratio holds for burglary, where 70.4% would incarcerate repeat offenders 

compared to only 29.1 % who would incarcerate first time offenders. 

Similar results are generally found when comparing the length of prison sentences 

0 for first-time versus repeat offenders - with the length of sentence generally being 1.3 to 

13 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
2.9 times higher. The only exception is the case of drug possession where the first-time 

offender is actually sent away for a longer time - 58.6 months versus 46.4 months for the 

repeat offender. The reason for this apparent anomaly is the fact that only a small portion 

of respondents would send the first-time drug possession offender to prison (20.7%). 

However, those who would call for a prison sentence are also among those who would 

call for relatively lengthy sentences. For repeat drug possession offenders, the 

incarceration rate is now 46.4%, but those additional respondents who would now call for 

incarceration prefer much lower sentences. Combining the probability of incarceration 

with the length of sentence - to arrive at the “expected sentence” - yields results that are 

more in line with expectations. Thus, the “expected” time served for a first-time drug 

possession offender is 10.3 months, compared to 2 1.2 months for 3 repeat violator. 

The other notable differences in sanctions for first-time versus repeat offenders is 

in the case of home monitoring for burglary (35.1% for first-time versus 11.3% for repeat 

offenders), and supervision for both drug possession (36.4% for first-time versus 17.4% 

for repeat violators) and dmg dealing (1 8.0% for first-time versus 6.3% for repeat 

violators). 

Tables 5 and 6 report the preferred sentence based on single responses, using a 

hierarchy whereby prison is deemed to be the most severe sanction, followed by home 

monitoring, fine, supervision and other. Thus, if a respondent preferred both prison and a 

fine, only the prison sentence is recorded in these tables. First, we report on the 

percentage of respondents that prefer no punishment. For example, 1 1 .C% of respondents 

indicate no punishment is needed for the first time drug possession offender. 20.7% of 

respondents would impose a prison sentence (and possible otter sanctions in combination 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
with prison).’ Of those who want punishment and who do not want prison, 15.4% 

indicate home monitoring as the prefemed sanction. An additional 20.7% indicate a fine, 

28.8% supervision, 4.1% some other sanction, and 4.1% answered they did not know 

what the appropriate punishment should be. Note that if there are two columns labeled 

“don’t know.” The first one refers to the question of whether or not any punishment is 

warranted. The second “don’t know” refers to inldividuals who said “yes” to punishment 

but could not determine what their preferred punishment should be. 

The results in Tables 5 and 6 are similar to those in the multiple response tables 

above. However, by removing multiple responses, differences in the non-incarcerative 

sanctions become clearer. For example, while 16.2% of respondents would sentence firsttime drug dealers to home monitoring, only 8.1 %, would impose home monitoring on 

repeat-violators. This difference is even larger for burglary, where 34.1 % would choose * 

home monitoring as the primary punishment for the first time burglar, compared to only 

7.6% who would use home monitoring for the repeat offender. 

Although it is difficult to compare these responses to current sentencing practice 

without further details on the offense characteristics and detailed time-served data, it 

appears that the preferred sentences by our survey respondents are slightly less harsh than 

current practice. Table 7 compares the survey reslponses to felony sentences in large 

urban counties. For example, 4 I .6% of our respondents would sentence the assault 

offender without a prior conviction to prison or jail. However, 72% of first time felony 

offenders without a prior conviction receive some; prison or jail time (BJS, 1999, Table 

’ Note that this 20.7% is the same as in Table IV-5, since prison is the highest category. 

Thus, the percent going to prison is always the same in the multiple response and single 

response tables. (I) 

15 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 5 

Preferred Sentence for Offenders with No Prior Offenses 

Table 61 

Preferred Sentence for Offenders with Prior Offenses 

35). For violent offenders with two or more prior felony convictions, while 91% currently 

receive jail or prison time, only 63.4% of our respondents sentenced the assault offender 

with two prior sentences to prison orjail. Respondents are particularly less harsh on drug 

16 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
offenders. While 55% of all first time drug offenders (including both possession and 

No Prior Convictions 

- Violent Offenses (BJS) 

- Assault (scenario 1) 

- Robberymate Crime (scenario 

- Robbery (scenario 4) 

- Property Offenses (BJS) 

- Drug Offenses - All (BJS) 

5) 

- Burglary (scenario 6) 

- Drug Possession (scenario 2) 

- Drug Dealing (scenario 3) 

dealing) receive a sentence of incarceration, respondents sent only 20.7% of first time 

drug possession offenders and 52.6% of offenders with two prior convictions to jail or 

Total Prison Jail 

Incarceration % Yo 

% 

72 40 32 

41.6 21.4 19.9 

51.2 29.0 21.0 

59.9 42.0 15.2 

39 11 28 

29.1 12.5 14.8 

55 19 36 

20.7 10.2 6.8 

52.6 32.6 15.0 

-- 

prison. 

5) 

- Property Offenses (BJS) 

- Drug Offenses - All (BJS) 

- Burglary (scenario 6) 

- Drug Dealing (scenario 3) 

- Drug Possession (scenario 2) 

83 58 25 

70.4 55.4 9.9 

85 55 30 

55.4 33.7 14.6 

71.5 62.5 4.4 

Two Prior Convictions/Sentences* 

17 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
* (2) Parole Decisions 

Sentencing decisions are not made in isolation. Lawmakers or Sentencing 

Commissions must consider budgets, prison capacity and perhaps other social problems 

that need to be addressed in making budget allocation decisions. Parole officers might 

have to consider externally imposed goals of relieving prison overcrowding in deciding 

which whether or not to grant early release. Despite these constraints, prior public 

opinion surveys have naively asked respondents what the appropriate sentence should be 

irrespective of prison overcrowding, budgetary piriorities, etc. According to the authors 

of one such study, “Public preferences about punishment are largely unconstrained by the 

consequences associated with those choices ... no state could afford to pursue a policy of 

totally satisfying the public demand for punishmt:nt” (Zimmerman et al., 1988: 147). 

0 Previous studies have an important methodological shortcoming - they ask open-ended 

questions and do not ask respondents to consider many of the tradeoffs inherent in real 

world sentencing decisions. 

To begin to explore the public’s attitude towards sentencing under more realistic 

settings, we asked respondents to consider one of the eight crime scenarios described 

above. However, respondents were also told how long the offender has already served in 

prison -based on an estimate of the average time served in the US. for each respective 

crime. 

Table 8 reports on parole decisions for each of the eight scenarios - separately for 

those who were indicated to have no prior convictions and those with two priors. In all of 

the street crimes (scenarios 1-61, more than 50% of respondents would parole the 

bffender without prior convictions by the stated time served. The smallest percentage - 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 8 

Parole .Decision 

3 - Drug Deal. 

4 - Robbery 

5 - RobberylHate 

Crime 

6 - Burglary 

7 - Medicare fraud 

8 - Credit fraud 

24 ' 527 52.8 o/li 5.2% 498 27.3% 2.7% 

42 501 63.8%; 5.1% 492 25.0% 4.5% 

42 

498 61.9% 2.9% 470 25.8% 4.8% 

18 496 74.2% 5.1% 489 22.1% 4.6% 

12 937 34.2% 2.9% --- 

12 506 4 1.9%) 5.2% 461 14.3% 2.4% 

--___ ---- 

52.8% of respondents would parole the drug dealer (scenario 3) after 24 months in prison, 

while the largest percentage, 79.8%, would parole the offender who spent one year in 

prison for drug possession. In contrast, none of the repeat offenders had a 50% parole 

rate. Only 22.1% of respondents would parole thli: burglar after 18 months, and only 

27.3% would parole the drug dealer after 24 moniths. The largest percentage w-as once 

again for drug possession, with 42% agreeing to parole the drug possession offender who 

had two prior convictions after serving one year in prison. 

In contrast to the street crimes, the white-~coliar offenders were less likely to be 

paroled after their current time-served. As shown in Table 8, only 34.2% would parole 

the Medicare offender after one year, and 41.9% would parole the first time offender 

convicted of credit card fraud after one year. For the credit card fraud offender with prior 

convictions, only 143% of respondents would grant parole after one year. 

h 

19 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Care must be taken in interpreting the results of Table 8, since we did not vary the 

time-served by prior offenses. Thus, the finding that 74.2% of respondents would parole a 

first-time burglar after 18 months does not necessarily mean that the public believes 

current sentencing practice is too harsh. The 18 months is an average over all burglary 

offenders - regardless of prior offenses. 

(3) Crime Prevention and Control Strategies 

The survey had two sets of questions eliciting “willingness-to-pay” valuations 

from respondents. This section analyzes the first set of questions, where respondents are 

asked about their willingness to forego a tax rebate in exchange for programs that are 

designed to prevent or punish crimes. The question asks respondents to put themselves in 

the shoes of their local mayor who has just received a grant from the Federal government 

equal to either $100 or $1000 per household. The respondent is asked to decide how to 

allocate that money among four different crime clontrol programs: (1) more prisons, (2) 

more drug and alcohol treatment programs for oflenders convicted of nonviolent crime, 

(3) more police on the street, and (4) more prevention programs to help keep youth out of 

trouble. A fifth alternative is to return all or part of this money back to local residents. 

Table 9 reports on the mean and median percentage amounts allocated to each of 

the five options. Very little of this money would go to either prisons or a tax rebate. 

Instead, the largest percentage - 36.6% - would go to prevention programs designed to 

help keep youth out of trouble. Drug treatment arid police would each receive between 

21%-22% of the money; 8.4% of the dollars would go to prisons; and 11.9% would go to 

20 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9 

Percent of Tax Rebate Dollars Allocated to Crime Prevention 

Tax Rebate I 11.9% I 0.0% I $1.00 

I I I 

rug Treatment 

revention 36.6% 33.3% $3.07 

]Sample size I 1234 I 1234 1 1234 1 

a 

Note: Weighted sample used. Excludes refusals, don’t knows, and 

responses that did not add up to 100%. 

a tax rebate. The “median” allocations were25% each for drug treatment and police, 

33.3% for prevention programs, and zero for prisons and the tax rebate. 

The last column of Table 9, converts the mean percentages into an implied 

valuation of each program relative to a tax rebate. For example, since 22.1 cents of every 

dollar would be spent on drug treatment, and 1 1.9 cents on a tax rebate, the value of 

$1 .OO of drug treatment relative to a $1 .OO tax rebate is $1.86 (22.1 / 1 1.9 = 1.86). Thus, 

the average value of a taxpayer dollar is only about 71 cents when spent on prison, but 

21 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
$3.07 when spent on prevention. That is, at the margin, the public is indifferent between a 

$1 tax rebate and $3 spent on prevention. 

There are only slight differences in these preferences across demographic groups. 

As shown in Table 10, males would allocate moire to tax rebates (1 3.8% versus 10.1 Yo) 

and less to drug treatment programs (20.7% to 23.5%) than women. Blacks would spend 

less of these funds on prison (4.4% versus 9.00/0)1, less on police (1 8.1% versus 2 1.6%), 

Table 10 

Percent of Tax Rebate Dollars Allocated to Cnme Prevention 

By Gender, Race and Ethnicity 

""significant at p < .05 *** significant at p < .01 

Note: Significance levels refer to t-test comparin,s Male versus Female and White versus 

Black responses. None of the White versus Latino differences were statistically 

significant. Additional ANOVA test finds; similar significance levels. 

add up to 100%. 

Note: Weighted sample used. Excludes refusals, Idon't knows, and responses that did not 

and less on a tax rebate (9.4% versus 11.8%). However, blacks would spend more on 

youth prevention programs (44.3% versus 35.7%). L.atinos would spend slightly lower 

amounts on drug treatment, police, and prevention programs, and instead spend more 

(18.4% versus 11.8%) on a tax rebate. 

Surprisingly, there were virtually no diffelrences among income categories. ~n 

fact, the lowest income levels (under $15,0OO) hald remarkably similar responses to these 

a questions as those with the highest income level, over $75,000. This was true both fQr the 

22 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
$100 and the $1000 rebate. Only slight differences appear between cities or suburbs and 

rural areas. 

It is important to keep in mind that these results are marginal and do not 

necessarily represent the public’s view of the appropriate allocation of total resources for 

these different programs. Thus, while we know that there is little support for spending 

more money on prisons, for example, these findings do not tell us whether the public 

believes there is currently too much or the right amount of money being spent on prisons. 

It is also worth noting that these results appear to be consistent with growing public 

sentiment towards drug treatment instead of incarceration, as witnessed by passage of 

Proposition 36 in Calif~rnia.~ 

(4) Willingness to Pay for Reduced Crime 

The final section of the study contained a series of questions eliciting 

“willingness-to-pay” valuations from respondents. In the previous section (Part 3 of the 

survey), respondents were asked to allocate a trainsfer of ftmds from the Federal 

government to their local government and could apply all of that money to a tax rebate. 

In this section (Part 4 of the survey), respondents are asked to allocate their own 

additional money to crime prevention programs. Whereas the purpose of Part 3 was to 

elicit preferences for government funding priorities, the purpose cjf Part 4 is to elicit 

specific valuation of crime estimates. 

Benefit-cost analyses have become a routine tool in the development of 

environmental, health and safety regulations. Criminal justice researchers and policy 

”“Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act,” November 2000 (Proposition 35). calls 

for increased use of drug treatment in lieu of incarceration. 

23 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
makers are beginning to use benefit-cost analysis as well. Among the programs studied 

using benefit-cost analysis include longer prism sentences, prison overcrowding, 

rehabilitation programs, and juvenile intervention programs. 

One of the major limitations of benefit-cost analysis in the criminal justice arena 

is the paucity of data on the costs of crime (or benefits of crime reduction). Cohen (1988) 

has provided one methodology based on jury awards and economic studies of the value of 

a statistical life. That approach was also used in a study commissioned by the National 

Academy of Sciences (Cohen, Miller and Rossman, 1994), and in subsequent NIJ-funded 

studies (Miller, Cohen and Wiersema, 1996; Cohen, 1998) that have been widely cited in 

the press. Despite their growing acceptance and iise by other researchers, these earlier 

approaches are not without controversy - both on1 theoretical and mipirical grounds. The 

main theoretical criticism has been that the previous approach is based on an “ex post” 

compensation criterion, whereas benefit-cost analysis is generally conducted on an “ex 

ante” willingness-to-pay approach. Since the amount people are willing to pay to avoid a 

social ill is generally less than the amount of money they would require to voluntarily 

accept it, there is concern that the previous method overestimates the cost of crime. The 

main empirical concern with the previous methodology is that it is based primarily on 

jury awards to victims, and hence is subject to the: emotional and potentially irrational 

behavior of juries. These issues are addressed in Inore detail in Cohen (2000) and Cohen 

(2001). 

One of the goals of this research project was to explore the feasibility of an 

alternative methodology - a “contingent valuation” survey of crime. The contingent 

a valuation survey is a methodology developed in the envircnmental economics literature ‘t < 

24 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and has been used extensively to place dollar values on nonmarket goods such as 

improvements in air quality, saving endangered species, and reducing the risk of early 

death. 

Respondents were asked if they would be willing to vote for a proposal that would 

require each household in their community to pay a certain amount that would prevent 

one in ten crimes in their community. They were randomly given three out of five crimes: 

(1) burglary, (2) serious assaults, (3) armed robbery, (4) rape or sexual assault, and (5) 

murder. The actual text of the survey follows: 

Now I want to ask you how much of your own money you would be willing to 

pay to reduce certain crimes. In each case, I am going to ask you to vote “yes” or 

“no” to a proposal that would require your household and each household in your 

community to pay money to prevent crime in your community. 

Remember that any money you agree to spend on crime prevention is your money 

that could otherwise be used for your own food, clothing, or whatever you need. 

Unlike the previous question, where the government was planning to give you 

money back, now I want you to think abciut actually taking more money out of 

your pocket. 

Last year, a new crime prevention program supported by your community 

successfully prevented one in every ten [INSERT CRIME] frcm occurring in your 

community. Would you be willing to pay [INSERT AMOUNT] per year to 

continue this program? 

The amounts inserted into the text were randomized between $25 and $200 (in 

$25 intervals). Once an amount was chosen for a particular respondent, that same amount 

was used for all three crime types for that respondent. If the respondent answered “yes” 

to the amount, the amount was increased by $25 and the respondent was asked, “Would 

you be willing to pay.. .?” If the initial answer was “no,” the amount was reduced by $25 

and the question was asked again. (In the case that the initial bid level was $25 and the 

(nitial answer was “no,” the respondent was asked en follow-up if she would be willing tc 

25 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
pay $10.) Following the second bid level, the respondent was asked, “And can you 

$ 25 

50 

please explain why you [would be willing/would not be willing/don’t know if you’d be 

56% 60% 56”/01 69% 75% 

60% 71% 59%l 61% 58% 

willing] to pay $[insert amount]?” The verbatim response was recorded. 

Table 11 reports on the weighted percentage of respondents who indicated they 

75 

100 

were willing to pay the specified “bid” amount to reduce each particular type of crime. 

The majority of respondents were willing to pay up to $100 per year for these crime 

58% 61% 62”/01 66%( 77% 

51% 47% 44~d 56%l 73% 

Table 1 il 

Percent of Respondents Willing to Pay for Reduced Crime 

(Weighteld) 

125 

150 

52% 49% 34% 42% 59% 

48% 56% 50% 59% 63% 

225 41% 35% 27% 59% 

I 1x1 50%) 51%1 47~d 72%1 61A 

200 38% 57% 51YI 56%/ 

reduction programs. At the lowest bid level of $25, 75% of respondents were willing to 

pay this amount to reduce murder, 69% for rape, 60% for serious assaults, and 56% each 

for burglary and armed robbery. At the highest bid level of $225, rape now has the 

highest percentage willing to pay, with 59%; followed by murder, 46%; robbery, 41%; 

assault, 35%; and burglary, 27%. Note that we have recoded all “don’t know” and 

“refused” responses to be ’ho.” This is not only a conservative approach to estimating 

willingness-to-pay, but it is also consistent with a voting model where a decision on 

whether or not to fimd a crime prevention program is contingent upon a majority vote. 

a Those who do not express an opinion are not counted in such a vote. 

26 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The percentage responding yes or no to each bid level can be converted into an 

estimated minimum willingness-to-pay. These amounts, shown in Table 12, are the 

minimum amounts that the average respondent will pay per year for a 10% reduction in 

the specified crime. The mean willingness-to-pay ranges from $83 annually per 

household for a 10% reduction in burglary to $1 38 for a 10% reduction in either rape or 

Tab],, 12 

Willinmess-to-Pav to Reduce Crime bv 10% 

Mean 1 

POUS Assaults 1 UW; I 

aDe and Sexual Assault 

murder. The 95% confidence intervals around these estimates are generally plus or minus 

10-20%. 

These figures can be converted into an implied “cost per crime” based on the 

number of crimes and households in the U.S. Table 13 calculates the implied willingnessto-pay per crime. To calculate this amount, we start with the 10% reduction in crime, for 

example, 371,197 burglaries. Since the average household is willing to pay $83 for a 

program that reduces burglaries by 10% and there are 103 million households in the U.S., 

collectively $8.5 billion would be spent on such a program ($83 x 103 million = $8.5 

billion). Dividing this figure by the 3’71 ,I 97 crimes averted yi&ls willingness-to-pay per 

crime of $23,000. Similar calculations yield estimates for serious assaults ($60,000), 

armed robbery ($213,000), rape and sexual assaults ($225,000) and murder ($3. J 

27 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
million). The last two columns of Table I3 report on the 95% confidence intervals for 

these estimates. 

i 

28 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Impli 

I I 0% Crime 

Burglary 371,197 

$ 45,000 L ed robbery 

$ 79,000 

ape and Sexual 

urder 1,553 

F 172,000 

Table 13 

$ 303,000 

d Willingness-to-Pav per Crime 

WTP for 

10% 

Reduction 

$83 

$101 

$104 

$120 

$138 

Note: See full report for details of calci 

- .'I 

[niplied WTF 

- per Crime 

- Si23,000 

- $1 213,000 

- $60,000 

- $I 225,000 

$ -9,100,000 

laltions. 

95% Confidence Interval ri 17,500 $ 29,000 

$ 162,0001 $ 285,000 1 

$ 8,000,0001 $ 10,400,000 1 

Table 14 compares these estimates to prior cost of crime estimates, based on 

combined victim costs from Miller, Cohen and Wiersema (1996) kid criminal justicerelated costs from Cohen (1 998) inflated 2000 d~llars.~ In all cases, the estimates from 

the contingent valuation survey are higher than the prior estimates, ranging from 1.5 to 9 

times higher. The estimates for serious assaults, rape and sexual abuse, and murder are 

between 1.5 and 2.5 times higher. Armed robberly and burglary are between 5-9 times 

higher. Note that the estimate for murder ($8.0 to $10.4 million) is at the upper end of the 

range of Viscusi's (1 998) most recent range for the value of a statistical life, between $3 

million and $9 million. 

An inflation factor of 1.27 was used for 1993 to 2000 dollars for victim costs and 1.12 

for 1997 to 2000 dollars for criminal justice costs, based on the growth in hourly wages 

for the typical hourly worker in the U.S. as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

(http://~~~v.bls.~ov/\x;ebapps/le~ac~/cesbtab4.htr~~. Admittedly, this is a relatively crude 

approach to updating the cost of crime estimates -. since it assumes the distribution of 

injuries in the crimes committed during the 1987-90 time period used by Miller, Cohen 

and Wiersema (1996) is unchanged in 2000. In addition, while the inflation factor is 

based on wages, a portion of the cost of crime in Miller, Cohen and Wiersema includes 

medical losses and lost quality of life. 

4 

29 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 14 

Comparison of Implied Willingness-to-Pajr to Previous Estimate of Crime Cost 

Crime 

Burglary 

Armed 

robbery 

Serious 

Assaults 

Rape and 

Sexual 

Assaults 

Murder 

Note: Vict 

Victim Criminal 

Costs Justice 

costs 

$1,780 $2,580 

$24,100 $7,730 

$30,480 $5,150 

;110,490 $3,250 

;3.7 mil. $183,000 

Prior Estimates 

Total Cost 

$3,360 

$3 1,800 

$35,600 

$1 14,000 

$3.9 mil. 

Ratio 1 (Current to Prior) I Current Study 

“Armed robbery” is based on the “Robbery with injury” category in Miller, 

Cohen & Wiersema, and “Serious Assaults” is based on the “Assault with injury’’ 

category. Criminal justice costs are based on the probability that an offender will 

be detected and punished, and are based on Table 3 of Cohen (1998). See text. 

Theoretically, some economists have argued that the WTP estimates should be 

smaller since they are based on ex ante estimates and they are willingness-to-pay, 

compared to prior estimates that are ex post compensation (willingness-to-accept) 

measures. At this point, we can only conjecture why the implied WTP estimates are 

significantly higher than previous cost of crime estimates. Part of the reason might simply 

be due to lack of information by survey respondents about the magnitude and severity of 

current crime rates. Thus, for example, if the typilsal survey respondent overestimated 

their risk of being a crime victim, they would tend to overstate their willingness-to-pay to 

‘~ 

30 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
reduce crime. Future studies should provide more background information and context to 

ensure that the responses tmly reflect public opinion. 

Another possible explanation for the higher estimates using the contingent 

valuation method, however, is that prior estimates were too small. As Nagin (2001a and 

2001b) has noted, the prior estimates of Cohen (1 988) and Miller, Cohen and Wiersema 

(1996) are based on the cost to one individual - and thus ignore the external social costs 

associated with crime that are endured by people other than victims. In particular, they 

ignore the reduced quality of life to neighborhoods, non-victims, and society in general. 

Since the survey asked people to consider a 10% reduction in crime - not a single crime - 

respondents might reasonably consider the external benefits to non-victims. A study by 

Anderson (1 999) estimates and aggregates many of these external costs, including the 

cost of the criminal justice system, private security costs, the opportunity cost of time 

spent by people in locking homes and other prevention measures, etc. Anderson estimates 

the aggregate burden of crime to be between $1.1 and $1.7 trillion, compared to the $450 

billion of victim costs estimated by Cohen, Miller and Wiersema (1 946) - about three to 

four times victim costs. Thus, the per-crime figuires estimated here are plausible and 

consistent with the Anderson study and Nagin critique of earlier crime cost estimates. 

Although we are reluctant to use the new WTP estimates as the definitive “cost of 

crime” in policy analysis, our findings suggest that prior estimates of the cost of crime are 

too low. Until further refinements improve upon the estimates reported here, researchers 

should conduct sensitivity analysis using both the prior estimates in Miller, Cohen md 

Wiersema (1996) and those presented here. A sensitivity ar,alysis is important because 

31 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
one can otherwise draw incorrect policy conciusions using estimates that are either too 

high or too low. 

Existing cost-benefit analyses often use the victim cost figures in Miller, Cohen 

and Wiersema (1996). For example, Levitt (1997) found that increased hiring of police 

reduces crime. However, based on the cost of hiiring a sworn officer and the monetary 

value of crimes averted, he concluded that only in one of his model specifications did the 

benefits unequivocally exceed the costs. Thus, while Levitt was particularly cautious 

about drawing policy conclusions from his analysis, the case for more police officers 

would be significantly strengthened if these new crime cost estimates were substituted in 

his benefit-cost ratios. 

As another example of how these new cost estimates can affect policy debates, 

Cohen (1 998) estimated that the typical high risk youth that follows a life of crime causes 

$1.3 to $1.5 million (1 997 dollars) in crime-related costs including victim costs, 

productivity losses and criminal justice related costs. Using the WTP estimates from this 

study instead of the crime cost estimates used in ICohen (1 998), we calculate that this 

figure would increase to between $2.8 and $3.3 million (2000 dollars) using the point 

estimates, or $2.1 and $4.4 million using the 95%) confidence intervals. 

Perhaps more importantly, this project has demonstrated the viability of using the 

contingent valuation method for estimating the costs of crime. Further refinements should 

focus on clearly articulating the risks and consequences of victimization to survey 

respondents, and in expanding the scope of crimes. 

32 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
C. Summary of Results and Future Research Implications 

e 

This study tested several new methodologies designed to elicit meaningful public 

input on crimina! justice policy issues such as the appropriate sentence for convicted 

offenders, the parole decision, allocation of govlernment fLmds towards crime prevention 

programs, and the public's willingness to pay to reduce crime. While the study 

objectives were largely to pilot test new approaches to eliciting meaningful information 

from public surveys - and were not focused on broad policy conclusions - we found 

several overriding themes that cut across our survey findings and have broad policy 

implications. Overall, we found strong support for spending more money than 

currently to reduce crime below current levels. Much of that support is for 

increased prevention programs targeted at high-risk youth, more police on the 

street, and for drug treatment programs for nonviolent offenders, as opposed to 

more prisons. The public largely concurs with current sentencing decisions about 

e 

incarceration and sentence length - with the exception of certain crimes - 

m 

particularly drug offenses (which the public bielieves are dealt with too harshly) and 

certain white collar crimes (which the public believes are not dealt with harshly 

enough). 

More specific policy relevant implications we can draw from our nationally 

representative sample of 1300 U.S. residents, include: 

(1) The public's preferred incarceration rate for most street crimes appeared to be 

largely consistent with - but slightly less harsh than current practice. 

The public's preferred incarceration rate for drug crimes appeared to be (2) 

'> consistently lower than current practice. 

33 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
(3) 

(4) 

There was little support for eriancing the sentence of a hate-crime motivated 

robbery beyond the punishment for a generic robbery. 

There was little support for the imprisoniment of illegal aliens who do not have a 

prior criminal record in the U.S. Only 24.4% of respondents deemed prison to be 

an appropriate punishment. 35.8% of respondents called for deportation. 

Offenders without any prior criminal record who are convicted of crimes of 

identity theft and counterfeiting of currency are deemed worthy of prison, with 

about 2/3 of respondents calling for prison terms of an average length between 4 

and 5 years. 

When confronted with the option of a tax rebate or spending more on crime 

prevention programs, the majority of respondents would allocate money to either 

high-risk youth programs (36.6%), drug treatment for nonviolent offenders 

(22. l%), or police (2 1 .O%). Little additional money would be spent on prisons 

(8.4%). Only 1 1.9% would be allocated to a tax rebate. 

The typical household would be willing to pay between $75 and $150 per year for 

crime prevention programs that reduced crimes by 10% in their communities. In 

the aggregate, these amounts imply a willingness to pay to reduce crime of about 

$23,000 per burglary, $60,000 per serious assault, $213,000 per armed robbery, 

$225,000 per rape and sexual assault, and $9.1 million per murder. These figures 

represent average values across the US. and might not necessarily apply to the 

value that members of any one community might place on crime in their area. 

34 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The study raised numerous questions for filture research. While previous authors 

have found open-ended questions on the appropriate sentence for convicted offenders to 

result in sanctions that were overly punitive, we found responses to be largely in line with 

current sentencing practice. We also designed a series of questions focused on the parole 

decision in order to make the scenario more reali,stic. This approach yielded mixed 

results. Although the parole decisions were largely consistent with the open-ended idout 

decisions, some inconsistencies were noted. In particular, there appears to be an 

anchoring effect for some crimes - whereby the sentences are lengthened beyond current 

time-served. For example, while a majority of respondents might not want to impose 

incarceration on a first time fraud violator, a majlority would refkse to parole a fraud 

offender who has already spent 12 months in prison. This suggests that future studies 

need to carefully specify the details of the crime and offender as well as provide more 

contexts for the sentencing decision. 

The results of the pilot study of willingness-to-pay provide support for continuing 

this line of research. Rcspondents appeared to be able to distinguish between crime types 

and vary their willingness-to-pay accordingly. Preliminary estimates of the cost per crime 

using this methodology appear to be reasonable. ]However, since this was a pilot study, it 

could only elicit information on broad crime categories and was unable to provide details 

on each crime. Future studies that attempt to refine the contingent valuation methodology 

should pay close attention to providing clear definitions and some understanding of the 

baseline risks and consequences for each crime type evaluated. 

35 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
References 

Anderson, David A. 1999. “The Aggregate Burden of Crime.” 42 Journal of Law and 

Economics 61 1-42. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1996. 

U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 17698 1. 

Cohen, Mark A. 2001. “The Crime Victim’s Perspective in Cost-Benefit Analysis: The 

Importance of Monetizing Tangible and Intangible Crime Costs.” Chapter 3 (pp. 

23-50) in Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime. David P. Farrington, Brandon 

C. Welsh, and Lawrence W. Sherman (ecls.). Westview Press. 

.2000. “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice.” 

Chapter in Volume 4: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice,” Criminal 

Justice 2000. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 18241 1 (July). 

. 1998. “The Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth,” 14 Journal 

of Quantitative Criminology (March). 

. 1988. “Pain, Suffering, and Jury Awards: A study of the Cost of Crime 

to Victims,” 22 Law and Society Review 537-555. 

Cohen, Mark A., Ted R. Miller and Shelli B. Rossman. 1994. “The Costs and 

Consequences of Violent Behavior in the United States,” in Understandinp and 

Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control of Violence, Vol. 4, edited by 

Albert J. Reiss, Jr. and Jeffrey A. Roth, Committee on Law and Justice, 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research 

Council. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), pp. 67-166. 

e 

Heller, Nelson B. and J. Thomas McEwen. 1975. “Applications of Crime Seriousness 

Information in a Police Department.” 12 Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 44-50. 

Hellinan, Daryl A. and Joel L. Naroff. 1979. “The Impact of Crime on Urban Residential 

Property Values.” Urban Studies 16(1), pp. 105-12. 

Levitt, Steven D. 1997. “Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of 

Police on Crime,” 87 American Economic Review 270-90. 

Miller, Ted R., Mark A. Cohen and Brian Wiersema. 1996. “Victim Costa and 

Consequences: A New Look.” National Institute of Justice Research Report, 

NCJ-155282 (February). 

Nagin, Daniel S. 2001a. “Costs and Benefits of Crime Prevention,” 28 Crime and Justice. 

Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press. ‘< a 

36 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. 
a \ 

. 2001 b. “Measuring Economic Benefits of Developmental Prevention 

Programs,” Chapter 9 in Welsh, Farrington and Sherman Costs and Benefits of 

Preventing Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Rajkumar, A.S. and M.T. French. 1997. “Drug Abuse, Crime Costs, and the Economic 

Benefits of Treatment,” 13 Journal of Quantitative Criminology pp. 29 1-324. 

Rossi, Peter H. and Richard A. Berk. 1997. Just Il’unishments: Federal Guidelines and 

Public Views ComDared. New York: De (Gruyter. 

. 1995. Public Opinion on Sentencing Federal Crimes. Washington, DC: 

United States Sentencing Commission (October). 

van den Haag, Ernest. 1982. “The Criminal Law as a Threat System.” 73 Journal of 

Criminal Law and Criminology 769-85. 

Viscusi, W. Kip. 1998. Rational Risk Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, Paul E. ‘Tracy, and Simon I. Singer. 1985. The 

National Survey of Crime Severity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-96017 (June). 

Zimmerman, Shenvood, David Van Alstyne, Christopher Dum. 1988. “The National 

Punishment Survey and Public Policy Consequences.’’ 25 Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 120-49. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.