The report presents the findings of the first comprehensive national survey of the views of a sample of adult New Zealanders about crime and the criminal justice system’s response to crime. A random sample of 1500 adult New Zealanders responded to a range of questions, including questions about the relative seriousness of some crimes, the aims of sentencing and their preferred choices of sentence for some crimes. Those who answered the survey were also questioned about their knowledge of some crime and criminal justice statistics.
Methodology
The main sample comprising 1006 adults was drawn from 1500 households in 14 locations throughout New Zealand. The locations were defined in terms of region and area type and were designed to ensure a fully representative cross-section of the New Zealand population aged 18 years and over (see Appendix 1 for details).
Only one adult per household was interviewed face to face by a trained ACNielsen interviewer between 6 March and 2 May 1999. The response rate (total completed interviews as a percentage of the total occupied households approached) was 71%.
The main sample was supplemented with ‘booster’ samples of 250 Mäori and 250 Pacific Peoples adults aged 18 years and over. Due to their smaller total population size, the locations for the Māori and Pacific samples were reduced to five locations throughout New Zealand. Again, only one adult per household was interviewed face-to-face.
The weighting process for the survey consisted of two main steps. First, respondents were weighted to compensate for their different selection probabilities. Then rim weighting was applied to align the survey results with known population figures for age, sex and ethnicity.
In general, respondents weren’t provided with a ‘don’t know’ option in response to a question. Rather, they were encouraged to provide a best guess. Accordingly, unless otherwise stated, a response of ‘don’t know’ or a refusal is excluded from the analysis presented in this report.
A pre-test of the draft questionnaire was carried out in June 1998. Changes to the questionnaire were made, and the questionnaire was re-tested in a pilot survey comprising 50 interviews conducted 4–14 February 1999.
Not all the material collected as part of the survey is presented in this report. Material not included relates to some new questions developed from overseas research. An independent expert reviewer subsequently pointed out a deficiency in some aspects of the development of these questions, which relate to the severity of the sentence (including the substitution of a fine) likely to have been imposed for some crimes. For this reason, responses relating to this part of the questionnaire are not presented in this report.
Key Results
Knowledge about crime and the criminal justice system
Those surveyed tended to have an inaccurate and negative view of crime statistics and to underestimate the lengths of sentences imposed on offenders. Survey respondents perceived there to be higher levels of crime than national figures suggest. The overwhelming majority (83%) of the sample wrongly believed that the crime rate had been increasing over the two years prior to the survey.
Survey respondents substantially overestimated both violent crime and property crime statistics. Two-thirds believed that at least half of all the crime reported to the police involved violence or the threat of violence, yet police statistics show that the figure is nearer to 9%. Two-thirds of those surveyed overestimated the likelihood of a New Zealand household being burgled. Only 15% came close to the actual figure of approximately one in every 14 households burgled annually.
Forty-one percent of respondents correctly estimated the average cost of keeping a person in prison for a year at $55,000. More than a quarter underestimated the costs, and just under a third overestimated what it costs to keep a person in prison for a year.
When asked to estimate sentence lengths for rape, respondents’ misunderstandings tended to be in the direction of underestimating statutory maximum sentence lengths, underestimating the sentences actually imposed by judges and underestimating the time served in prison by offenders sentenced to imprisonment. About half the sample underestimated the maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for rape, the average 8-year prison sentence imposed on rapists, and the average 5-year prison sentence served by rapists.
When asked to estimate the amount of time an offender sentenced to life imprisonment actually serves, 44% correctly estimated this at between 10 and 14 years. A quarter underestimated the amount of time, and a third overestimated the actual duration of a life sentence.
Nearly half of those surveyed overestimated the proportion of offenders likely to be reconvicted of an offence within 2 years. More than half overestimated the rate of offending while on bail.
In general terms, those least informed about some crime statistics were more likely to be women, to be younger, to be Māori, to be less educated or to have a lower personal income.
Attitudes to criminal justice professionals
Survey respondents were asked to rate the job done by a number of criminal justice professionals including groups who provide services for victims. Respondents rated community services and the police most highly followed by juries, probation officers and criminal lawyers. Judges and the prison service received the lowest ratings. NZ European/Pakeha respondents had a more positive view of the police than Māori or Pacific Peoples. People in older age groups were more likely to have positive views of the police, juries and the prison service.
Crime seriousness
Respondents were given one-line descriptions of each of six crimes and were asked to rank them from the most serious to the least serious. These crimes were: a man assaulting his female partner; burglary with a weapon; drunk driving; importing heroin with a street value of $100,000; fraud of $50,000; and possession of 10 grams of marijuana. There was a large degree of variability in the ranking of crimes, although in general respondents viewed burglary with a weapon and importing heroin as more serious than the other crimes. Possession of marijuana was ranked as the least serious crime, and fraud was also viewed as less serious than the other crimes. Drunk driving and a man assaulting his female partner were most likely to be ranked in either third or fourth place in order of seriousness, although a significant minority also ranked these crimes as being of relatively high seriousness.
Sentencing practice
Survey respondents were asked to sentence six people, each convicted of a crime described in a short one-line statement. Respondents were then presented with six short scenarios based on the six crimes. Each scenario contained further information about the gender, age, occupation and criminal history of the offender and some limited circumstances of the offence.
In response to the six short scenarios, over half the sample thought that imprisonment was the most appropriate sentencing option for all crimes other than possession of cannabis. The proportion who thought this ranged from 91% in the case of aggravated burglary to 53% for the offence of drunk driving. Only 9% thought someone convicted of possession of cannabis should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Instead, they were most likely to suggest community-based penalties.
Responses to the one-line statements were compared with responses to the scenarios to assess whether the amount of information provided about the crime and the offender made a difference to the sentence respondents chose. Respondents were most likely to give a less serious sentence in the case of the two scenarios involving women. One of the women was convicted of importing heroin and the other of possessing marijuana. Respondents were most likely to give a more serious sentence in the case of drunk driving. Additional details given in that scenario included that the person was male, with twice the legal limit and that he was involved in a car chase. In the scenarios where men had committed the offences of burglary, assault and fraud, respondents were reasonably evenly divided between those who gave a more serious sentence, those who stayed with the sentence they had given based on the one-line description and those who gave a less serious sentence. Respondents who were most likely to give a less serious sentence based on more information were women, older people, those without a university education and those not in the paid labour force.
Aims of sentencing
Survey respondents wanted to achieve a mix of aims when sentencing offenders. Among the most popular aims were individual rehabilitation, deterrence and retribution. Restitution was seen as an important aim of a sentence for fraud, and incapacitation was an important aim in sentencing an offender convicted of aggravated burglary. Respondents who had suggested a prison term as the most appropriate sentence in the scenarios given were more likely to say that incapacitation was a key aim in sentencing. Those who favoured community-based sentences were more likely to select rehabilitation as the most important aim of sentencing.