Rethinking the Blackstone Ratio with Global Public Opinion: Crime Control and Due Process

Abstract

Both the Blackstone ratio and due process are cornerstones of classical philosophy in criminal law and justice around the world. However, less consideration has been paid to contemporary society and whether the public shares this theoretical approach. Using data from four waves of the International Social Survey Programme, examining public attitudes towards controlling habitual criminals and suspected terrorists across countries, I offer evidence for how preference towards authorities’ reactions (a proxy of fear of crime) affects preferences about judicial errors. My analysis shows that (i) the public supports the authorities in taking action against criminals and terrorists without a court order, though in different proportions depending on the specific means at hand; (ii) the apparent paradox of public support for the elegance of due process and fear of crime can be explained by the difficult reality of controlling criminals; (iii) absolute proponents consider type one errors to be worse and thus will not support any measures being taken, while absolute proponents consider type two errors to be worse and steps therefore need to be taken to prevent communities from the risk from crime or terrorist attacks; (iv) members of the public who favour proactive policing are significantly less likely to consider type one errors to be worse than type two; and (v) citizens across countries share the above features in a longitudinal survey. Legislators, law professors, and criminologists in transitional risk societies around the world should reconsider their justification of anti-Blackstonian theory and the crime control model.