By Riku Lindqvist · Chiara Lombardini · Leila Suvantola2· Markku Ollikainen

Applying the rational choice model of crime, this study estimates the optimality of sanctions for environmental crimes, the social cost of these crimes and the expected gain to the offender with Finnish court data from 327 criminal cases in the period 2013–2018. Sensitivity analyses are conducted for the optimal fne, the expected gain from the crime and its social cost. The time-lag and uncertainties related to the restoration of the environmental harm are explicitly included in the model and the empirical analysis. The average fne was much lower than the optimal fne even when taking into account the constraint posed by the offenders' wealth and disregarding the time-lag and uncertainties related to the restoration of the environmental harm. The use of prison sentences was also suboptimal. Even when the illegal gain was fully forfeited, the expected gain from the crime to the offender remained positive. Our results suggest a need to increase the cost of punishment by higher fnes and reliable forfeiture of the illegal economic gain. They also point to the importance of systematically estimating both the environmental damage and the illegal gain from the crime as these were available respectively for only 24% (N=79) and 3% (N=11) of all cases.

European Journal of Law and Eco

By Marieke Kluin · Lisa Ansems · Jelle Brands

The public has grown increasingly concerned about environmental issues. However, few studies examine the perceived seriousness of environmental crimes. Those that do tend to focus on US citizens and compare crime seriousness ratings among different types of crimes, rather than examining the factors that shape perceptions of environmental crime seriousness. By employing a vignette survey among Dutch citizens (N=261), the current paper seeks to address this knowledge gap. It focuses on two such factors: (1) whether or not the environmental crime is committed intentionally, and (2) whether or not the environmental crime causes considerable harm. The results show that environmental crimes were perceived as more serious when committed intentionally and when they caused considerable harm. Furthermore, intentions affected perceived seriousness less in case of harm and harm affected perceived seriousness less in case the crime was committed intentionally. Together, these findings enhance our understanding of the factors that shape the perceived seriousness of environmental crimes.

Crime, Law and Social Change (2025) 83:3