Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:29:07.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opinions of the public, conservationists and magistrates on sentencing wildlife trade crimes in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2012

FREYA A. V. ST JOHN ,
GARETH EDWARDS-JONES  and
JULIA P. G. JONES
FREYA A. V. ST JOHN*
Affiliation:
School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NZ, UK
GARETH EDWARDS-JONES
Affiliation:
School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK
JULIA P. G. JONES
Affiliation:
School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Freya A. V. St John, current address: Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NZ, UK, Tel: +44 (1227) 827139 e-mail: f.a.v.stjohn@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The illegal trade in wild harvested plants and animals is a significant threat to populations and species worldwide. There is concern that in many countries sanctions for wildlife trade crimes are insufficient to act as a deterrent, and do not reflect the seriousness of offences. For these reasons it is important to understand professional and public opinions as to which aspects of such crimes make them more or less serious, and so deserving of a greater or lesser sentence. Conjoint analysis, a method used in marketing to understand which characteristics of a product are valued by consumers, was used to investigate which attributes of hypothetical wildlife trade offences (threat status and taxon of species involved, illegal profit, previous convictions and plea) UK-based conservation professionals, magistrates and the general public considered most important when sentencing wildlife criminals in the UK. Eighty-seven per cent of 682 respondents completed enough of the survey to be included in the analysis. Magistrates and the public considered illegal profit to be the single most important attribute, while conservationists considered the threat status of the species involved to be most important (considered second most important by magistrates and the public). Magistrates, when presented with adequate information, considered the threat status and corresponding legal protection afforded to wildlife when considering how serious a wildlife trade crime was, and doing so is in line with public opinion on sentencing such offences. This study highlights the importance of ensuring that judiciaries are presented with information concerning both the potential profit and conservation impact of wildlife trade crimes. Sentencing councils must develop appropriate guidelines to support judiciaries in their sentencing of wildlife crimes.

Keywords

conjoint analysisillegalsentencingUKwildlife crimewildlife trade
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 154 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Álvarez-Farizo, B. & Hanley, N. (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 30: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angulo, E., Deves, A.-L., Saint Jalmes, M. & Courchamp, F. (2009) Fatal attraction: rare species in the spotlight. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276: 1331–1337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, G.S. (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, A.G. & Mascia, M.B. (2005) Discrepancies in reported levels of international wildlife trade. Conservation Biology 19: 2020–2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, C.J.A., Sodhi, N.S. & Brook, B.W. (2009) Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brocke, M., Göldenitz, C., Holling, H. & Bilsky, W. (2004) Attitudes towards severity of punishment: a conjoint analytic approach. Psychology, Crime and Law 10: 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaber, A.-L., Allebone-Webb, S., Lignereux, Y., Cunningham, A.A. & Marcus Rowcliffe, J. (2010) The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris. Conservation Letters 3: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CITES (2011) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. What is CITES? [www document]. URL http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Cook, D., Roberts, M. & Lowther, J. (2002) The international wildlife trade and organised crime. A review of the evidence and the role of the UK. Regional Research Institute, University of Wolverhampton, UK.Google Scholar
Cross, P., Williams, P. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2009) Differences in the perceptions of farmers and veterinary surgeons about the efficacy of mitigation strategies for controlling bluetongue. Veterinary Record 165: 397–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durham, A.M. (1993) Public opinion regarding sentences for crime: does it exist? Journal of Criminal Justice 21: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagle, J.G. & Betters, D.R. (1998) The endangered species act and economic values: a comparison of fines and contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 26: 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P.E. & Rao, V.R. (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research 8: 355–363.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Patterson, I. & Wright, R.E. (2003) Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Animal Conservation 6: 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home, R., Keller, C., Nagel, P., Bauer, N. & Hunziker, M. (2009) Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations. Environmental Conservation 36: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons (2004) Environmental Crime: Wildlife crime. Twelfth Report of Session 2003–04. Environmental Audit Committee, The Stationery Office Limited, London, UK.Google Scholar
JNCC (2010) Joint Nature Conservation Committee. UK Biodiversity Action Plan: organisations [www document]. URL http://www.ukbap.org.uk/orgsGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. (2010) The use of DNA identification in prosecuting wildlife-traffickers in Australia: do the penalties fit the crimes? Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 6: 211–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judiciary of England and Wales (2011) Magistrates in post [www document]. URL http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/statistics/magistrates-statisticsGoogle Scholar
Keane, A., Jones, J.P.G., Edwards-Jones, G. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2008) The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Animal Conservation 11: 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koval, M.H. & Mertig, A.G. (2004) Attitudes of the Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 232–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magistrates’ Association (2009) Costing the Earth, guidance for sentencers. The Magistrates’ Association, London, UK.Google Scholar
Newing, H. (2011) Sampling. In: Conducting Research in Conservation: A Social Science Perspective, pp. 65–82. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nilsen, E.B., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N.C. & Coulson, T. (2007) Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274: 995–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office for National Statistics (2008) 2001 Census [www document]. URL http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/census-2001/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Orme, B. (2006) Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis. Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Research Publishers.Google Scholar
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., Bickford, D., Nijman, V. & Sodhi, N.S. (2010) Boosting CITES. Science 330: 1752–1753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raine, J.W. & Dunstan, E. (2009) How well do sentencing guidelines work? Equity, proportionality and consistency in the determination of fine levels in the Magistrates’ Courts of England and Wales. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 48: 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J.V., Hough, M., Jacobson, J. & Moon, N. (2009) Public attitudes to sentencing: an empirical analysis. Criminal Law Review 11: 771–782.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. & Farrar, S. (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Medical Journal 320: 1530–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawtooth Software Inc. (1997) Sawtooth Technical Paper Series: Conjoint Value Analysis (CVA). Version 3.0. Sequim, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Sawtooth Software Inc. (2002) Sawtooth Technical Paper Series: CVA/HB Technical Paper. Sequim, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Sawtooth Software Inc. (2010) SSI Web 7. Version 7.0.10. Sawtooth Software Inc. Sequim, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. & Sudman, S. (1992) Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentencing Council (2011) Current consultations [www document]. URL http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/consultations-current.htmGoogle Scholar
Sentencing Guidelines Council (2008) Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines: definitive guideline. Crown Copyright, London, UK.Google Scholar
Shepherd, C. & Nijman, V. (2008) The trade in bear parts from Myanmar: an illustration of the ineffectiveness of enforcement of international wildlife trade regulations. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shivji, M.S., Chapman, D.D., Pikitch, E.K. & Raymond, P.W. (2005) Genetic profiling reveals illegal international trade in fins of the great white shark, (Carcharodon carcharias). Conservation Genetics 6: 1035–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St John, F.A.V., Edwards-Jones, G., Gibbons, J.M. & Jones, J.P.G. (2010) Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation. Biological Conservation 143: 1025–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L. & Waller, R.W. (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UK Border Agency (2010) Plot to smuggle valuable rhino horns uncovered [www document]. URL http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2010/oct/12-smuggle-rhino-hornsGoogle Scholar
van Vugt, M. (2009) Triumph of the commons. New Scientist 203: 40–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson-Wilde, L. (2010) Wildlife crime: a global problem. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 6: 221–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed