(101) In contrast, the similar offense of library or museum theft also makes grading distinctions according to the value of the property stolen, but uses different monetary cutoffs and makes fewer distinctions: $0-$149.99 (summary offense) and $150-plus (third degree misdemeanor).
(103) In contrast, the similar offense of retail theft also makes grading distinctions, but based upon different sets of distinctions for the value of property stolen: below $149.99 (summary offense), $150-$1,999.99 (first degree misdemeanor), and above $2,000 (third degree felony).
Recording a conversation with a spouse and running it through lie-detection software to determine if they were lying about infidelity (202) is graded by the Pennsylvania survey participants the same as committing acts to annoy another person, with no legitimate purpose, a summary offense, which has a maximum penalty of ninety days, (203) but under current law the offense is graded as a second degree misdemeanor, which has a maximum sentence of two years.
Three people causing an annoyance in public, and failing to disperse when told to by a police officer, (235) is graded by the Pennsylvania survey participants the same as committing acts to annoy another person, with no legitimate purpose, a summary offense, which has a maximum sentence of ninety days, (236) but under current law the offense is graded as a second degree misdemeanor, which has a maximum sentence of two years.
(311) But the former is graded as a summary offense and subject to a maximum penalty of ninety days, while the latter is graded as a third degree misdemeanor and subject to a maximum penalty of one year, with no apparent reason given as to why the latter more general offense should have a penalty four times that of the more specific offense.
(313) But the former is graded as a third degree misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of one year, while the latter is graded as a summary offense and subject to a maximum penalty of ninety days, with no apparent reason given as to why the former, more specific offense should have a penalty four times that of the more general offense.
DF Test at First Differences Total Immigration -5.39 (1) Foreign Immigration -6.33 (1) British Immigration -6.39 (1) Gender Ratio NA Summary Offenses: Bawdy House NA Common Assault -7.20 (1) Drunkenness -4.00 (1) Family Non-Support NA Gambling -8.26 (1) Liquor Offenses -5.60 (1) Traffic Offenses -5.85 (1) Vagrancy -4.28 (1) Indictable Offenses: Persons -6.14 (1) Property -4.35 (1) Property with Violence -6.06 (1) Malicious Property Damage -8.17 (1) Forgery -7.25 (1) Other -7.49 (1) (1) T-values indicate the rejection of the null hypothesis of non-stationarity based on calculations for time series by Dickey and Fuller.
In Table 2, the results from cointegration tests suggest that Foreign Immigration is cointegrated with two summary offenses -- drunk and disorderly conduct, and vagrancy.
Cointegrating Regressions and Tests for Non-Cointegration be tween the Levels of Immigration and Crime Variables Exogenous Variable: Endogenous British Endogenous Variables Immigration Variables Summary Offenses DF ADF(lags) Summary Offenses Common Assault -2.13 -2.00 (2) Common Assault Drunkenness -3.05 -2.46 (2) Drunkenness Gambling -3.01 -2.68 (2) Gambling Liquor Offenses -1.94 -2.22 (3) Liquor Offenses Traffic Offenses 1.23 -1.32 (1) Traffic Offenses Vagrancy -2.13 -3.04 (3) Vagrancy Indictable Offenses Indictable Offenses Persons -1.98 -2.48 (2) Persons Property -1.44 -2.04 (1) Property Property w/ Violence -1.67 -1.67 (3) Property w/ Violence Malicious Damage -1.34 -1.08 (4) Malicious Damage Forgery -1.26 -1.34 (2) Forgery Other -0.63 -0.91 (1) Other [Part 2 of 2] Table 2.
In order to capture how the level of immigration combines with other variables, such as gender ratio, to produce the changes in the two summary offenses, we use the error correction models to analyze the short-term dynamics of the endogenous variables.
Theoretically, the presence of the long-run relationship between some summary offenses and immigration suggests the existence of a "common attractor." This is an intervening mechanism that creates an equilibrium relationship which pulls the two processes together over a long period of time.