Information AboutCrime |
|
A crime in a nontechnical sense is an act that violates a Political or Moral rule. But in many Nation s, the Government s have discovered that informal sanctions are ineffective to control some types of antisocial behaviour, so the system of Social Control has to be formalised. Law s are designed to regulate human behaviour and the State provides Remedies and Sanctions to protect its Citizen s if the laws are broken. But not all breaches of the law are considered crimes, e.g. Breaches Of Contract . The Label of "crime" and the accompanying Social Stigma are usually reserved for those activities causing more serious loss and damage to the citizens of the state. Its use is intended to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behaviour and, in the event that an accused is Convicted following a Trial applying principles of Due Process , to justify the state imposing Punishment . The term is also applied to minor Regulatory Offences or Infraction s, e.g. where the Criminal Law is used to keep order on the roads. Definition of crime in general The systematic study of the causes ( Aetiology ), prevention, control, and penal responses to crime is called Criminology . For these purposes, the definition of crime depends on the theoretical stance taken. The nature of crime could be viewed from either a legal or Normative perspective. A legalistic definition takes as its starting point the Common Law or the Statutory / Codified definitions contained in the laws enacted by the Sovereign government. Thus, a crime is any Culpable action or Omission prohibited by law and punished by the state. This is an uncomplicated view: a crime is a crime because the law defines it as such. A normative definition views crime as Deviant Behaviour that violates prevailing norms, i.e. Cultural standards specifying how humans ought to behave. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing Social , political, Psychological , and Economic conditions may affect the current definitions of crime and the form of the legal, Law Enforcement , and penal responses made by the state. These Structural realities are fluid and often contentious. For example, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, behaviour may be Criminalised or Decriminalised which will directly affect the Statistical Crime Rate s, determine the allocation of resources for the enforcement of such laws, and influence public opinion. Similarly, changes in the way that crime data is collected and/or calculated may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to Crime Statistics , allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which law should be used to enforce any particular social norm. There are many ways in which behaviour can be controlled without having to resort to using the criminal law. Indeed, in those cases where there is no clear consensus on the given norm, the use of the criminal law by the group in Power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may be considered an improper limitation of the second group's Freedom , and the ordinary members of society may lose some of their respect for the law in general whether the disputed law is actively enforced or not. Why criminalise? Criminalisation is intended as a pre-emptive, harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a Deterrent to those proposing to engage in the behaviour causing harm. The state becomes involved because the costs of not criminalising (i.e. allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalising it (i.e. restricting individual Liberty and so minimising harm to others). The process of criminalisation should be controlled by the state because:
History The first civilisations had codes of law, containing both civil and penal rules mixed together, though these codes were not always recorded. According to Oppenheim (1964), the first known written codes were produced by the Sumerians , and it was probably their king Ur-Nammu (who ruled over Ur in the 21st century BC) who acted as the first legislator, creating a formal system in thirty-two articles. The Sumerians later issued other codes including the "code of Lipit-Istar" (last king of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, Isin - 20th century BC). This code contains some fifty articles and has been reconstructed by the comparison among several sources. Kramer (1971: 4) adds a further element: "The Sumarian was deeply conscious of his personal rights and resented any encroachment on them, whether by his King, his superior, or his equal. No wonder that the Sumerians were the first to compile laws and law codes." In Babylon , Driver and Mills (1952-55) and Skaist (1994) describe the successive legal codes, including the Code Of Hammurabi (one of the richest of ancient times), which reflected society's belief that law was derived from the will of the gods (see Babylonian Law . Many of the states at this time were Theocratic , and their codes of conduct were religious in origin or reference. '' was in possession of all the family and its property (including slaves). Hence, interference with any property was enforced by the ''pater''. The Commentaries of Gaius on the Twelve Tables treated ''furtum'' (modern theft) as if it was a Tort . Similarly, assault and violent Robbery were allied with Trespass as to the ''pater's'' property (so, for example, the rape of a female slave, would be the subject of compensation to the ''pater'' as having trespassed on his "property") and breach of such laws created a ''vinculum juris'' (an obligation of law) that could only be discharged by the payment of monetary compensation (modern Damages ). Similarly, in the consolidated Teutonic Laws of the Germanic tribes (see Guterman: 1990), there was a complex system of money compensations for what would now be considered the complete range of criminal offences against the person from murder down. Even though Rome abandoned modified to meet the prevailing political climate. From the Hellenic system onwards, the policy rationale for requiring the payment of monetary compensation for wrongs committed has been to avoid feuding between Clan s and Families (note the concept of ''pater familias'' as a unifying factor in extended kin groups, and the later practice of Wergild in this context). If families' feelings could be mollified by compensation, this would help to keep the peace. It did not always work but, in the earliest times, the "states" were not prepared to provide an independent police force. Thus, criminal law grew out of what is now tort and, in real terms, many acts and omissions that are classified as crimes overlap civil law concepts. Natural law theory The consistent theoretical problem has been to justify the state's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws. One of the earliest justifications was the theory of (1979: 41) describes the thesis: :"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." But John Austin , an early Positivist , applied Utilitarianism in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality, but denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality, i.e. a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual is free to choose what he or she will do. Similarly, Hart (1961) saw the law as an aspect of sovereignty with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end. Thus, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law were simply that the law was internally logical and consistent, and that state power was being used with responsibility. Dworkin (2005) rejects Hart's theory and argues that fundamental among political rights is the right of each individual to the equal respect and concern of those who govern him. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of Deference (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make. Indeed, the majority of natural law theorists accept that a primary function of the law is to enforce the prevailing morality. The problem with this view is that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible in that, if conformity with natural law is a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, be morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice. The solution to this problem is to admit some degree of Moral Relativism and to accept that norms may evolve over time and, therefore, the continued enforcement of old laws may be criticised in the light of the current norms. The law may be acceptable but the use of state power to coerce citizens to comply with that law is not morally justified. In more modern conceptions of the theory, crime is characterised as the violation of Individual Rights . Since rights are considered as natural, rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime is also natural, in contrast to laws, which are man-made. Adam Smith illustrates this view, saying that a Smuggler would be an excellent citizen, "''...had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so.''" Natural law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" which is derived from human nature, and "illegality" which is derived from the interests of those in power. The two concepts are sometimes expressed with the phrases '' Malum In Se '' and '' Malum Prohibitum ''. A crime ''malum in se'' is argued to be inherently criminal; whereas a crime ''malum prohibitum'' is argued to be criminal only because the law has decreed it so. This view leads to a seeming Paradox , that an act can be illegal that is no crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith and the American Founding Fathers subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called Classical Liberals and Libertarian s. Trial The form of the trial There are two primary systems for conducting a trial:
The function of the trial There are two forms of deterrence:
Reasons Antisocial behaviour is criminalised and treated as offences against Society which justifies punishment by the government. A series of distinctions are made depending on the passive subject of the crime (the Victim ), or on the offended interest(s), in crimes against:
Or they can be distinguished depending on the related punishment with Sentencing Tariff s prescribed in line with the perceived seriousness of the offence with Fine s and noncustodial sentences for the least serious, and in some states, Capital Punishment for the most serious. Classification In the United States since 1930, Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) have been tabulated annually by the FBI from crime data submitted by Law Enforcement agencies across the United States . This data is compiled at the city, county, and state levels into the Uniform Crime Report s (UCR). Violations of laws, which are derived from Common Law , are classified as Part I (index) crimes in UCR data, and further categorised as violent and property crimes. Part I violent crimes include murder and criminal homicide (voluntary manslaughter), forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery, while Part I property crimes include burglary, arson, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft. All other crimes are classified as Part II crimes. Crimes are also grouped by severity, some common categorical terms being: Felonies , Indictable Offence s, Misdemeanor s, and Summary Offence s. For convenience, Infraction s are also usually included in such lists although, in the U.S., they may not be the subject of the criminal law, but rather of the Civil Law . The following are crimes in many Criminal Jurisdiction s: See also External link Bibliography
|