Information AboutCrime |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT CRIME | |
| crime | |
| criminal law | |
| criminology | |
| moralitycrime | |
| criminal law | |
| criminology | |
| morality | |
| core issues in ethics | |
| injustice | |
| health risks | |
|
The word crime comes from the Latin ''crimen'' (genitive ''criminis''), from the Latin Root ''cernō'' and Greek κρινω = "I Judge ". Originally it meant " Charge (in law), Guilt , Accusation ." Informal relationships and sanctions have been deemed insufficient to create and maintain a desired Social Order , resulting in formalized systems of Social Control by the Government , or more broadly, the State. With the institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State are able to compel individuals to conform to behavioural Norm s and punish those that do not. Various mechanisms are employed to regulate behaviour, including rules codified into laws, Policing people to ensure they comply with those laws, and other policies and practices designed to Prevent Crime . In addition are Remedies and Sanctions , and collectively these constitute a Criminal Justice system. Not all breaches of the law, however, are considered crimes, for example, Breaches Of Contract and other Civil Law offenses. The Label of "crime" and the accompanying Social Stigma are normally reserved for those activities that are injurious to the general population or the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. The label is intended to assert an Hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify a punishment imposed by the State, in the event that an accused person is Tried and Convicted of a crime. The term "crime" can also technically refer to the use of Criminal Law to regulate minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Usually, the perpetrator of the crime is a Natural Person , but in some jurisdictions and in some moral environments, Legal Person s are also considered to have the capability of committing crimes. The State can also technically commit crimes, although this is only rarely reflected in the justice system. DEFINITION OF CRIME IN GENERAL A Normative definition views crime as Deviant Behaviour that violates prevailing Norms , specifically, Cultural standards prescribing 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 gorge bush 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 are 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 the criminal justice system. Indeed, in those cases where there is no clear consensus on the given norm, the use of 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. Laws that define crimes which violate social norms are set by Legislature s, and are called '' Mala Prohibita ''. These laws vary from place to place, such as Gambling laws. Other crimes, called '' Mala In Se '', are nearly universally outlawed, such as Murder and Rape . WHY CRIMINALIZE?
The process of criminalization is controlled by the State because:
HISTORY The first civilizations 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 Sumer ians, and it is known that the king Urukagina had an early code that does not survive. A later king, Ur-Nammu left the earliest code that has been discovered, creating a formal system in 57 articles, the '' Code Of Ur-Nammu ''. The Sumerians later issued other codes including the "code of Lipit-Istar " (last king of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, Isin - 20th century BCE). This code contains some fifty articles and has been reconstructed by the comparison among several sources. As Kramer (1971: 4) states: "The Sumerian 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 a Tort . Similarly, assault and violent Robbery were allied with Trespass as to the ''pater's'' property (so, for example, the rape of a 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 idea and the earliest conception of a criminal act involved events of such major significance that the "State" had to usurp the usual functions of the civil tribunals and direct a special law or ''privilegium'' against the perpetrator. All the earliest criminal trials were wholly extraordinary and arbitrary without any settled law to apply, whereas the civil delictual law was highly developed and consistent in its operation (except where the King wanted to raise money by selling a new form of Writ ). The development of the idea that it is the "State" dispensing Justice in a court only emerges in parallel with or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty. In continental Europe, Vinogradoff (1909) reports the persistence of Roman Law, but with a stronger influence from the Church (see Tierney: 1964, 1979). Coupled with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller State units, rather different legal traditions emerged, remaining more strongly rooted in Roman Jurisprudence modified to meet the prevailing political climate. In Scandinavia, the effect of Roman law was not felt until the 17th century, and the courts grew out of the '' Thing s'', which were the assemblies of the people. The cases were decided by the people (usually largest freeholders dominating) which later gradually transformed into a system of a royal judge nominating a number of most esteemed men of the parish as his board, fulfilling the function of "the people" of yore. 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. On the other hand, the threat of Feudal Warfare was played down also by the institution of oaths. Both in archaic Greece and in Medieval Scandinavia , the accused was released if he could get a sufficient number of male relatives to swear him unguilty. This may be compared with the United Nations Security Council where the Veto power of the permanent members ensures that the organization is not drawn into crises where it could not enforce its decisions. These means of restraining private Feuds did not always work or prevented the fulfillment of justice 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 criticized 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 characterized 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.hahas 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. CRIME TYPES Crime is generally classified into categories, including Violent Crime , Property Crime , and Public Order Crime . U.S. classification In the 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 (US and previously UK), Indictable Offence s (UK), Misdemeanor s (US and previously UK), and Summary Offence s (UK). 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: SPECIFIC CRIME SPHERES Under International Law , certain acts are defined as criminal and may be persecuted by extraodinary procedures, such as The relationship between religion and crime notions is a complex one. Not only have many secular jurisdictions been influenced by the (socially accepted or from the top imposed) religious morality, while the actual corrolary in that sphere is answerable only to one's conscience and divinity, often in the aftermath), in various historical and/or present societies or institutionalized religions, systems of earthly justice have been established which punish crimes against the divine will and/or specific religious (devotional, organisational and other) rules under a specific code, such as Islamic Sharia or Canon Law (notably within the Roman Catholic church). In the (para)military sphere, both 'regular' crimes and specific ones, such as Mutiny , can be persecuted by special procedures and/or codes. SEE ALSO
Statistics BIBLIOGRAPHY
EXTERNAL LINKS
REFERENCES |
|
|