In ordinary language, acrime is an unlawful act punishable by astate or other authority.[1] The termcrime does not, in moderncriminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,[2] thoughstatutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.[3] The most popular view is that crime is acategory created bylaw; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law.[2] One proposed definition is that a crime oroffence (orcriminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual but also to a community, society, or the state ("a publicwrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.[1][4]
The notion that acts such asmurder,rape, andtheft are to be prohibited exists worldwide.[5] What precisely is a criminal offence is defined by thecriminal law of each relevantjurisdiction. While many have a catalogue of crimes called thecriminal code, in somecommon law nations no such comprehensivestatute exists.
Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must – withcertain exceptions – be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4]
The exact definition of crime is a philosophical issue without an agreed upon answer. Fields such as law, politics, sociology, and psychology define crime in different ways.[6] Crimes may be variously considered as wrongs against individuals, against the community, or against the state.[7] The criminality of an action is dependent on its context; acts of violence will be seen as crimes in many circumstances but as permissible or desirable in others.[8] Crime was historically seen as a manifestation ofevil, but this has been superseded by modern criminal theories.[9]
Legal and political definitions of crime consider actions that are banned by authorities or punishable by law.[10] Crime is defined by the criminal law of a given jurisdiction, including all actions that are subject tocriminal procedure. There is no limit to what can be considered a crime in a legal system, so there may not be a unifying principle used to determine whether an action should be designated as a crime.[11] From a legal perspective, crimes are generally wrong actions that are severe enough to warrant punishment that infringes on the perpetrator's liberties.[12]
As a sociological concept, crime is associated with actions that causeharm and violatesocial norms.[14] Under this definition, crime is a type ofsocial construct,[15] and societal attitudes determine what is considered criminal.[16][17]
In legal systems based onlegal moralism, the predominant moral beliefs of society determine the legal definition as well as the social definition of crime. This system is less prominent inliberal democratic societies that prioritizeindividualism andmulticulturalism over other moral beliefs.[18]
Paternalism defines crime not only as harm to others or to society, but also as harm to the self.[18]
Psychology
Psychological definitions consider the state of mind of perpetrators and their relationship with their environment.[19]
History
Early history
Restrictions on behavior existed in all prehistoric societies.[20] Crime in early human society was seen as a personal transgression and was addressed by the community as a whole rather than through a formal legal system,[21] often through the use of custom, religion, or the rule of a tribal leader.[22] Some of the oldest extant writings are ancientcriminal codes.[21] The earliest known criminal code was theCode of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 – c. 2050 BC),[23] and the first known criminal code that incorporated retaliatory justice was theCode of Hammurabi.[24] The latter influenced the conception of crime across several civilizations over the following millennia.[25]
TheRomans systematized law and applied their system across theRoman Empire. The initial rules ofRoman law regarded assaults as a matter of private compensation. The most significant Roman law concept involveddominion.[26] Most acts recognized as crimes in ancient societies, such as violence and theft, have persisted to the modern era.[27] The criminal justice system of Imperial China existed unbroken for over 2,000 years.[28]
Many of the earliest conceptions of crime are associated withsin and corresponded to acts that were believed to invoke the anger of a deity.[20] This idea was further popularized with the development of theAbrahamic religions. The understanding of crime and sin were closely associated with one another for much of history, and conceptions of crime took on many of the ideas associated with sin.[29]Islamic law developed its own system of criminal justice asIslam spread in the seventh and eighth centuries.[30]
Post-classical era
Inpost-classical Europe and East Asia, central government was limited and crime was defined locally. Towns established their own criminal justice systems, while crime in the countryside was defined by the social hierarchies offeudalism.[31] In some places, such as theRussian Empire and theKingdom of Italy, feudal justice survived into the 19th century.[32]
Common law first developed in England under the rule ofHenry II in the 12th century. He established a system of traveling judges that tried accused criminals in each region of England by applying precedent from previous rulings.[33] Legal developments in 12th century England also resulted in the earliest known recording of official crime data.[21]
Modern era
In the modern era, crime came to be seen as an issue affecting society rather than conflicts between individuals. Writers such asThomas Hobbes saw crime as a societal issue as early as the 17th century.[9]Imprisonment developed as a long-term penalty for crime in the 18th century.[29] Increasingurbanization andindustrialization in the 19th century caused crime to become an immediate issue that affected society, prompting government intervention in crime and the establishment of criminology as its own field.[9]
The concept of crime underwent a period of change asmodernism was widely accepted in the years followingWorld War II. Crime increasingly came to be seen as a societal issue, and criminal law was seen as a means to protect the public fromantisocial behavior. This idea was associated with a larger trend in the western world towardsocial democracy andcentre-left politics.[36]
Through most of history, reporting of crime was generally local. The advent ofmass media through radio and television in the mid-20th century allowed for the sensationalism of crime. This created well-known stories of criminals such asJeffrey Dahmer, and it allowed for dramatization that perpetuates misconceptions about crime.[37] Forensic science was popularized in the 1980s, establishingDNA profiling as a new method to prevent and analyze crime.[38]
Virtually all countries in the 21st century have criminal law grounded incivil law,common law,Islamic law, orsocialist law.[39] Historically, criminal codes have often divided criminals by class or caste, prescribing different penalties depending on status.[40] In some tribal societies, an entire clan is recognized as liable for a crime. In many cases, disputes over a crime in this system lead to afeud that lasts over several generations.[41]
The state determines what actions are considered criminal in the scope of the law.[42] Criminalization has significanthuman rights considerations, as it can infringe on rights of autonomy and subject individuals to unjust punishment.[43]
The enforcement of criminal law seeks to prevent crime and sanction crimes that do occur. This enforcement is carried out by the state throughlaw enforcement agencies, such aspolice, which are empowered toarrest suspected perpetrators of crimes.[44] Law enforcement may focus on policing individual crimes, or it may focus on bringing down overall crime rates.[45] One common variant,community policing, seeks to prevent crime by integrating police into the community and public life.[46]
If a crime is committed, the individual responsible is considered to be liable for the crime. For liability to exist, the individual must be capable of understanding the criminal process and the relevant authority must have legitimate power to establish what constitutes a crime.[48]
International criminal law typically addresses serious offenses, such asgenocide,crimes against humanity, andwar crimes.[49] As with all international law, these laws are created throughtreaties andinternational custom,[50] and they are defined through the consensus of the involved states.[51] International crimes are not prosecuted through a standard legal system, though international organizations may establishtribunals to investigate and rule on egregious offenses such as genocide.[52]
Blue-collar crime is any crime committed by an individual from a lowersocial class as opposed to white-collar crime which is associated with crime committed by someone of a higher-level social class. These crimes are primarily small scale, for immediate beneficial gain to the individual or group involved in them. Examples of blue-collar crime include Narcotic production or distribution,sexual assault,theft,burglary,assault ormurder.
Violent crime is crime that involves an act of violentaggression against another person.[54] Common examples of violent crime includehomicide,assault,sexual assault, androbbery.[55][56] Some violent crimes, such as assault, may be committed with the intention of causing harm. Other violent crimes, such as robbery, may use violence to further another goal. Violent crime is distinct from noncriminal types of violence, such asself-defense,use of force, andacts of war. Acts of violence are most often perceived as deviant when they are committed as an overreaction or a disproportionate response to provocation.[54]
Examples of financial crimes includecounterfeiting,smuggling,tax evasion, andbribery. The scope of financial crimes has expanded significantly since the beginning of modern economics in the 17th century.[59] Inoccupational crime, the complexity and anonymity of computer systems may help criminal employees camouflage their operations. The victims of the most costlyscams include banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and other large financial institutions.[60]
Political crime is crime that directly challenges or threatens the state. Examples of political crimes includesubversion,rebellion,treason,mutiny,espionage,sedition,terrorism,riot, andunlawful assembly. Political crimes are associated with thepolitical agenda of a given state, and they are necessarily applied against politicaldissidents.[65] Due to their unique relation to the state, political crimes are often encouraged by one nation against another, and it is political alignment rather than the act itself that determines criminality.[66][67]State crime that is carried out by the state torepress law-abiding citizens may also be considered political crime.[68]
Inchoate crime is crime that is carried out in anticipation of other illegal actions but does not cause direct harm. Examples of inchoate crimes includeattempt andconspiracy. Inchoate crimes are defined by substantial action to facilitate a crime with the intention of the crime's occurrence. This is distinct from simple preparation for or consideration of criminal activity. They are unique in thatrenunciation of criminal intention is generally enough to absolve the perpetrator of criminal liability, as their actions are no longer facilitating a potential future crime.[69]
Participants
Criminal
A criminal is an individual who commits a crime. What constitutes a criminal can vary depending on the context and the law, and it often carries a pejorative connotation.[70] Criminals are often seen as embodying certain stereotypes or traits and are seen as a distinct type of person from law-abiding citizens. Despite this, no mental or physical trend is identifiable that differentiates criminals from non-criminals.[71] Public response to criminals may be indignant or sympathetic. Indignant responses involve resentment and a desire for vengeance, wishing to see criminals removed from society or made to suffer for harm that they cause. Sympathetic responses involve compassion and understanding, seeking to rehabilitate or forgive criminals and absolve them of blame.[72]
A victim is an individual who has been treated unjustly or made to suffer.[73] In the context of crime, the victim is the individual that is harmed by a violation of criminal law.[74] Victimization is associated withpost-traumatic stress and a long-term decrease inquality of life.[75]Victimology is the study of victims, including their role in crime and how they are affected.[74]
Several factors affect an individual's likelihood of becoming a victim. Some factors may cause victims of crime to experience short-term or long-term "repeat victimization".[76][77] Common long-term victims are those that have close relationships with the criminal, manifesting in crimes such asdomestic violence,embezzlement,child abuse, andbullying. Repeat victimization may also occur when a potential victim appears to be a viable target, such as when indicating wealth in a less affluent region.[76] Many of the traits that indicate criminality also indicate victimality; victims of crime are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior and respond to provocation. Overall demographic trends of victims and criminals are often similar, and victims are more likely to have engaged in criminal activities themselves.[78][79]
The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while remaining indifferent to a possible desire fordeterrence.[80] Victims, on their own, may lack the economies of scale that could allow them to administer a penal system, let alone to collect any fines levied by a court.[81] Historically, from ancient times until the 19th century, many societies believed that non-humananimals were capable of committing crimes, and prosecuted and punished them accordingly.[82] Prosecutions of animals gradually dwindled during the 19th century, although a few were recorded as late as the 1910s and 1920s.[82]
Crime statistics
Information and statistics about crime in a given jurisdiction are collected as crime estimates, typically produced by national or international agencies. Methods to collectcrime statistics may vary, even between jurisdictions within the same nation.[83]Under-reporting of crime is common, particularly in developing nations, resulting in thedark figure of crime.[84]Victim studies may be used to determine the frequency of crime in a given population.[83] The gap to official statistics is generally smaller with higherseverity of the crime.[85]Clearance rate measures the fraction of crimes where acriminal charge has been laid or the responsible personconvicted.[86]Fear of crime can be distinct from crimeprobability.[87]
Public perception
Crime is often a high priority political issue in developed countries, regardless of the country's crime rates. People that are not regularly exposed to crime most often experience it through media, including news reporting andcrime fiction.[88] Exposure of crime through news stories is associated withalarmism and inaccurate perceptions of crime trends.Selection bias in new stories about criminals significantly over-represent the prevalence of violent crime, and news reporting will often overemphasize a specific type of crime for a period of time, creating a "crime wave" effect.[89]
As public opinion of morality changes over time, actions that were once condemned as crimes may be considered justifiable.[90]
Justifying the state's use offorce to coerce compliance with its laws has proven a consistent theoretical problem. One of the earliest justifications involved the theory ofnatural law. This posits that the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards ofmorality or constructs them.Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century: "the rule and measure of human acts is thereason, which is the first principle of human acts".[91] He regarded people as by naturerational beings, concluding that it becomes morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. In the 1760s,William Blackstone described the thesis:[92]
"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."
ButJohn Austin (1790–1859), an earlypositivist, appliedutilitarianism in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality. He denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. Thus, in Austinian terms, 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 remains free to choose what to do. Similarly,H.L.A. Hart saw the law as an aspect ofsovereignty, with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end.[93]
Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law involved internallogic andconsistency, and that the state's agents used state power withresponsibility.Ronald Dworkin rejects Hart's theory and proposes that all individuals should expect the equal respect and concern of those who govern them as a fundamental political right. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory ofdeference (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.[94]
There are natural-law theorists who have accepted the idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary function of the law.[95] This view entails the problem that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible: if conformity with natural law forms a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, count as morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice.[96]
Authorities may respond to crime through corrections, carrying out punishment as a means tocensure the criminal act.[97] Punishment is generally reserved for serious offenses. Individuals regularly engage in activity that could be scrutinized under criminal law but are deemed inconsequential.[98]Retributive justice seeks to create a system ofaccountability and punish criminals in a way that knowingly causes suffering.[99] This may arise out of a feeling that criminals deserve to suffer and that punishment should exist for its own sake. The existence of punishment also creates an effect ofdeterrence that discourages criminal action for fear of punishment.[100]
Developed nations are less likely to use physical punishments. Instead, they will impose financial penalties or imprisonment.[40] In places with widespread corruption or limitedrule of law, crime may be punished extralegally throughmob rule andlynching.[104]
Whether a crime can be resolved through financial compensation varies depending on the culture and the specific context of the crime. Historically, many societies have absolved acts of homicide through compensation to the victim's relatives.[105]
Criminal behavior determinants includecost–benefit analysis,[84]opportunity orcrime of passion.[110] A person that commits a criminal act typically believes that its benefits will outweigh the risk of being caught and punished. Negative economic factors, such asunemployment andincome inequality, can increase the incentive to commit crime, while severe punishments candeter crime in some cases.[84]
Social factors similarly affect the likelihood of criminal activity.[84] Crime corresponds heavily withsocial integration; groups that are less integrated with society or that are forcibly integrated with society are more likely to engage in crime.[111] Involvement in the community, such as through a church, decreases the likelihood of crime, while associating with criminals increases the likelihood of becoming a criminal as well.[84]
There is no knowngenetic cause of crime. Some genes have been found to affect traits that may incline individuals toward criminal activity, but no biological or physiological trait has been found to directly cause or compel criminal actions.[112] One biological factor is thedisparity between men and women, as men are significantly more likely to commit crimes than women in virtually all cultures. Crimes committed by men also tend to be more severe than those committed by women.[113]
Crime distribution shows along tail with a small fraction of individuals re-offending many times due to highrecidivism, while onset of crime at younger age predicts a longer criminal career.[114]
^Van den Bogaard, Joop; Wiegman, Oene (1991). "Property Crime Victimization: The Effectiveness of Police Services for Victims of Residential Burglary".Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.6 (6):329–362.
^Thomas, Aquinas (2002).On law, morality, and politics. Regan, Richard J., Baumgarth, William P. (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.ISBN0872206637.OCLC50423002.
^Blackstone, William (1979).Commentaries on the laws of England. William Blackstone Collection (Library of Congress). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 41.ISBN0226055361.OCLC4832359.
^Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus (1994).The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.ISBN0198761228.OCLC31410701.
^Finnis, John (2015).Natural Law & Natural Rights. 3.2 Natural law & (purely) positive law as concurrent dimensions of legal reasoning.OUP.ISBN978-0199599141.Archived from the original on 2019-08-06. Retrieved2019-07-17.The moral standards...which Dworkin (in line with natural law theory) treats as capable of being morally objective & true, thus function as a direct source of law and...as already law, except when their fit with the whole set of social-fact sources in the relevant community is so weak that it would be more accurate (according to Dworkin) to say that judges who apply them are applying morality not law.
^Bix, Brian H. (August 2015)."Kelsen, Hart, & legal normativity". 3.3 Law and morality.Revus.34 (34).doi:10.4000/revus.3984....it was part of the task of a legal theorist to explain the 'normativity' or 'authority' of law, by which they meant 'our sense that 'legal' norms provide agents with special reasons for acting, reasons they would not have if the norm were not a 'legal' one'...this may be a matter calling more for a psychological or sociological explanation, rather than a philosophical one.
^Hipp, J. R.; Curran, P. J.; Bollen, K. A.; Bauer, D. J. (1 June 2004). "Crimes of Opportunity or Crimes of Emotion? Testing Two Explanations of Seasonal Change in Crime".Social Forces.82 (4):1333–1372.doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0074.ISSN0037-7732.
