Crime
In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority.[1] The term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,[2] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.[3] The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; 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 or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual but also to a community, society, or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.[1][4]
"Criminal" and "Criminals" redirect here. For other uses, see Crime (disambiguation), Criminal (disambiguation), and Criminals (disambiguation).
The notion that acts such as murder, rape, and theft are to be prohibited exists worldwide.[5] What precisely is a criminal offence is defined by the criminal law of each relevant jurisdiction. While many have a catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, in some common law nations no such comprehensive statute exists.
The state (government) has the power to severely restrict one's liberty for committing a crime. In modern societies, there are procedures to which investigations and trials must adhere. If found guilty, an offender may be sentenced to a form of reparation such as a community sentence, or, depending on the nature of their offence, to undergo imprisonment, life imprisonment or, in some jurisdictions, death.
Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4]
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime. Breaches of private law (torts and breaches of contract) are not automatically punished by the state, but can be enforced through civil procedure.
Foundational systems
Natural-law theory
Justifying the state's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws has proven a consistent theoretical problem. One of the earliest justifications involved the theory of natural law. This posits that the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards of morality or constructs them. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts".[26] He regarded people as by nature rational 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:[27]
But John Austin (1790–1859), an early positivist, applied utilitarianism 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 of sovereignty, with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end.[28]
Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law involved internal logic and consistency, and that the state's agents used state power with responsibility. 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 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.[29]
There are natural-law theorists who have accepted the idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary function of the law.[30] 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.[31]
History
Early history
Restrictions on behavior existed in all prehistoric societies.[32] 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,[33] often through the use of custom, religion, or the rule of a tribal leader.[34] Some of the oldest extant writings are ancient criminal codes.[33] The earliest known criminal code was the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 – c. 2050 BC), and the known first criminal code that incorporated retaliatory justice was the Code of Hammurabi.[35] The latter influenced the conception of crime across several civilizations over the following millennia.[36]
The Romans systematized law and applied their system across the Roman Empire. The initial rules of Roman law regarded assaults as a matter of private compensation. The most significant Roman law concept involved dominion.[37] Most acts recognized as crimes in ancient societies, such as violence and theft, have persisted to the modern era.[38] The criminal justice system of Imperial China existed unbroken for over 2,000 years.[39]
Many of the earliest conceptions of crime are associated with sin and corresponded to acts that were believed to invoke the anger of a deity.[32] This idea was further popularized with the development of the Abrahamic 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.[40] Islamic law developed its own system of criminal justice as Islam spread in the seventh and eighth centuries.[41]
Post-classical era
In post-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 of feudalism.[42] In some places, such as the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, feudal justice survived into the 19th century.[43]
Common law first developed in England under the rule of Henry 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.[44] Legal developments in 12th century England also resulted in the earliest known recording of official crime data.[33]
Modern era
In the modern era, crime came to be seen as an issue affecting society rather than conflicts between individuals. Writers such as Thomas 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.[40] Increasing urbanization and industrialization 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]
Anthropological criminology was popularized by Cesare Lombroso in the late-19th century. This was a biological determinist school of thought based in social darwinism, arguing that certain people are naturally born as criminals.[45] The eugenics movement of the early-20th century similarly held that crime was caused primarily by genetic factors.[46]
The concept of crime underwent a period of change as modernism was widely accepted in the years following World War II. Crime increasingly came to be seen as a societal issue, and criminal law was seen as a means to protect the public from antisocial behavior. This idea was associated with a larger trend in the western world toward social democracy and centre-left politics.[47]
Through most of history, reporting of crime was generally local. The advent of mass media through radio and television in the mid-20th century allowed for the sensationalism of crime. This created well-known stories of criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer, and it allowed for dramatization that perpetuates misconceptions about crime.[48] Forensic science was popularized in the 1980s, establishing DNA profiling as a new method to prevent and analyze crime.[49]
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.[67] 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.[68] 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.[69]
Victim
A victim is an individual who has been treated unjustly or made to suffer.[70] In the context of crime, the victim is the individual that is harmed by a violation of criminal law.[71] Victimization is associated with post-traumatic stress and a long-term decrease in quality of life.[72] Victimology is the study of victims, including their role in crime and how they are affected.[71]
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".[73][74] Common long-term victims are those that have close relationships with the criminal, manifesting in crimes such as domestic violence, embezzlement, child abuse, and bullying. 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.[73] 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.[75][76]
The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while remaining indifferent to a possible desire for deterrence.[77] 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.[78] Historically, from ancient times until the 19th century, many societies believed that non-human animals were capable of committing crimes, and prosecuted and punished them accordingly.[79] Prosecutions of animals gradually dwindled during the 19th century, although a few were recorded as late as the 1910s and 1920s.[79]
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 and crime fiction.[105] Exposure of crime through news stories is associated with alarmism 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.[106]
As public opinion of morality changes over time, actions that were once condemned as crimes may be considered justifiable.[107]