The world we are living in is full of despair and hopelessness. People all over the globe are suffering from something. Diseases, malnutrition, hungers and famine are experienced by the poorest of the poor today. Riots, killings and murders and other violent crimes are always reported by tabloids and newspapers, in fact, these so called crimes and destructive behaviors have become common and trivial that many people displays apathy to the events that happen all around them.
The media using newspapers, television and the Internet has bombarded us for a long time about killings and crimes that this conditioned our mind to unconsciously forget and to ordinarily treat crimes and law breaking acts in our society as a natural occurrence. The media taught us that crimes are to be fantasized or emulated by the people. Movies and news about the and other criminals have been fed by the media to the society up to the point that we become numb to the true nature and impulse of a criminal mind. The only time we truly and consciously care about crime is that when a crime concerns us. We are attracted and focused on the nature of a crime if it totally concerns our wellbeing, security, loved ones and our property. But if we are not the aggrieved party involved in a crime we just close our eyes and turn our backs from it.
Because of this, certain task must be completed to fully understand and universally explain the nature of crime.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The primary aim of this paper is to seek and to discuss if there is a possibility of a universal explanation of crime. It will attempt to portray if possible the true definition and the real nature of crime not just for a specific country or society but for the whole world. It will attempt to seek out and identify the different and varied aspects of crime and criminals. It will inquire and see the moving force that drives people to commit these so-called “crimes” and if these identifiable driving forces are common to all cultures and civilizations. This paper will not only discuss the nature, definitions and explanations of crime but it will also seek to discuss the varied and diverse theories and hypothesis forwarded by criminologists, therapies and correctional officials.
WHAT IS CRIME?
A crime in the simplest term and definition is an act that violates the political and moral laws of an individual or a social group. A crime can also be the action of violating or breaking the law, according to Western jurisprudence, there must be a simultaneous concurrence of both actus reus (guilty action) and mens rea (guilty mind) for a crime to have been committed. In order of prosecution, some laws require proof of causation relating the defendant’s actions to the criminal event in question ( 2001). In addition, some laws require that attendant circumstances have occurred, in order for a crime to occur. Also, in order for a crime to be prosecuted, corpus delicti (proof of a crime) must be established ( 2001).
It may also be a crime to conspire in order to commit other crime or helping other s commit crimes. In some legal systems the simple association for organizing crime is punished. The attempt to commit a crime may be punishable when the actus reus of the crime is not completed.
Crimes are viewed as offenses against society and therefore are punishable by the state. They can be scholastically distinguished depending on the passive subject of the crime or on the offended interest in crime against the personality of the state, rights of the citizen, public administration, administration of justice, public order, public morality, person and honor and patrimony ( 1995).
Crimes can also be distinguished depending on the related punishment or penalties for violations and infraction against the law. The definition of a crime generally reflects the current attitudes prevalent in a society. For example, the possession of drugs is not always a crime while during the Prohibition Era it was illegal to manufacture, transport and offer alcohol to the public ( 2001).
Crimes can be divided into several and overlapping categories like computer offenses, crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes against state security, drug offenses, sexual offenses and weapon offenses ( 1995). Crimes can also be grouped by severity like felonies indictable offenses, misdemeanors and summary offenses. A person can also be charged for a crime if he/she aids someone else in the committing of a crime or induces someone to commit a crime.
It must be made clear that this definition of crime is not holistic and all encompassing when totally viewed with no bias or prejudices. If scientist define criminals as one who commits a certain crime punishable by law, this definition does not make any distinction between the one time criminal pushed because of sociological and economical factors to the habitual criminal who commits crime because he/she enjoys it ( 2002). This narrow definition of crime and the criminal does not take into account the differences between the convicted criminal, the fugitive and the individual whose crime is known only to himself. This definition does not also provide a guideline for the classification of someone believed by prosecutors, police and researchers to be guilty but found not guilty by the courts.
The classification of crime and what is considered crime by the society changes over time. Some types of events such as murder, robbery and burglary have been defined as crimes for centuries. These acts are considered as part of the common law definition of crime in early societies while other irrational acts have not been viewed as crimes. As social values and mores change, society has codified some conduct criminal while criminalizing other conducts ( 2002). The recent movement towards increased criminalization of “drunk driving” is an example of such change.
New technology also results in new types of conducts that are not anticipated by law. Changes in the law may be added to newly define and sanction these types of conducts ( 2002 For example, the introduction of computer and internet crimes and penalties in the criminal codes of Great Britain, United States and Europe are manifestations of this shift.
CRIME AND CRIMINAL STUDY
The study of crime in general across a number of functional disciplines is often known as criminal science. This field heavily draws on statistics, environmental design, forensics, policing, sociology and other sciences to analyze the crimes rather than the offenders and provide ways and means to prevent, detect and solve crime ( 2000).
Other fields in the study of crime are criminology and criminalistics. Criminology is generally defined as the science of discipline that studies crime and criminal behaviors. Specifically, the field of criminology concentrates on forms of criminal behavior, the causes of crime, the definition of criminality and the societal reaction to criminal activities ( 2000) Applied criminology also claims what is labeled as the field of criminal justice composed of the courts, police and correctional facilities. Criminology is more concerned with the analyzing the phenomena of crime and criminality and in performing scientifically accurate studies and in developing sound theoretical explanations of crime and criminal behavior ( 2000). Meanwhile, criminalistics is about investigating crime scenes and the science of scientific evaluation of physical evidences.
HISTORY
The first civilizations had codes of law though these codes were not always recorded. The first known written codes were written by the ancient Sumerians and the first legislator was their king who received a formal system of law in 32 articles ( 2001) . In Babylon, king promulgated a law named “Hammurabi Code” in 1750 B.C. The Hammurabi Code was inscribed on a black stone shaft eight feet high. This ancient law consists of 285 laws pertaining to family relations, property rights, marriage, divorce, adoption of children, labor, commerce and crime. Among its provisions were the following, if a man destroys the eyes of another man, his own eyes must be destroyed, all able-bodied men must serve in the army and work on the irrigation ditches, slaves captured in war cannot own any property or by their freedom and women can own property, inherit property and engage in business ( 2001).
Similarly, some codes of conduct of religious origins or reference have been included in penal codes, forbidden behaviors resulting in real crimes in the states ruled by theocracy even in more recent times. In India, the British had notified 150 tribes such as the Phase Pardhi as criminal in 1871 ( 2000. ). Though this was repealed in 1952, the criminal stigmas still surrounds these groups, and are usually rounded up on suspicion of crime ( 2000).
Natural law theory
An alternative view of crime is derived from the theory of natural law. In this view, crime is 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 (1999). Adam Smith illustrates this view, saying 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" (1999)
Natural law theory thus distinguishes between criminality and illegality, the former being derived from human nature, the latter being derived from the interests of those in power ( 2000). The two concepts are sometimes expressed with the phrases "mala in se" and "mala prohibita". This view leads to a seeming paradox, since criminality is defined by the moral thought of the society while illegality is concerned with the whims or rulers and authorities ( 1999).
Mala in se refers to acts that are inherently criminal while a crime mala prohibita are acts that are defined as criminal because the law decreed it so ( 2001).
THEORIES REGARDING CRIME
Classical Criminology
The classical school of criminology is advanced by the writings of and . These two writers were heavily influenced by the philosophical thought and ideas of their time like . These writers and key thinkers emphasized that hedonism, rationality and free will are the underlying bases of human action (1998). These philosophers believed that people come together and form a society to produce social stability and protection and that this arrangement is worth more to them than the personal freedoms they are going to lose in exchange for the benefits of a functional society (1998).
These beliefs can be best viewed on their own definitive perspective since the world that they are is vastly different from the world that we are living. Social life during this period is characterized as chaotic and tyrannical. Church leaders were oppressors of the masses and rulers and kings were corrupt and repressive against the peasants and the people. Philosophers then began to form a theory that will explain the phenomena that is gripping their society. Laws according to are the embodiment of the social contract. The legislators chosen by the members of the society are charged with the responsibility of enacting laws and establishing penalties to be imposed if they are broken ( 1993) .
also emphasized that is was not within the authority of judges to make laws and set penalties. Instead argued that the duty of the judge is to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant without any hint of bias or prejudices and to sentence or impose the proper penalties again without any hint of bias or impartiality (1993). On his views on punishment, stated that punishment in a crime is necessary since human beings are self serving and they will always maximize their personal pleasure even if this would means violating the rights and freedoms of others (1993). therefore advocated that the idea of punishment is not to seek retribution or revenge but to be a wall or deterrent against crime and law breaking members of the society. But while he advocated penalties and punishment, clearly said that if punishments are to successfully deter crime, penalties must have particular characteristics; it must be swift, certain, appropriate and fitting to the crime committed.
Meanwhile, shared much in common with the ideas of . He argued against the cruel and inconsistent practice of criminal justice in his society while he forwarded the idea that the goal of a society is to bring order and organization to the chaotic legal system (1999). Like argued that all human actions stem from a single motivation which is the pursuit of pleasure and the simultaneous avoidance of pain. evidently believed that that man would engage in rampant criminality to maximize their personal pleasures if there is no control and rule in them and the society that they are in (1999). Penalties, sanctions and punishment are thereby established by law and to serve as an alignment to correct the individual pursuit of personal happiness with the collective interest of the community (1999). openly expressed this idea when he wrote that “punishment is considered evil but a necessary evil to prevent a greater evils being inflicted on the society and thus diminishing happiness” ( 1993).
Like then, saw that the purpose of punishment is to deter crime and to revenge crime. He also argued that a punishment should be only severe as to produce just enough pain to outweigh the pleasures to be derived from continually committing the illegal act (1992). maintained that punishment should be avoided if the end result which is deterrence form crime could be achieved effectively by less painful means such as education ( 1992). opposed punishments that were groundless either because no real crime had been committed or because more good than evil was accomplished by an offense ( 1992). He also denounced the situations in which the evil of the punishment exceeded the evil of the offense. It was in this idea that he opposes the proposal of capital punishment for heinous crimes.
and explored the idea and search for the answer on why people commit crimes while other people do. For them the issue was irrelevant; criminal motivation was given and their primary concern was social control.
The Positivist View on Crime
The positivist school of thought on criminology was developed during the second half of the nineteenth century and many writers and researchers attributed this rise to the works and writings of and his two students namely ( 1995). Positivist criminologists focus on criminals not on the crimes as classical criminologists do. Their goal is to discover the underlying causes of criminal behaviors. Positivists reject the classical doctrine of human behavior in general and criminal behavior in particular as the end products of individual’s rational exercise of their free will ( 1995). Instead, the positivist school forwarded the idea and assumption of determinism.
Positivist have adopted the techniques of the physical and natural scientist in proving and investigating the nature of a crime, Positivist criminologists advocated the use of the scientific method in analyzing and studying crime. Positivists maintained that instead of being punished, offenders should undergo treatment with the goal of rehabilitation. Proponents of positivist called for more flexible correctional strategies such as indeterminant sentencing, whereby an offender is institutionalized for the period of time necessary to effect his or her rehabilitation ( 1995).
Critics and other writers meanwhile criticized the positivist school on their own perspective on crime. Critics have said that positivists tend to heavily rely on official statistics and numbers to study crime and criminals ( 2000). Others have also pointed out that different human reactions and emotions cannot and will not be properly measured by a positivist criminologist ( 2001).
Differential Association and the View on Crime
One of the most general theories of criminality was initially proposed in 1934 by in his theory of differential association. This theory simply states that individuals become predisposed towards criminality because of an excess pf contacts that advocate criminal behavior ( 1924). Due to these contacts a person will tend to learn and accept values and attitudes that lean towards criminality.
’s theory was strongly influenced by theory pf personality, the “looking glass self”. The main propositions of the differential association theory is that criminal behaviors are learned, criminal behaviors are learned through interaction with other persons in a process of communication, the principal part of learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups ( 1924). This theory also stated that when criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes techniques of committing the crime and the specific direction of motives, rationalizations and attitudes and that the specific directions of motives and drives is learned from definition of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable ( 1924).
Differential association forwards the idea that a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. According to this theory the process of learning may vary in frequency, duration and intensity and that the process of learning criminal behaviors by association with criminal and anti criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning ( 1924). Lastly, while criminal behaviors is an explanation of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non criminal behavior is an impression of that same values and needs ( 1924).
It is clear that differential association theory is not directed at the issue of the origin of crime in society but concentrates on the transmission of criminal attitudes and behaviors ( 1999). Some critiques of this theory states that the theory is concerned only with contacts or associations with criminal or delinquents behavior patterns and that this theory specifically states that persons becomes criminals because of an excess of association with criminals ( 1999). Other critiques is that a comprehensive theory of criminality and crime should provide more explanation of the origin of crime, it is a general theory therefore it is difficult to either empirically prove or disprove it by research, the theory fails to account for all forms of criminality and lastly, the theory fails to acknowledge the importance of non face to face contacts such as media influences ( 1999).
The Universal Explanation of Crime
After discussing theories regarding nature of crime and the behavior of criminals in the society, a great and important question must be asked and must be provided with answers. Is the universal explanation of crime possible or desirable? The most likely respond to this question would be in the negative. The universal explanation of crime is not possible and desirable because of diverse and equally vital factors and conditions around the world today.
Crime cannot be totally explained since the definition of crime depends on the perspective and standpoint of an individual or society. An act can is viewed by an individual as criminal can be viewed by another individual as legal and official. One example of this is the crime and law against incest. While incest is generally defined as sexual marriage or activity between very close family members. It is a taboo and a crime in most societies but the over all definition of the crime of incest is varied when different cultures and societies around the world are consulted.
In Korea incest is defined as having a relationship with the opposite sex with the same surnames while in South East Asian countries, incest is frown upon if the parties involved are blood relatives ( 1993). It is therefore difficult and tiring to extract the true definition of a crime since definitions are based on the cultures used by specific members of a society. Another example is the crime of polygamy. Different countries and different societies forward different and diverse definition of the crime of polygamy.
In Islamic countries it is legal and it is authorized for a man to marry more than one woman since the more wife a man has the more he is blessed and loved by Allah, for them their point of view this act is perfectly legal since this is their culture, this is their custom and natural law (1993). This same custom and culture of polygamy can be frowned upon by some Western nations since their culture and the prevailing legal system dictates them to have only one wife. the idea on the holistic definition of the crime of polygamy is shattered since different cultures have different interpretations on the true definition and meaning of certain crimes.
Definition of crime is not also possible because of the rapid change and technological development that the global community is undergoing. Developments and innovations like the internet, cds mps and other gadgets have hindered the pursuit for the true definition of crime ( 2005). Technology is moving so fast that sometimes, the world is failing to catch up to it. Some malicious individuals have used modern technology like the internet to their own personal and illegal use.
Credit card frauds, password stealing, hacking, spreading of malicious softwares and viruses are some of the “crimes” that is being experienced right now but these crime remain unpunished because of the slow adaptation and adjustment of the criminal system of the world ( 2005). Some of these crimes are not even punished because policymakers and legislators are slow to comprehend and understand these criminal activities ( 2005). The rapid progress of technology therefore makes new and latest tech crimes “undefined” by the society.
Another reason why there is no universal definition of crime is that crime and the definition of crime is based on the view point of a society. A society labels and categorizes acts that are illegal and legal, authorized and unauthorized. The society and the culture that is built in that society builds a standards where certain acts and deeds are considered illegal and therefore classified as crimes. As previously mentioned above, what is legal for a specific country or society can be illegal and prohibited on another country or society. The universal definition of crime is only possible if all the societies of the world have common, shared and mutual set of values and tradition to follow. The universal definition of crime is feasible if a collective and monolithic culture globally exist.
CONCLUSIONS
Crime has a definitive impact on the impact on the society and the individual. Crime as suggested above pushed individuals to form society to check and to safeguard their rights and properties from their pleasure seeking and hedonistic self. By coming together and forming social organizations, man was able to protect himself from the harm that is presented by other individuals. Mann delegated the task of punishment and penalties to the institutions created by societies such as correctional facilities, mental institutions, police force and the justice system. This step is done to provide rehabilitation and treatment for people who commit crime.
Various writers and scientist have also formulated theories to explain crime and criminal behavior. Among these theories are the classical view on criminology advocated by , the positivist point of view forwarded by and his associates and the differential association theory promoted by Edwin . The classical view expresses crime must be punished and that the pain of punishment must exceed the pleasure that will be derived from an illegal act to deter potential criminals. The positivist school meanwhile argued that crime must be studied methodically and systematically like the natural science by using the scientific method in investigating criminal behavior. The last of these theories is the idea forwarded by Edwin that stated that criminal behavior can be learned and absorbed by an individual if there is frequent and recurrent contact with criminal behaviors.
Finally it is stated that the universal definition of crime is not possible because of many factors that influences the way individuals and societies view the nature of a crime. Technological innovation and progress, diverse and dissimilar cultures and the assorted socio-economic, cultural factors inherent in each culture and society prevents such effort at universally defining crime.
0 comments:
Post a Comment