THE CONCEPT OF CRIME.

CRIMINOLOGY ESSAY1

The widespread use of the term ‘Crime’ makes it important to define the boundaries
which construct it; however, doing so is not simply a matter of common sense. There
are a number of complex political and economic forces which help to define crime in
practice within a specific society. The most commonly accepted definition of crime is
‘an act that is capable of being followed by criminal proceedings’, (Williams, 1955,
p.107) which provides us with a wide classification of the term in that the only common
element of crime is that previous legal proceedings have outlined it as such.

The idea of the need for punishment is a common element to defining crime; however it
may also include any action or omission which causes harm to person or property or in
any way violates the criminal law. The concept of crime often, but not necessarily,
involves violation of moral codes followed by some level of social disapproval but is it
important to recognise that not all crimes are disapproved of by all people. (Sammons,
n.d.) This highlights one of the difficulties associated with defining crime as smaller
incidences such as stealing office stationary would not be objected by the majority of
the population and would often not result in legal action, however by law this is still
considered a crime despite not having such qualities. Dictionary definitions of the term
generally add a more evaluative element by describing it as ‘an evil … act’ and
therefore applying some level of malice. (Oed.com, n.d.) This malicious view of crime
is one which is regularly presented in the media, such portrayals are often ‘associated
with personal terror and fear [and] violence is seen as central’ (White and Haines, 2000,
p.7), in addition, crime is often seen to be of a random nature and committed by those
with no connections to the victim. Therefore, media plays a large part in shaping the
public’s definition of crime, ignorant to the differences between this view and the real
nature of crime.

It is possible to determine four main frameworks in which it is possible to make sense

of the ways crime can be defined, although each demonstrates noticeable difficulties
associated with defining the concept of crime. (Morrison, 2009) The first of these is
crime as a social construction; this poses a difficulty for creating a general definition of
crime as it varies across cultures. Media and its portrayal of crime within a specific
society help to enhance this difficulty as public awareness of crime is mostly gained
through the electronic and print media and therefore has a great impact on how crime is
defined in society. In addition to this, crime works as ‘a label created in social
interaction, but once created it has both a symbolic and practical reality’ (Morrison,
2009, p.12) and as a result crime becomes the product as opposed to the object of
criminal policy. (Morrison, 2009, p.13) In such circumstances, criminal policy acts to

1 Recovered from: https://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/criminology/the-concept-of-crime-

criminology-essay.php

1
define and create crime rather than to prevent it and so makes it challenging to apply a
general definition before a crime has taken place.

The second framework is crime as defined by religious doctrine or authority; within this
context there is both a conflict between what would be considered a crime by society
and religion but also between religions themselves. Although less prominent in modern
day society, a crime can be defined as an action that goes against the law of God. This
is a clear and strict definition however disagreements occur between religions that have
different ideas and interpretations regarding what the law of God actually entails. In
such cases, there is again a similar difficulty in defining crime across religions as there
is across societies; each has a separate idea of what constitutes law and therefore also of
what acts would violate this law. (Morrison, 2009, p.14) Perhaps more importantly than
this is the instances in which religious law differentiates from the law of the state in
which it exists; when religion allows for something which the state does not. Honour
killings and domestic abuse are examples of behaviour which may be sanctioned within
a particular religion but would disagree with basic state law, most commonly in
westernised societies. The state would often not view a person’s religion as justification
for carrying out such crimes and thus clearly illustrates the difficulty in defining the
concept of crime with the existence of differing views.

Crime can also be understood as a reflection of the law of a particular nation-state; an

act can only be defined as criminal in accordance to the laws of the state in which it was
committed. This creates a difficulty in defining crime as what may be considered a
criminal action in one state or country may not be viewed the same way in another.
Therefore, we must look at the particular laws of a society in order to determine
whether or not an act is considered a crime in that instance. Wayne Morrison proposed
that it is possible to overcome this problem by eliminating the term "crime" and
replacing it with "deviance"; deviance is a concept that can be recognised globally as it
takes into account the specific conditions of each separate society. (2009, p.12) Doing
so would help to eradicate the issue of crime being defined in accordance to an
individual’s particular world perspective and instead create a more widely applied
definition.

Finally, more recently, concepts of crime have emerged that are formed beyond the
constraints of specific nation-state laws from general social and political theory. In most
western societies, crime is of individualistic responsibility and so places blame on
individuals rather than the systems they are contained within. However, by viewing
crime in relation to social and political theory it is possible to look at the causes of a
person’s behaviour which may render them irresponsible for their actions and also to
define actions as crimes which may not be considered so within the society itself. For
example, during the reign of Hitler in Nazi Germany, the systematic slaughter of the
Jewish race was not considered criminal; however, when viewed in retrospect, the
Holocaust is considered to be the ‘greatest crime in history’. (Fackenheim, 1985, p.512)

2
Regardless of German legislature at the time, it is widely agreed that the Holocaust was
criminal, however, when it came to trial, only a small number of officers were named as
personally responsible. (Finch, 1947) This is because it was decided that many of those
involved could not be charged as they were simply following the instructions issued to
them by their superiors and so did not willingly commit the crimes. Here we can see
another difficulty emerging which affects the definition of crime which goes beyond the
action itself and looks at the situation and individuals involved.

In most Western societies, the law states that in order for an action to qualify as a crime
it must involve some degree of intention to violate the law and knowledge that it would
do so and be carried out voluntarily. (Sammons, n.d.) This creates difficulty in defining
the concept of crime as any action in isolation cannot be considered a crime without
first looking at the circumstances surrounding it. Therefore, the same action could be
classed as a crime in one instance and not in another depending on the mental state or
situation of the persons involved. Another difficulty is related to the law itself; the law
is socially created and therefore varies over time as social opinion changes. As a result,
what is considered a crime in one period of time may not be the same for another.
(White and Haines, 2000, p.6) Furthermore, there are often a number of political and
social factors which may influence how an act is perceived and treated by the criminal
justice system. (White and Haines, 2000, p.5) An example of this is soldiers at war;
although what is essentially being committed is mass murder, it is not treated as so
because it is carried out for the good of the country.

Overall, it can be argued that no action in itself is criminal; it is the consequences that
follow which define it as being so. An act cannot be classed as a crime until the
offender is caught and punished, in the absence of a public authority to do so, there is
no crime. (Morrison, 2009, p.12, 15) From this we can see that there exist great
difficulties associated with defining the concept of crime ranging from social and
historical context to individual and personal circumstances. It is unlikely that a general
definition of crime which would satisfy all possible elements of crime in all
environments is reachable and so it is important to take into account such specific
details when attempting to create a more specific, socially and historically bound
definition of what constitutes a crime.

3
 THE CONCEPT OF CRIME2

A crime is generally a deliberate act that results in harm, physical or otherwise, toward
one or more people, in a manner prohibited by law. The determination of which acts are
to be considered criminal has varied historically, and continues to do so
among cultures andnations. When a crime is committed, a process of discovery, trial by
judge or jury, conviction, and punishment occurs. Just as what is considered criminal
varies between jurisdictions, so does the punishment, but elements of restitution and
deterrence are common.

Although extensive studies in criminology and penology have been carried out, and
numerous theories of its causes have emerged, no criminal justice system has succeeded
in eliminating crime. Understanding and resolving the root of crime involves the depths
of human nature and relationships. Some regard religious faith as a preventative,
turning ex-convicts to a meaningful life in society. There is evidence that the bonds of
family can be a deterrent, embedding the would-be criminal within bonds of caring and
obligation that make a life of crime unattractive.

DEFINITION OF CRIME

Crime can 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 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 behavior that violates prevailing norms,
i.e. culturalstandards 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 forms of legal, law enforcement, and penal
responses made by the state.

(…)

In modern conceptions of natural law, crime is characterized as the violation of

individual rights. Since rights are considered as natural, rather than manmade, what
constitutes a crime is also natural, in contrast to laws, which are manmade. Adam
Smith illustrated 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."

2
Recovered from: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Crime

4
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 but not a crime,
while a criminal act could be perfectly legal.

The action of crime is settled in a criminal trial. In the trial, a specific law, one set in the
legal code of a society, has been broken, and it is necessary for that society to
understand who committed the crime, why the crime was committed, and the necessary
punishment against the offender to be levied. Civil trials are not necessarily focused on
a broken law. Those trials are usually focused on private parties and a personal dispute
that arose between them. The solution in civil trials usually aims, through monetary
compensation, to provide restitution to the wronged party.

(…)

THEORIES OF CRIME

There are many theories discussing why people commit crimes and deviant acts.
Criminal theories can be divided into biological theories versus classical theories.
Biological theories focus on pathology, sickness, and determinism, basically assuming
that a person is born a criminal. Classical theories focus on free will and the idea of
a social contract to which people conform. These theories assume that no one is born a
criminal, and that they come to commit criminal acts as a result of their experiences.

Psychoanalytical Theories of Crime assume that criminals are different from non-
criminals, and that criminal offenders have differentpersonalities from those of non-
offenders. Freudian theory suggests that crime is a result of frustration, resulting from
stunted growth in one of the four stages of maturation: oral, anal, genital, and phallic.
Aggression is then a result of the frustration that developed from lack of goal
attainment.

Cognitive Theories of Crime involve the development of people's ability to make

judgments. Psychologists and criminologists have detailed a variety of theories
of developmental psychology and moral psychology and its relationship to crime. Jean
Piaget suggested that there are two stages in the cognitive development of judgment.
The first stage involves the "acceptance of rules as absolute." For instance, in order for
a child to develop judgment, he or she must realize from a young age that the rules his
or her parents make are unchanging in nature and apply directly to them. The second
step describes the "spirit of law." This is basically a realization that the law has

5
consequences, that if one acts counter to the law, it will affect them. Lawrence
Kohlberg also researched the development of moral judgment, describing six steps,
which were then divided into three stages: "pre-conventional," "conventional," and
"post-conventional." These stages represent Kohlberg's stages of moral development. In
the "pre-conventional stage," the first two steps, the goals in life are to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain, and the desire to gain reward without punishments or
consequences. Kohlberg suggested that most criminals are stuck in this stage. The next
stage, the "conventional stage," involves people following the rules absolutely in order
to gain social approval and respect. People feel empathy and guilt in this stage, and
according to Kohlberg, most people are in this stage. The final stage, the "post-
conventional stage," involves people judging rules according to their own values along
with a sense of there being a universal justice. Most people do not reach this stage.

The Functionalist Theory of Crime involves a macro level theory of crime.

Functionalism assumes that: society is a living organism, comprised of social
institutions that overlap, and that social institutions work to keep society in order. Emile
Durkheim suggested that crime is functional because it has always existed in society,
making crime a normal part of society. Crime serves as a guide for acceptable social
behavior, and it creates consensus among people in a society on what is deviant.
Durkheim also suggested that deviance brings social change, which is a positive and
needed aspect in all societies. Too much crime, however, results in weakened social
consensus and social order, leading to anomie, a state of normlessness, which no
society can survive for long.

The Social Disorganization Theory of Crime is an ecological perspective on crime,

dealing with places, not people, as the reason crime happens: where one lives is causal
to criminality; the physical and social conditions a person is surrounded by create
crime. The assumption of this theory is that people are inherently good, but are changed
by their environment. According to this theory, five types of change are most
responsible for criminality. They are: urbanization, migration, immigration,
industrialization, and technologicalchange. If any one of these aspects occurs rapidly, it
breaks down social control and social bonds, creating disorganization.

The Strain Theory of Crime proposes that crime occurs when a person is unable to
attain their goals through legitimate means. Robert K. Merton described strain by
showing different ways an individual can meet their goals. Conformity is the method by
which most people achieve what they want: a person conforms to the ideals and values
of mainstream society. Merton said that criminals use "innovation" to achieve their
goals, which means that they agree with the goals that mainstream society offers, but
seek or require different means to achieve them. He also identified other ways in which
individuals achieve their own goals, including "retreatism," "rebellion," and "ritualism."
Strain theory was modified by Robert Agnew (2005) when he said that it was too tied
to social class andcultural variables and needed to take into account a more universal

6
perspective of crime. Three components of Agnew's modification of strain theory are:
failure to achieve positive goals, loss of some positively valued stimuli, and
presentation of negative stimuli. He suggested that these cause strain between a person
and the society they live in, resulting in a negative affective state, which may lead to
criminal activity.

(…)

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Generally, in the criminal justice system, when a crime is committed the perpetrator is
discovered, brought to trial in a court, and if convicted, receives punishment as
prescribed by the penal system. Penologists, however, have differing views on the role
of punishment.
Punishment is as much to protect society as it is to penalize and reform the criminal.
Additionally, it is intended as a deterrent to future crimes, by the same perpetrator or by
others. However, the efficacy of this is not universally accepted, particularly in the case
of capital punishment. A desired punishment is one that is equal to the crime
committed. Any more is too severe, any less is too lenient. This serves as justice in
equilibrium with the act of crime. Punishment gives the criminal the tools to understand
the way they wronged the society around them, granting them the ability to one day
possibly come to terms with their crime and rejoin society, if their punishment grants
the privilege.

Punishmment as deterrence can take two forms:

 Specific: The intention underlying the penal system is to deter future wrongdoing
by the defendant, if convicted. The punishmentdemonstrates the unfortunate
consequences that follow any act that breaks the law.
 General: The punishment imposed on the particular accused is also a warning to
other potential wrongdoers. Thus the function of the trial is to gain the maximum
publicity for the crime and its punishment, so that others will be deterred from
following in the particular accused's footsteps.