Study Notes

Crime

For other uses, see Crime (disambiguation).

"Criminal" redirects here. For other uses, see Criminal (disambiguation).
"Criminals" redirects here. For other uses, see Criminals (disambiguation).
"Offender" redirects here. For the film, see Offender (film).
Criminal law

Elements

 Actus reus
 Mens rea
 Causation
 Concurrence

Scope of criminal liability

 Complicity
 Corporate
 Vicarious

Severity of offense

 Felony
 Infraction (also called violation)
 Misdemeanor

Inchoate offenses

 Attempt
 Conspiracy
 Incitement
 Solicitation

Offence against the person

 Assassination
 Assault
 Battery
 Child abuse
 Criminal negligence
 Defamation
 False imprisonment
 Harassment
 Home invasion
 Homicide
  Intimidation
 Kidnapping
 Malicious castration
 Manslaughter (corporate)
 Mayhem
 Murder 
o corporate
 Negligent homicide
 Invasion of privacy
 Robbery
 Torture

Sexual offences

 Adultery
 Bigamy
 Fornication
 Incest
 Indecent exposure
 Masturbation
 Obscenity
 Prostitution
 Rape
 Sexual assault
 Sodomy

Crimes against property

 Arson
 Blackmail
 Bribery
 Burglary
 Embezzlement
 Extortion
 False pretenses
 Forgery
 Fraud
 Gambling
 Intellectual property violation
 Larceny
 Payola
 Pickpocketing
 Possessing stolen property
  Robbery
 Smuggling
 Tax evasion
 Theft

Crimes against justice

 Compounding
 Malfeasance in office
 Miscarriage of justice
 Misprision
 Obstruction
 Perjury
 Perverting the course of justice

Crimes against the public

 Apostasy
 Begging
 Censorship violation
 Dueling
 Miscegenation
 Illegal consumption (such as prohibition of drugs, alcohol,
and smoking)
 Terrorism

Crimes against animals

 Cruelty to animals
 Wildlife smuggling
 Bestiality

Crimes against the state

 Lèse-majesté
 Treason

Defences to liability

 Automatism
 Consent
 Defence of property
 Diminished responsibility
 Duress
 Entrapment
 Ignorantia juris non excusat
 Infancy
 Insanity
  Justification
 Mistake (of law)
 Necessity
 Provocation
 Self-defence

Other common-law areas

 Contracts
 Evidence
 Property
 Torts
 Wills, trusts and estates

Portals

 Law

 v
 t
 e

Criminology
and penology

Theory[show]

Types of crime[hide]

 Against humanity
 Blue-collar
 Corporate
 Juvenile
 Organized
 Political
  Public-order
 State
 State-corporate
 Victimless
 White-collar
 War

Methods[show]

Penology[show]

Schools[show]

Subfields[show]

Browse[show]

 v
 t
 e

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]
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 criminal law of each
country. While many have a catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, in
some common law countries 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, execution.
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.

Contents
  1Overview
 2Etymology
 3Definition
o 3.1England and Wales
o 3.2Scotland
o 3.3Sociology
o 3.4Other definitions
 4Criminalization
 5Labelling theory
 6Natural-law theory
 7History
o 7.1Ancient Near East
o 7.2Rome and its Legacy in Europe
 8Classification and categorisation
o 8.1Categorisation by type
o 8.2Categorisation by penalty
o 8.3Common law
o 8.4Classification by mode of trial
o 8.5Classification by origin
o 8.6Other classifications
o 8.7U.S. classification
 9Reports, studies and organizations
 10Offence in common law jurisdictions
 11Causes and correlates of crime
 12Crimes in international law
 13Religion and crime
 14Military jurisdictions and states of emergency
 15Employee crime
 16See also
 17Notes
 18References
 19External links

Overview
When informal relationships prove insufficient to establish and maintain a
desired social order, a government or a state may impose more formalized or stricter
systems of social control. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal,
agents of the state can compel populations to conform to codes and can opt to
punish or attempt to reform those who do not conform.
Authorities employ various mechanisms to regulate (encouraging or discouraging)
certain behaviors in general. Governing or administering agencies may for example
codify rules into laws, police citizens and visitors to ensure that they comply with
those laws, and implement other policies and practices that legislators or
administrators have prescribed with the aim of discouraging or preventing crime. In
addition, authorities provide remedies and sanctions, and collectively these
constitute a criminal justice system. Legal sanctions vary widely in their severity; they
may include (for example) incarceration of temporary character aimed at reforming
the convict. Some jurisdictions have penal codes written to inflict permanent harsh
punishments: legal mutilation, capital punishment, or life without parole.
Usually, a natural person perpetrates a crime, but legal persons may also commit
crimes. Historically, several premodern societies believed that non-
human animals were capable of committing crimes, and prosecuted and punished
them accordingly.[6]
The sociologist Richard Quinney has written about the relationship between society
and crime. When Quinney states "crime is a social phenomenon" he envisages both
how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on societal
norms.[7]

Etymology
The word crime is derived from the Latin root cernō, meaning "I decide, I give
judgment". Originally the Latin word crīmen meant "charge" or "cry of
distress."[8] The Ancient Greek word κρίμα, krima, from which the
Latin cognate derives, typically referred to an intellectual mistake or an offense
against the community, rather than a private or moral wrong. [9]
In 13th century English crime meant "sinfulness", according to the Online Etymology
Dictionary. It was probably brought to England as Old French crimne (12th century
form of Modern French crime), from Latin crimen (in the genitive case: criminis). In
Latin, crimen could have signified any one of the following:
"charge, indictment, accusation; crime, fault, offense".
The word may derive from the Latin cernere – "to decide, to sift" (see crisis, mapped
on Kairos and Chronos). But Ernest Klein (citing Karl Brugmann) rejects this and
suggests *cri-men, which originally would have meant "cry of distress". Thomas G.
Tucker suggests a root in "cry" words and refers to English plaint, plaintiff, and so on.
The meaning "offense punishable by law" dates from the late 14th century. The Latin
word is glossed in Old English by facen, also "deceit, fraud, treachery", [cf.
fake]. Crime wave is first attested in 1893 in American English.

Definition
England and Wales
Whether a given act or omission constitutes a crime does not depend on the nature
of that act or omission. It depends on the nature of the legal consequences that may
follow it.[10] An act or omission is a crime if it is capable of being followed by what are
called criminal proceedings.[11][12]
History
The following definition of crime was provided by the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871,
and applied[13] for the purposes of section 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908:
The expression "crime" means, in England and Ireland, any felony or the offence
of uttering false or counterfeit coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or
the offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences, or the offence
of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under the fifty-eighth section of
the Larceny Act, 1861.
Scotland
For the purpose of section 243 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act 1992, a crime means an offence punishable on indictment, or an
offence punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the
offender is liable under the statute making the offence punishable to be imprisoned
either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other
punishment.[14]
Sociology
A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates
prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave
normally. 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 changing definitions of crime and the form of the
legal, law-enforcement, and penal responses made by society.
These structural realities remain fluid and often contentious. For example: as
cultures change and the political environment shifts, societies
may criminalise or decriminalise certain behaviours, which directly affects
the statistical crime rates, influence the allocation of resources for the enforcement of
laws, and (re-)influence the general public opinion.
Similarly, changes in the collection and/or calculation of data on crime 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 the state should use law or social engineering to
enforce or encourage any particular social norm. Behaviour can be controlled and
influenced by a society in many ways without having to resort to the criminal justice
system.
Indeed, in those cases where no clear consensus exists on a given norm, the
drafting of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another
group may seem to some observers an improper limitation of the second
group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society have less respect for the law
or laws in general – whether the authorities actually enforce the disputed law or not.
Other definitions
Legislatures can pass laws (called mala prohibita) that define crimes against social
norms. These laws vary from time to time and from place to place: note variations
in gambling laws, for example, and the prohibition or encouragement of duelling in
history. Other crimes, called mala in se, count as outlawed in almost all societies,
(murder, theft and rape, for example).
English criminal law and the related criminal law of Commonwealth countries can
define offences that the courts alone have developed over the years, without any
actual legislation: common law offences. The courts used the concept of malum in
se to develop various common law offences.[15]

Criminalization
Main article: Criminalization
The spiked heads of executed criminals once adorned the gatehouse of the medieval London Bridge.

One can view criminalization as a procedure deployed by society as a preemptive

harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to anyone
proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm. The state becomes involved
because governing entities can become convinced that the costs of not criminalizing
(through allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of
criminalizing it (restricting individual liberty, for example, to minimize harm to others).
States control the process of criminalization because:

 Even if victims recognize their own role as victims, they

may not have the resources to investigate and seek
legal redress for the injuries suffered: the enforcers
formally appointed by the state often have better access
to expertise and resources.
 The victims may only want compensation for the injuries
suffered, while remaining indifferent to a possible desire
for deterrence.[16]
 Fear of retaliation may deter victims or witnesses of
crimes from taking any action. Even in policed societies,
fear may inhibit from reporting incidents or from co-
operating in a trial.
 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. [17] Garoupa
and Klerman (2002) warn that a rent-
seeking government has as its primary motivation to
maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient
wealth, a rent-seeking government will act more
aggressively than a social-welfare-maximizing
government in enforcing laws against minor crimes
(usually with a fixed penalty such as parking and routine
traffic violations), but more laxly in enforcing laws
against major crimes.
 As a result of the crime, victims may die or become
incapacitated.
Labelling theory
Further information: Labeling theory §  The "criminal"
The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their
scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the state,
including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply
the labels of "crime" or "criminal" intend to assert the hegemony of a dominant
population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and
to justify any punishments prescribed by the state (in the event that standard
processing tries and convicts an accused person of a crime).

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".[18] 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:[19]
"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 (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.[20]
Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the
truth of a proposition of law simply 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.[21]
There are natural-law theorists who have accepted the
idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary
function of the law.[22] 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. [23]
One can solve this problem by granting some degree
of moral relativism and accepting that norms may evolve
over time and, therefore, one can criticize the continued
enforcement of old laws in the light of the current norms.
People may find such law acceptable, but the use of
state power to coerce citizens to comply with that law
lacks moral justification. More recent conceptions of the
theory characterise crime as the violation of individual
rights.
Since society considers so many rights as natural
(hence the term right) rather than man-made, what
constitutes a crime also counts as natural, in contrast to
laws (seen as 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 derives from human nature) and
"illegality" (which originates with the interests of those
in power). Lawyers sometimes express the two
concepts with the phrases malum in se and malum
prohibitum respectively. They regard a "crime malum in
se" as inherently criminal; whereas a "crime malum
prohibitum" (the argument goes) counts as criminal only
because the law has decreed it so.
It follows from this view that one can perform an illegal
act without committing a 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[citation
needed]
 and libertarians.[citation needed]

History
Some religious communities regard sin as a crime;
some may even highlight the crime of sin very early in
legendary or mythological accounts of origins – note the
tale of Adam and Eve and the theory of original sin.
What one group considers a crime may cause or ignite
war or conflict. However, the earliest
known civilizations had codes of law, containing
both civil and penal rules mixed together, though not
always in recorded form.
Ancient Near East
The Sumerians produced the earliest surviving written
codes.[24] Urukagina (reigned c. 2380 BC – c. 2360
BC, short chronology) had an early code that has not
survived; a later king, Ur-Nammu, left the earliest extant
written law system, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 – c. 
2050 BC), which prescribed a formal system of
penalties for specific cases in 57 articles. The
Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code
of Lipit-Ishtar". This code, from the 20th century BCE,
contains some fifty articles, and scholars have
reconstructed it by comparing several sources.
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.
— Kramer[25]
Successive legal codes in Babylon, including the code
of Hammurabi (c. 1790 BC),
reflected Mesopotamian society's belief that law derived
from the will of the gods (see Babylonian law).[26][27] Many
states at this time functioned as theocracies, with codes
of conduct largely religious in origin or reference. In the
Sanskrit texts of Dharmaśāstra (c. 1250 BC), issues
such as legal and religious duties, code of conduct,
penalties and remedies, etc. have been discussed and
forms one of the elaborate and earliest source of legal
code.[28][29]
Sir Henry Maine studied the ancient codes available in
his day, and failed to find any criminal law in the
"modern" sense of the word.[30] While modern systems
distinguish between offences against the "state" or
"community", and offences against the "individual", the
so-called penal law of ancient communities did not deal
with "crimes" (Latin: crimina), but with "wrongs"
(Latin: delicta). Thus the Hellenic laws treated all forms
of theft, assault, rape, and murder as private wrongs,
and left action for enforcement up to the victims or their
survivors. The earliest systems seem to have lacked
formal courts.[31][32]
Rome and its Legacy in Europe
The Romans systematized law and applied their system
across the Roman Empire. Again, the initial rules
of Roman law regarded assaults as a matter of private
compensation. The most significant Roman law concept
involved dominion.[33] The pater familias owned all the
family and its property (including slaves);
the pater enforced matters involving interference with
any property. The Commentaries of Gaius (written
between 130 and 180 AD) on the Twelve
Tables treated furtum (in modern parlance: "theft") as
a tort.
Similarly, assault and
violent robbery involved trespass as to
the pater's property (so, for example, the rape of a slave
could become 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 only the payment of monetary
compensation (modern "damages") could discharge.
Similarly, the consolidated Teutonic laws of
the Germanic tribes,[34] included a complex system of
monetary compensations for what courts would
now consider the complete[citation needed] range of criminal
offences against the person, from murder down.
Even though Rome abandoned its Britannic
provinces around 400 AD, the Germanic mercenaries –
who had largely become instrumental in enforcing
Roman rule in Britannia – acquired ownership of land
there and continued to use a mixture of Roman and
Teutonic Law, with much written down under the
early Anglo-Saxon kings.[35] But only when a more
centralized English monarchy emerged following
the Norman invasion, and when the kings of England
attempted to assert power over the land and its peoples,
did the modern concept emerge, namely of a crime not
only as an offence against the "individual", but also as a
wrong against the "state".[36]
This idea came from common law, 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
English criminal trials involved wholly extraordinary and
arbitrary courts without any settled law to apply,
whereas the civil (delictual) law operated in a highly
developed and consistent manner (except where a king
wanted to raise money by selling a new form of writ).
The development of the idea that the "state"
dispenses justice in a court only emerges in parallel with
or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty.
In continental Europe, Roman law persisted, but with a
stronger influence from the Christian Church.[37] Coupled
with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller
feudal units, various legal traditions emerged, remaining
more strongly rooted in Roman jurisprudence, but
modified to meet the prevailing political climate.
In Scandinavia the effect of Roman law did not become
apparent until the 17th century, and the courts grew out
of the things – the assemblies of the people. The people
decided the cases (usually with largest freeholders
dominating). This system later gradually developed into
a system with a royal judge nominating a number of the
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 involved the avoidance
of feuding between clans and families.[38] If compensation
could mollify families' feelings, this would help to keep
the peace. On the other hand, the institution of oaths
also played down the threat of feudal warfare. Both in
archaic Greece and in medieval Scandinavia, an
accused person walked free if he could get a sufficient
number of male relatives to swear him not guilty.
(Compare the United Nations Security Council, in which
the veto power of the permanent members ensures that
the organization does not become involved in crises
where it could not enforce its decisions.)
These means of restraining private feuds did not always
work, and sometimes prevented the fulfillment of justice.
But in the earliest times the "state" did not always
provide an independent policing force. Thus criminal law
grew out of what 21st-century lawyers would call torts;
and, in real terms, many acts and omissions classified
as crimes actually overlap with civil-law concepts.
The development of sociological thought from the 19th
century onwards prompted some fresh views on crime
and criminality, and fostered the beginnings
of criminology as a study of crime in
society. Nietzsche noted a link between crime
and creativity – in The Birth of Tragedy he asserted:[needs
context]
 "The best and brightest that man can acquire he
must obtain by crime". In the 20th century, Michel
Foucault in Discipline and Punish made a study
of criminalization as a coercive method of state control.

Classification and categorisation

Categorisation by type
The following classes of offences are used, or have
been used, as legal terms:

 Offence against the person[39]

 Violent offence[40]
 Sexual offence[40]
 Offence against property[39]
Researchers and commentators have classified crimes
into the following categories, in addition to those above:

 Forgery, personation and cheating[41]
 Firearms and offensive weapons[42]
 Offences against the state/offences against the
Crown and Government,[43] or political offences[44]
 Harmful or dangerous drugs[45]
 Offences against religion and public worship[46]
 Offences against public justice,[47] or offences against
the administration of public justice[48]
 Public order offence[49]
 Commerce, financial markets and insolvency[50]
 Offences against public morals and public policy[51]
 Motor vehicle offences[52]
 Conspiracy, incitement and attempt to commit
crime[53]
 Inchoate offence
 Juvenile delinquency
 Victimless crime
Categorisation by penalty
One can categorise crimes depending on the related
punishment, with sentencing tariffs prescribed in line
with the perceived seriousness of the offence.
Thus fines and noncustodial sentences may address the
crimes seen as least serious, with lengthy imprisonment
or (in some jurisdictions) capital punishment reserved
for the most serious.
Common law
Under the common law of England, crimes were
classified as either treason, felony or misdemeanour,
with treason sometimes being included with the felonies.
This system was based on the perceived seriousness of
the offence. It is still used in the United States but the
distinction between felony and misdemeanour is
abolished in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Classification by mode of trial
The following classes of offence are based on mode of
trial:

 Indictable-only offence
 Indictable offence
 Hybrid offence, a.k.a. either-way offence in England
and Wales
 Summary offence, a.k.a. infraction in the US
Classification by origin
In common law countries, crimes may be categorised
into common law offences and statutory offences. In the
US, Australia and Canada (in particular), they are
divided into federal crimes and under state crimes.
Other classifications
 Arrestable offence
U.S. classification
 Felony Sentences in State Courts, study by the United States
Department of Justice.

In the United States since 1930, the FBI has

tabulated Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) annually from
crime data submitted by law enforcement agencies
across the United States.[54] Officials compile this data at
the city, county, and state levels into the UCR. They
classify violations of laws based on common law as Part
I (index) crimes in UCR data. These are further
categorized as violent or 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 count come under Part II.
For convenience, such lists usually
include infractions although, in the U.S., they may come
into the sphere not of the criminal law, but rather of
the civil law. Compare tortfeasance.
Booking arrests require detention for a time-frame
ranging 1 to 24 hours.

Reports, studies and organizations

There are several national and International
organizations offering studies and statistics about global
and local crime activity, such as United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime, the United States of America
Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) safety
report or national reports generated by the law-
enforcement authorities of EU state member reported to
the Europol.

Offence in common law jurisdictions

In England and Wales, as well as in Hong Kong, the
term offence means the same thing as, and is
interchangeable with, the term crime,[11] They are further
split into:

 Summary offences
 Indictable offences

Causes and correlates of crime

Main article: Causes and correlates of crime
Many different causes and correlates of crime have
been proposed with varying degree of empirical support.
They include socioeconomic, psychological, biological,
and behavioral factors. Controversial topics
include media violence research and effects of gun
politics.
Emotional state (both chronic and current) have a
tremendous impact on individual thought processes
and, as a result, can be linked to criminal activities. The
positive psychology concept of Broaden and Build posits
that cognitive functioning expands when an individual is
in a good-feeling emotional state and contracts as
emotional state declines.[55] In positive emotional states
an individual is able to consider more possible solutions
to problems, but in lower emotional states fewer
solutions can be ascertained. The narrowed thought-
action repertoires can result in the only paths
perceptible to an individual being ones they would never
use if they saw an alternative, but if they can't conceive
of the alternatives that carry less risk they will choose
one that they can see. Criminals who commit even the
most horrendous of crimes, such as mass murders, did
not see another solution.[56]

Crimes in international law

Main article: International criminal law
Kang Kek Iew before the Cambodian Genocide Tribunal on July
20, 2009

Crimes defined by treaty as crimes against international

law include:
 Crimes against peace
 Crimes of apartheid
 Forced disappearance
 Genocide
 Piracy
 Sexual slavery
 Slavery
 Waging a war of aggression
 War crimes
From the point of view of state-centric law, extraordinary
procedures (usually international courts) may prosecute
such crimes. Note the role of the International Criminal
Court at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Religion and crime

Main article: Religious law
See also: Category:Crimes in religion.

Religious sentiment often becomes a contributory factor of crime.

In the 1819 anti-Jewish riots in Frankfurt, rioters attacked Jewish
businesses and destroyed property.

Different religious traditions may promote distinct norms

of behaviour, and these in turn may clash or harmonise
with the perceived interests of a state. Socially accepted
or imposed religious morality has influenced secular
jurisdictions on issues that may otherwise concern only
an individual's conscience. Activities sometimes
criminalized on religious grounds include (for
example) alcohol consumption
(prohibition), abortion and stem-cell research. In various
historical and present-day societies, institutionalized
religions have established systems of earthly justice that
punish crimes against the divine will and against specific
devotional, organizational and other rules under specific
codes, such as Roman Catholic canon law.
 Military jurisdictions and states of
emergency
In the military sphere, authorities can prosecute both
regular crimes and specific acts (such
as mutiny or desertion) under martial-law codes that
either supplant or extend civil codes in times of (for
example) war.
Many constitutions contain provisions to curtail
freedoms and criminalize otherwise tolerated behaviors
under a state of emergency in the event of war, natural
disaster or civil unrest. Undesired activities at such
times may include assembly in the streets, violation
of curfew, or possession of firearms.

Employee crime
Main article: Occupational crime
Two common types of employee crime
exist: embezzlement and wage theft.
The complexity and anonymity of computer systems
may help criminal employees camouflage their
operations. The victims of the most costly scams include
banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and
other large financial institutions.[57]
In the United States, it is estimated that workers are not
paid at least $19 billion every year in overtime [58] and that
in total $40 billion to $60 billion are lost annually due to
all forms of wage theft.[59] This compares to national
annual losses of $340 million due to robbery, $4.1 billion
due to burglary, $5.3 billion due to larceny, and $3.8
billion due to auto theft in 2012.[60] In Singapore, as in the
United States, wage theft was found to be widespread
and severe. In a 2014 survey it was found that as many
as one-third of low wage male foreign workers in
Singapore, or about 130,000, were affected by wage
theft from partial to full denial of pay.[61]

See also

 Law portal

 Aggression
 Crime displacement
 Crime science
 Federal Crime
 Justice
 Law and order (politics)
 Malice (law)
 Category:Age of criminal responsibility

Notes
1. ^ Jump up to:a b "Crime". Oxford English Dictionary Second
Edition on CD-ROM. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Farmer, Lindsay: "Crime, definitions of", in Cane
and Conoghan (editors), The New Oxford Companion to Law,
Oxford University Press, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-19-929054-3), p.
263 (Google Books).
3. ^ In the United Kingdom, for instance, the definitions provided
by section 243(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act 1992 and by the Schedule to
the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b Elizabeth A. Martin (2003).  Oxford Dictionary of
Law (7 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  ISBN  978-0-19-
860756-4.
5. ^ Easton, Mark (17 June 2010).  "What is crime?".  BBC
News.  Archived  from the original on 27 February 2013.
Retrieved 10 June  2013.
6. ^ Girgen, Jen (2003). "The Historical and Contemporary
Prosecution and Punishment of Animals".  Animal Law
Journal.  9: 97. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
7. ^ Quinney, Richard, "Structural Characteristics, Population
Areas, and Crime Rates in the United States," The Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 57(1), pp. 45–
52
8. ^ Ernest Klein, Klein's Comprehensive Etymological
Dictionary of the English Language Archived 2016-03-22 at
the Wayback Machine
9. ^ Bakaoukas, Michael. "The conceptualisation of 'Crime' in
Classical Greek Antiquity: From the ancient Greek 'crime'
(krima) as an intellectual error to the christian 'crime' (crimen)
as a moral sin." ERCES ( European and International
research group on crime, Social Philosophy and Ethics).
2005. "Archived copy". Archived from the original  on 2011-
09-28. Retrieved 2011-06-27.
10. ^ Seaman v Burley [1896] 2 QB, per Lord Esher MR at 346
11. ^ Jump up to:    Glanville Williams, Learning the Law, Eleventh
a b

Edition, Stevens, 1982, p. 3

12. ^ Chapter 1 of "Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law" (13th Ed by
Ormerod) discusses the various proposed definitions of
"crime" in more detail.
13. ^ The Prevention of Crime Act 1908, section 10(6) and
Schedule
14. ^ The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act
1992, section 243(2)Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback
Machine
15. ^ Canadian Law Dictionary, John A. Yogis, Q.C., Barrons:
2003
16. ^ See Polinsky & Shavell (1997) on the fundamental
divergence between the private and the social motivation for
using the legal system.
17. ^ See Polinsky (1980) on the enforcement of fines
18. ^ Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225?-1274. (2002). On law,
morality, and politics. Regan, Richard J., Baumgarth, William
P. (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett
Pub. ISBN 0872206637.  OCLC 50423002.
19. ^ Blackstone, William, 1723-1780. (1979). Commentaries on
the laws of England. William Blackstone Collection (Library of
Congress). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
p. 41.  ISBN  0226055361. OCLC  4832359.
20. ^ Hart, H. L. A. (Herbert Lionel Adolphus), 1907-1992.
(1994).  The concept of law(2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon
Press. ISBN 0198761228.  OCLC 31410701.
21. ^ Dworkin, Ronald. (1978).  Taking rights seriously  : [with a
new appendix, a response to critics]. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. ISBN 0674867114.  OCLC 4313351.
22. ^ Finnis, John (2015). Natural Law & Natural Rights. 3.2
Natural law & (purely) positive law as concurrent dimensions
of legal reasoning. OUP. ISBN 978-0199599141.
Retrieved 2019-07-17. 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.
23. ^ Bix, Brian H. (August 2015). "Kelsen, Hart, & legal
normativity". 3.3 Law and morality.  Revus - OpenEdition
Journals. 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.
24. ^ Oppenheim (1964)
25. ^ Kramer (1971: 4)
26. ^ Driver and Mills (1952–55) and Skaist (1994)
27. ^ The Babylonian laws. Driver, G. R. (Godfrey Rolles), 1892–
1975; Miles, John C. (John Charles), Sir, 1870–1963.
Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Pub. April 2007. ISBN 978-
1556352294.  OCLC 320934300.
28. ^ Anuradha Jaiswal, Criminal Justice Tenets of Manusmriti –
A Critique of the Ancient Hindu Code
29. ^ Olivelle, Patrick. 2004. The Law Code of Manu. New York:
Oxford UP.
30. ^ Maine, Henry Sumner, 1822–1888 (1861).  Ancient law : its
connection with the early history of society, and its relation to
modern ideas. Tucson. ISBN 0816510067.  OCLC 13358229.
31. ^ Gagarin, Michael. (1986).  Early Greek law. London:
University of California
Press. ISBN 9780520909168. OCLC  43477491.
32. ^ Garner, Richard, 1953- (1987). Law & society in classical
Athens. New York: St. Martin's
Press. ISBN 0312008562.  OCLC 15365822.
33. ^ Daube, David. (1969). Roman law: linguistic, social and
philosophical aspects. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
U.P.  ISBN  0852240511. OCLC  22054.
34. ^ Guterman, Simeon L. (Simeon Leonard), 1907- (1990). The
principle of the personality of law in the Germanic kingdoms
of western Europe from the fifth to the eleventh century. New
York: P. Lang.  ISBN  0820407313. OCLC  17731409.
35. ^ Attenborough: 1963
36. ^ Kern: 1948; Blythe: 1992; and Pennington: 1993
37. ^ Vinogradoff (1909); Tierney: 1964, 1979
38. ^ The concept of the pater familias acted as a unifying factor
in extended kin groups, and the later practice
of wergild functioned in this context.[citation needed]
39. ^ Jump up to:    For example, by the Visiting Forces Act 1952
a b

40. ^ Jump up to:    For example, by section 31(1) of the Criminal

a b

Justice Act 1991, and by the Criminal Justice Act 2003

41. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 22
42. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 24
43. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 25
44. ^ E.g. Card, Cross and Jones: Criminal Law, 12th ed, 1992,
chapter 17
45. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 26
46. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 27
47. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 28
48. ^ E.g. Card, Cross and Jones: Criminal Law, 12th ed, 1992,
chapter 16
49. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 29
50. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 30
51. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 31
52. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 32
53. ^ E.g. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,
1999, chapter 33
54. ^ "FBI: Uniform Crime Reports". Fbi.gov. Archived from  the
original on 2004-10-24. Retrieved 2013-02-28.
55. ^ Fredrickson, B.L. (2005). Positive Emotions broaden the
scope of attention and though-action repertoires. Cognition
and Emotion, 19: 313–332.
56. ^ Baumeister, R.F. (2012). Human Evil: The myth of pure evil
and the true causes of violence. In A.P. Association, M.
 Mikulincer, & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of
morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 367–380).
Washington, DC
57. ^ Sara Baase, A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues
for Computing and The Internet. Third Ed. "Employee Crime"
(2008)
58. ^ Park, Crystal (21 May 2014). "Wage Theft in America: How
the Rich get Richer While the Poor Stay Poor". Voice of
Russia.  Archived  from the original on 28 July 2014.
Retrieved July 2, 2014.
59. ^ Michael De Groote, Michael De Groote (24 June
2014). "Wage theft: How employers steal millions from
workers every week". Desert News National. Archived from
the original on 2 July 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
60. ^ "Crime in the United States 2012, Table 23".  Uniform Crime
Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Archived from the
original on 2016-06-05.
61. ^ Choo, Irene (1 September 2014). "Cheap foreign labour to
spur economic growth – think deeper and harder". The Online
Citizen.  Archived  from the original on 14 October 2014.

References
 Attenborough, F.L. (ed. and trans.) (1922). The
Laws of the Earliest English Kings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprint
March 2006. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN 1-
58477-583-1
 Blythe, James M. (1992). Ideal Government and the
Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages.
Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-
03167-3
 Cohen, Stanley (1985). Visions of Social Control:
Crime, Punishment, and Classification. Polity
Press. ISBN 0-7456-0021-2
 Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: the
Birth of the Prison, New York: Random House.
 Garoupa, Nuno & Klerman, Daniel. (2002). "Optimal
Law Enforcement with a Rent-Seeking
Government". American Law and Economics
Review Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 116–140.
 Hart, H.L.A. (1972). Law, Liberty and Morality.
Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-
0154-7
 Kern, Fritz. (1948). Kingship and Law in the Middle
Ages. Reprint edition (1985), Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press.
 Kramer, Samuel Noah. (1971). The Sumerians:
Their History, Culture, and Character.
Chicago: University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-45238-7
  Maine, Henry Sumner. (1861). Ancient Law: Its
Connection with the Early History of Society, and Its
Relation to Modern Ideas. Reprint edition (1986).
Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-
1006-7
 Oppenheim, A. Leo (and Reiner, Erica as editor).
(1964). Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead
Civilization. Revised edition (September 15, 1977).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-
63187-7
 Pennington, Kenneth. (1993). The Prince and the
Law, 1200–1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the
Western Legal Tradition. Berkeley: University of
California Press. ISBN 0-520-07995-7
 Polinsky, A. Mitchell. (1980). "Private versus Public
Enforcement of Fines". The Journal of Legal
Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, (January), pp. 105–127.
 Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven. (1997). On
the Disutility and Discounting of Imprisonment and
the Theory of Deterrence, NBER Working Papers
6259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
 Skaist, Aaron Jacob. (1994). The Old Babylonian
Loan Contract: Its History and Geography. Ramat
Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press. ISBN 965-
226-161-0
 Théry, Julien. (2011). "Atrocitas/enormitas. Esquisse
pour une histoire de la catégorie de 'crime énorme'
du Moyen Âge à l'époque moderne", Clio@Themis,
Revue électronique d'histoire du droit, n. 4
 Tierney, Brian. (1979). Church Law and
Constitutional Thought in the Middle Ages. London:
Variorum Reprints. ISBN 0-86078-036-8
 Tierney, Brian (1988) [1964]. The Crisis of Church
and State, 1050–1300: with selected
documents (Reprint ed.). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-6701-2.
 Vinogradoff, Paul. (1909). Roman Law in Medieval
Europe. Reprint edition (2004). Kessinger Publishing
Co. ISBN 1-4179-4909-0

External links
Wikiquote has quotations
related to: Crime

Look up crime in
Wiktionary, the free
dictionary.
 Wikimedia Commons has
media related to Crime.

Wikivoyage has travel

information for crime.

 Crime at Curlie
show
Articles Related to Crime

GND: 4062653-2

LCCN: sh85033993

NARA: 10638047

NDL: 00562960
Categories: 
 Crime
 Criminal law
 Criminology
 Morality
 Main topic articles
Navigation menu
 Not logged in
 Talk
 Contributions
 Create account
 Log in
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 View source
 View history
Search
 Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Wikipedia store
Interaction
 Help
 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact page
Tools
 What links here
 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Permanent link
 Page information
 Wikidata item
 Cite this page
In other projects
 Wikimedia Commons
 Wikiquote
 Wikivoyage
Print/export
 Download as PDF
 Printable version
Languages
 Čeština
 Deutsch
 Français
 हिन्दी
 Latina
 Polski
 Slovenčina
 ‫اردو‬
 中文
81 more
Edit links
 This page was last edited on 29 December 2019, at 20:14 (UTC).
 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.