Assignment

On
Define Crime. What are the elements of crime. Distinguish between
crime and civil wrong. Narrate the causes of crime with special
reference to the crime situation in Bangladesh.
Course Title: Criminology and Penology.
Course Code: 3105

Sbumitted to
Mr. S. Hassanul Banna
Lecturer
Department of Law
Dhaka International University

Prepared by
Muhammed Zahangir Hossain
ID No: 19, 1st semester
Program: LL.M ( 2 years), 30th batch
Department of Law
Dhaka International University

Date of Submission:
 Defination of Crime

Introduction:

The word Crime has not been defined in the Bangladesh Penal Code. In it’s broad sense,
however, it may be explained as an act of commission or omission which is harmful to the
society in general. But all acts tending to prejudice the community are not crime unless they are
punishable under the law.

According to Osborn, crime is an act or default which tends to the Prejudice of the community,
and forbidden law on pain of punishment inflicted at the suit of the State. In its legal sense,
therefore, crime includes such offences being acts or defaults which have been made punishable
by the Bangladesh Penal code.

It is apparent from the above that there is nothing which by itself is a crime, unless it has
declared by the legislature as punishable.

Definition of Crime:

According to 0xford Advanced Learner’s dictionary activities that involve breaking the law:

According to Black’s Law Dictionary: An Act that the makes punishable; the breach of a legal
duty treated as the subject matter of a criminal proceeding.

According to Legal and Commercial Section: Ordinarily a crime is a wrong which affects the
security or well being of the public generally so that the public has an interest in its suppression.
A crime is frequently a moral wrong in that it amounts to conduct which is inimical to the
general moral sense of the community. It is, however, possible to instance many crimes which
exhibit neither of the foregoing characteristics. An act may be made criminal by parliament
simply because it is criminal process, rather than civil, which offers the more effective means of
controlling the conduct in question.

It is apparent from the above that there is nothing which by itself is a crime, unless it has
declared by the legislature as punishable.

The authors of the Penal Code observed:

“We can not admit that a penal Code is any means to be considered as a body of ethics, that the
Legislature aught to punish acts merely because those acts are immoral, or that, because an act is
not punished at all it follows that the Legislature considers that act as innocent. Many things
which are not punishable are morally worse than many things which are punishable. The man
who treats a generous benefactor with gross ingratitude and insolence deserves more severe
reprehension than the man who aims a blow in a passion, or break’s a window in a frolic; yet we
have punishment for assault and mischief, and none for ingratitude. The rich man who refuses a
mouthful of rice to save a fellow creature from death may be a far worse man than the starving
wretch who snatches and devours the rice, yet we punish the letter for theft, and we do not
punish the former for hard heartedness”.

Crime is, therefore, relative conception. Different societies view different acts of commission
and defaults as crime in different ages and according to different localities and circumstances.
There are examples in History where heresy, i.e. religious belief other than that recognized by
the State, has been treated is an offence punishable with death, but no nation can today think of
prescribing punishment merely for holding such views.

Similarly, adultery is a civil offence against the law of matrimony England and leads to divorce,
the husband having claim to compensation from the co-respondent. But in Bangladesh it is a
crime within the meaning of section 497 of the Penal Code and is punishable with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to five years, with both the Code however
absolves the wife from punishment as an abettor and excuses her infidelity on account of some
peculiarities in the state of society in this country where, according to the authors of the Code, a
woman is sometimes married while still a child and is neglected for other lowers while still
young. They were therefore, reluctant to make laws for punishing the inconstancy of the wife,
while the law admitted the previlege of the husband to polygamy. We may profitably quote here
the observation of the framers of the Code.

Though we well know that the dearest interests of the human race are closely connected with the
chastity of women and the sacredness of the nuptial contract, we can not but feel that there are
some peculiarities in the state of society in this country which may well lead a human man to
pause before he determines to punish the infidelity of wives. The condition of the women of this
country is unhappy, very different from that of the women of England and France; they are
married while still children; they are often neglected for other wives while still young. They
share the attentions of a husband with several rivals. To make laws for punishing the inconstancy
of the wife, while the law admits the privilege of the husband to fill his Zanana with women, is a
course which we are most reluctant to adopt. We are not so visionary as to think of attacking, by
law, an evil so deeply rooted in manners of the people of this country as ploygamy. We leave it
to the slow, but we trust the certain, operation of education and of time. But while it exists, while
it continues to produce its never failing effects on the happiness and respectability of women, we
are not inclined to throw into a scale, already too much depressed, the additional weight of the
Penal Law.

The recognition of a crime, therefore, Varies with public opinion of a given society at a given
time and there can not be any rigid or absolute criterion to determine it. Ideas may be change;
standards of ethical morality may differ, and with them may differ the recognition of any offence
by the Legislature within the ambit of its Penal Code. It has, therefore been rightly said the crime
is not a static quantity, nor can it be considered in absolute terms. There is actually no such thing
as a crime in sea or crime by itself. Tort or civil wrong may be distinguished from crime. Tort
differs from crime both in principle and procedure. In the first place, the former constitutes an
injury or breach of duty to an individual or individuals concerning his or their private or civil
rights, while the latter constitutes a breach or public rights and duties affecting the whole
community considered as a community. In the second place, in tort the wrong doer has to
compensate the aggrieved party, but in crime he is punished by the State in view of the interests
of the society.

In the third place, in tort the action is raised by the aggrieved party, but in crime the State is
supposed to be injured by wrong to the community and as such the proceedings are conducted in
the name of the State, and the guilty person is punished by it.

And, lastly, in tort or civil wrong intention on the part of the wrong doer is immaterial, but
criminal intention is an essential element in crime.

Although these two kinds of wrongs are clearly distinguishable, yet many crimes include a tort or
civil injury; but every tort does not amount to a crime, nor does every crime include a tort.

For example, conversion, private nuisance, wrongful distress, etc, are merely torts. Similarly,
forgery, perjury, bigamy, homicide, etc. are examples of crimes but not torts; where as assault,
false imprisonment, false charge, defamation, etc. are crimes as well as torts. In all cases where
the same wrong constitutes both a crime and a tort, the criminal and civil remedies are
concurrent. The wrong doer may be punished a criminally and also compelled in a civil action to
pay damages to the injured person.

There is no limitation to prosecute a person for an offence. Nullum tempus occurit regi (Lapse of
time does not bar the right or the crown). As a criminal trail is regarded as an action by the
Government, it may be brought at any time. It would be odious and fatal, said Bentham, to allow
Wickedness, after a certain time, to triumph over innocence. No treaty should be made with
malefactors of that character. Let the avenging sword remain always hanging over their heads.
The sight of a criminal in peaceful enjoyment of the fruit of his crimes, protected by the laws he
has violated, is a consolation to evil doers, an object or grief to men of virtue, a public insult to
justice and to morals. The Roman Law, however, laid down a prescription of twenty years for
criminal offences as a rule. There is no period of limitation for offences which fall within the
four corners of the Penal Code.

According to Kenny “ Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive, and is in no way remissible
by any private person, but is remissible by the Crown alone, if remissible at all”. But this
definition has evoked criticism on the ground that there are indeed a number of compoundable
offences that are remissible by the consent of the parties.

Expressing his view on definition of crime, Roscoe Pound commented that “a final definition of
crime is impossible, because law is a living and changing thing, which may at one time be based
on sovereign will and at another time on juristic science, which may at one time be uniform and
at another time give much room for judicial discretion, which may at one time be more specific
in it’s prescription and at another time much more general.”
Cross & Jones define crime as a legal wrong the remedy for which is punishment of the offender
at the instance of the State.

John Gillin defines crime as an act that has been shown to be actually harmful to the society, or
that is believed to be socially harmful by a group of people that has power to enforce its beliefs
and that places such at upon the ban of positive penalties. Thus he considers crime as an offence
against the Law of the Land

According to Blackstone, a crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a Public Law

either forbidding or commanding it. He, however, realized at a later stage that this definition may
be proved to be misleading because it limits the scope of crime to violations of a “Public Law”
which normally covers political offences such as offences against the State. Therefore, he
modified his definition of crime and stated,” a crime is a violation of the ‘Public rights and
duties’ due to the whole community, considered as a community”.

Stephen, the editor of Blackstone’s commentaries, further modified the above definition and said
“a crime is a violation of a right, considered in reference to the evil tendency of such violation as
regards the community at large”

Thus both, Blackstone and Stephen stress that crimes are breaches of those lows which injure the
community’.

Stephen further added that ‘crime is an act which is both forbidden by law and revolting to the
moral sentiments of the Society”.

Rejecting this judicial concept of crime, the well known Italion criminologist Raffeale Garofalo
Preferred sociological definition of crime and stated that crime is an act which offends the basic
sentiments of ‘pity’ and ‘probity’. Yet another view about crime is to treat it as an anti social
behavior which is injurious to society.

Supporting this contention Sutherland characterizes crime as a symptom of social

disorganization. The tendency of modern sociological penologists is, therefore, to treat crime as a
social phenomenon which receives disapprobation of the society.

According to Donald Taft, ‘Crime is a social injury and an expression of subjective opinion
varying in time and place”.

In the words Halsbury, ‘ Crime as an unlawful act which is an offence against the public and the
perpetrator of that act is liable to legal punishment.”

Tappan has defined crime as, ‘an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law,
committed without any defence or justification and penalized by the law as felony or
misdemeanor.’
A precise definition of ‘Crime’ is by no means an easy task. Generally speaking, almost all
societies have certain norms, beliefs, customs and traditions which are implicitly accepted by it’s
members as conducive to their well-being and heathy all round development. Infringement of
these charished norms and customs is condemned as antisocial behabiour. Thus many writers
have behavior. Thus many writers have defined ‘Crime’ as an antisocial, immoral, or sinful
behaviour. However, according to the legal definition, ‘Crime’ is any form of conduct which is
declared to be socially harmful in a State and as such forbidden by law under pain of some
punishment.

From the foregoing definitions, it may be said that a crime is a wrong to society involving the
breach of a legal wrong which has criminal consequences attached to it i.e. Prosecution by the
State in the Criminal Court and the possibility of punishment being imposed on the wrongdoer.
It is significant to note that though the legal definition of crime has been criticised because of its
relatively and variable content yet Halsbury’s definition is perhaps the most acceptable one as
compared with other definitions because of its elaborate and specific nature and element of
certainty. Further, it also provides for the machinery and produce to determine the violations and
to identify the crime.

Elements of Crime
The notions of Actus Reus and Mens Rea are derived from the principles set forward by Sir
Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Laws of England (1797). Particularly pertinent, is the phrase
"actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is
also guilty).” This basic principle suggests that there are two elements which must be present in
order for a crime to exist, and delineates between 1) a physical act which occurred and caused a
criminal outcome (Actus Reus), and 2) an element of fault or intent (Mens Rea) (Coke, 1797).
Actus Reus
The Model Penal Code defines three different “breeds” of Actus Reus, or guilty acts:
commission, omission and possession (Baker, 2012).
Actus Reus - commission.
Commission, is defined as a “bodily movement, whether voluntary or involuntary which results
in a criminal act (Model Penal Code SXN 1.13[2]).” Generally, in order to be culpable for one’s
behavior the initial action must be voluntary, but in several landmark cases involuntary actions
have also been deemed sufficient. The Model Penal Code, however, outlines four types of
actions which do not constitute guilt (Model Penal Code SXN 2.01[3]). The first of these,
reflexes or convulsions, stipulates that an episode of paroxysmal flailing, such as those present in
a seizure, which result in an injury to a second party does not satisfy the necessary elements of
Actus Reus (Holland, 1982). If, however, the individual is engaging in an activity which they
know to be dangerous in light of a known history of seizures then they may be held culpable. For
example, in People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133 (1956) Emil Decina was convicted of negligible
homicide after suffering an epileptic seizure while driving, which ultimately resulted in the death
of four school girls. Decina appealed, arguing that he did not intentionally cause the deaths of the
children. The court held that, having adequate knowledge of the dangers presented by his
disease, Decina was still culpable for the resulting homicides. Justice Charles Frossel wrote “to
hold otherwise would be to say that a man may freely indulge himself in liquor in the same hope
that it will not affect his driving, and if it later develops that ensuing intoxication causes
dangerous and reckless driving resulting in death his unconsciousness or involuntariness at that
time would relieve him from prosecution under the statute [.] (Decina at 141)”
Bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep comprise the second category ruled out as
“voluntary” actions. This element was initially decided in the case of Hill v. Baxter (1958) 1 QB
277. Ultimately, the presiding judge maintained that only a voluntary act can satisfy Actus Reus,
and states of unconsciousness or sleep count as automatism (Blair, 1997). Included are the states
of somnambulism, fugue, metabolic disorder, and convulsive or reflexive disorders (Schoop,
2008). In these situations “one who engages in what would be criminal conduct is not guilty of a
crime if he/she does so in a state of unconsciousness [.] (State v. Caddell, 215 S.E.2d 348, 360
[N.C. 1975])” In court, the various forms of automatism may be included as part of an insanity
defense or a breed thereof (Schoop, 2008).

Being in a state of hypnosis also absolves an individual from culpability and is the third of the
four involuntary states. Though general consensus holds that hypnosis cannot lead an individual
to engage in uncharacteristic or abnormal conduct (Bonnema, 1993) the Model Penal Code, and
penal codes of Montana, New York and Kentucky all provide clauses for hypnosis as negative
volition, thus precluding Actus Reus (Bonnema, 1993). The fourth and final involuntary clause
simply negates voluntariness in any “bodily movement otherwise not a product of the effort or
determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.”
Actus Reus - omission.
Omission, the second breed of Actus Reus, is considered a voluntary choice to fail to engage in
some act that causes injury or results in another criminal commission. Though the notion of not
acting may intuitively go against what one may expect under the definition of Actus Reus,
omission is usually defined as a “purposeful, reckless or negligent absence of action (USLegal,
2001)." When deciding in cases of omission, the “but” approach is usually used. That is but not
for having acted, X would have failed to occur, thus eliminating a criminal result (Blare, 1997).
The Model Penal code outlines two different specifications: 1) omission is expressly made
sufficient by any law defining such an offense, or 2) when the duty to perform is outlined by law
- such as in the case of filing a tax return (Model Penal Code SXN 1.13[2]).
Actus Reus – possession
The final breed of Actus Reus is possession, a special case insomuch as it has been criminalized,
but under common law does not constitute an act (Regina v. Dugdale, 1 El. & Bl. 435, 439
[1853]). In the United States, this has been redefined as a voluntary act, allowing possession to
satisfy Actus Reus (Model Penal Code SXN 2.01[3]).
Mens Rea
In determining culpability, it is certainly easier to prove the presence of an Actus Reus since it is
far more simplistic to point to any particular situation and prove its existence. Demonstrating the
presence of the traditional conception of Mens Rea, or guilty mind, was a more difficult task. In
these situations, the court had to prove that the accused intended to commit the crime. A modern
reconceptualization of Mens Rea has made this task a less subjective one. Like the traditional
view, however, criminal liability still does not attach to a person who acted - for whatever reason
- with an absence of mental fault, with the exception of strict liability crimes (Martin, 2003).
The modern concept of Mens Rea includes “levels,” called modes of culpability, which have
changed traditional thought. Now, the guilty mind is actually dependent upon three
circumstances surrounding the act: 1) the conduct 2) the (attendant) circumstances and 3) the
result (Baker, 2012). In this modern approach, the attendant circumstances tend to replace
traditional Mens Rea by indicating an individual’s level of culpability and other surrounding
circumstances (Samaha, 2010). This reconceptualization helps to minimize instances of
superfluous language inherent to common law and also allows for a broader range of coverage
for the defined statutes.

Modes of Culpability
The Model Penal Code has helped to clarify the modes of culpability a bit further, by providing
five distinct elements which may comprise any one instance of Mens Rea. At least one of these
elements must be present.
1. Strict Liability: the individual engaged in the crime and the mental state is irrelevant. Strict
liability crimes include driving while intoxicated, selling alcohol to a minor and statutory
rape. In all these offenses, whether or not the individual was aware they were committing a
crime is of no concern. It simply has to be shown that individual is guilty of the crime.
2. Negligence: the individual is unaware of the dangers presented by the situation and/or
attendant circumstances and their resulting consequences, but a reasonable person would have
been.
 3. Recklessness: the individual was aware of the attendant circumstances and the resulting
dangers and chose to engage in the activity nonetheless, whereas a reasonable person would not
have.
4. Knowingly: the individual is practically certain that the action will produce the criminal
result.
5. Purposefulness: the criminal result was the “conscious object” of engaging in the conduct and
the individual believed or hoped that the necessary circumstances existed so as to produce said
result. (Samaha, 2010)

Tests of Mens Rea

The tests offered to help determine whether or not a circumstance is enough to satisfy Mens Rea
can be either subjective, objective, or a hybrid of both. In subjective tests of Mens Rea the court
need only be satisfied that the individual have the requisite mental element outlined in the modes
of culpability at the time of the crime occurred (Baker, 2012). Such situations often occur in
conjunction of admissions of guilt or written communication. It is rare, however, that this be
readily (if ever) available in a case.
In these situations, objective tests are instead implemented in which Mens Rea is imputed on
the basis that a reasonable person would have had the requisite mental elements in such a
situation (Baker, 2012). It is safe to assume that a typically functioning individual is aware of
their surroundings and understands the basic theory of cause and effect. As such, when an
individual is deciding what to do they have a sound understanding of where the results would
fall on a sliding scale from “inevitable” (e.g. if one drops a rock, it will fall to the ground) to
“impossible” (e.g. if one drops a rock, it will turn in to a turkey). The closer the expected results
are to inevitable the more likely it is that the individual foresaw and desired the consequences of
their actions, making it easier to afford intent.

Distinguish between crime and civil wrong:

Crimes and Civil Wrongs
THE law is divided into two great branches, the criminal and the civil, and of these much the
greater is the civil. Since the nature of the division must be grasped at the outset, I shall try to
give a simple explanation of it.

The distinction between a crime and a civil wrong, though capable of giving rise to some
difficult legal problems, is in essence quite simple. The first thing to understand is that the
distinction does not reside in the nature of the wrongful act itself. This can be proved quite
simply by pointing out that the same act may be both a crime and a civil wrong. Occasionally at
a bus station there is someone who makes a living by looking after people's impedimenta while
they are shopping. If I entrust my bag to such a person, and he runs off with it, he commits the
crime of theft and also two civil wrongs – the tort of conversion and a breach of contract with me
to keep the bag safe. The result is that two sorts of legal proceedings can be taken against him: a
prosecution for the crime, and a civil action for the tort and for the breach of contract. (Of
course, the plaintiff in the latter action will not get damages twice over merely because he has
two causes of action: he will get only one set of damages.)

No                        Crime                     Civil wrongs

1) Crime is a Wrong against Society Civil Wrong is against a private individual or

individuals

2) Remedy against crime is Remedy against civil wrong is Damages

Punishment

3) The proceeding in case of Crime is In case of Civil wrong are civil proceedings
are criminal proceeding  

4) In Crime intention is essential In civil it is not relevant

element.

5) In Crime , State takes action Aggrieved person takes action

against Criminal

CAUSATION OF CRIME

Crime has been a baffling problem ever since the dawn of human civilization and mans efforts to
grapple with this problem have only partially succeeded. There is hardly any society which is not
beset with problem of crime and criminality. As rightly pointed out by Emile Durkheim, crime is
a natural phenomenon which is constantly changing with the social change.

Mental Disorder and Criminality

The term ‘mental disorder’ is also referred to as mental abnormality. It denotes that the mind is
in a state of confusion or is suffering from some disease. Studies have shown that there is no
evidence to prove that the crimes committed by criminals were induced by their mental disorder.
On the country, crime statistics showed that quite a large number of criminals were persistent
offenders and more that 66 percent of them had a past criminal record and 44 percent of them
had previously been in a prison undergoing sentence.

Be that as it may, law does take mental illness or insanity into account while determining the
criminal liability of the offender. It is also taken into account in sentencing offenders where they
are subjected to clinical treatment rather than being sentenced. Insanity has been recognized as
defence in most Penal laws.

The rules recognizing the defence of insanity in criminal law were first laid down in 1843 in the
historic M’ Naghen’s case.

Insanity under Bangladeshi Criminal Law

Under the Penal Code of Bangladesh insanity has been accepted as a defence to a charge of
crime. Section 84 of the Penal Code of Bangladesh give immunity from criminal liability to a
person, who, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is unable to know the nature of the act or is
unable to know that he is doing either wrong or contrary to law”. In recognising a state of mind
on the part of the accused as a complete defence criml responsibility, the law postulates that it is
futile to punish a person who does not know the nature of his act, or that what he is doing is
either wrong or contrary to law. “The mind, in the real sense, does not accompany the physical
act. To punish the conduct of such a person would be abuse of law without any practical utility.
If a person does not possess knowledge about the nature of the act, then he will not appreciate
what he is being punished for. And, if he does not appreciate that much, then the objective of
punishment will not be achieved. In fact, punishment is intended to ac: on the mind of the person
punished and to alter the direction in which his mind has been working so far. If the mind was
not in substance a party to the conduct, then the question of changing the direction of mind
cannot arise.

In cases where the defence of insanity is set up under Section 84 of P.C., it is material to consider
the circumstances which have preceded, attended and followed the crime; whether there was
deliberation and preparation for the act, whether it was done in a manner which showed a desire
to concealment of consciousness of guilt and whether the accused made any efforts to avoid
detection and whether after arrest he offered false excuses or made false statements etc.

Where in the morning the accused behaved normally, went to and came from his office alone,
wrote an application for leave and at 01.45 PM killed a child and stabbed two others and on his
arrest soon after 2.45 pm gave normal and intelligent answers to the Investigative officers, it was
held that the accused was not insane at the time of commission of offence and therefore can not
be allowed the defence of insanity under section 84 of penal code.
At the end of the nineteenth century the Italian physician and anthropologist
Cesare Lombroso established the foundations of criminological sciences by
introducing a biological theory of delinquency, which was later discredited
and replaced by the sociological approach. The theory of the “born criminal”
was poor in methods and analysis, and turned out to be controversial in its
formulations, assumptions, and mostly in its predictions. However, recent
research in behavioral genetics and neuroscience has brought back some version
of the Lombrosian idea by providing evidence for the genetic and biological
correlates of criminality. This research has been impacting legal proceedings
worldwide. In this paper, I compare the Lombrosian and the contemporary
scientic meanings of “heredity” and “predisposition” to aggressive and
violent behavior, by highlighting theoretical similarities and differences in the
two approaches. On the one hand, the paper is arguing against the idea that
contemporary theories are radically deterministic, while on the other hand it
aims at rehabilitating the intellectual image of Lombroso by showing that the
denigration of his brilliant work by his successors was unjuied
Biological theory of crime:

At the end of the nineteenth century the Italian physician and anthropologist Cesare Lombroso
established the foundations of criminological sciences by introducing a biological theory of
delinquency, which was later discredited and replaced by the sociological approach. The theory
of the “born criminal” was poor in methods and analysis, and turned out to be controversial in its
formulations, assumptions, and mostly in its predictions. However, recent research in behavioral
genetics and neuroscience has brought back some version of the Lombrosian idea by providing
evidence for the genetic and biological correlates of criminality. This research has been
impacting legal proceedings worldwide. In this paper, I compare the Lombrosian and the
contemporary scientic meanings of “heredity” and “predisposition” to aggressive and
violent behavior, by highlighting theoretical similarities and differences in the two approaches.
On the one hand, the paper is arguing against the idea that contemporary theories are radically
deterministic, while on the other hand it aims at rehabilitating the intellectual image of Lombroso
by showing that the denigration of his brilliant work by his successors was unjustied

Freud’s theory of criminal behavior

Psychopaths contend that offenders lend into criminality on account of functional deviations and
mental conflicts. Sigmond Freud (1856-1939), exp1ained mental conflicts in the personality of
criminals in terms of id ego and ‘super ego’. He asserted that ‘id’ generates basic biological and
physiological urges and impulses in a person such as sexual desire, hunger, affection for kith and
kinds, lust for power etc. while ego refers to the conscious person a: say of which the individual
is aware. That is to say, although the desire for sex pleasure and hunger are basic urges of a
person he is all the time conscious that only the righteous means to fulfill these / desires protect
has personality and any deviation from the normal course shall cast aspersions on his personality.
Super ego according to Freud is the force of self-criticism and control inherent in every person.
Thus there is a constant conflict between ‘Id’ (basic urges of men).ego and super-ego. Freud,
therefore, contends that crime is the substitute of symbolic behaviour of a person. Thus the desire
for coin motion suicide (self-murder) is out of the feeling of inferiority, frustration, depression or
anxiety. Again, theft is committed out of the sense of financial inferiority and to get rid of the
feelings of spite and dependence etc.

Psychological concept of crime

Psychology includes within it the study of mind and behaviour attitudes etc. It is the study of
individual characteristics such as personality reasoning, thought perceptions, intelligence,
imagination, memory creativity and so on.

Psychologists treat crime as a behaviour learnt by the criminal in whose of his contact with
different persons. Thus like sociologists, they seek to explain crime in terms of environmental
circumstances.

As stated earlier, Lonibroso attributed criminality to atavism which meant that criminals have
savagery ancestral history an& criminality in :hem is hereditary. Similar assertions were made by
Goring who pointed out that criminality traits in criminals are imbibed by heredity and through
instinctive patterns and, therefore, environmental conditions are of little importance. Subsequent
researches by psychologists and sociologists have, however, demonstrated beyond doubt that it is
not the heredity but the psychological influences operating in delinquent families that makes one
criminal. The child consciously imbibes criminality traits from the family background of the
delinquent parents and subsequently turns into a confirmed criminal. Also, children who are
removed away from their parents at an early age tend to follow criminality for want of proper
parental care and lack of affection which develops the feelings of inferiority complex, frustration
and humiliation in them. Thus, it has been rightly commented by Sutherland that the resemble
and between -father and son as regards criminality is not due to contagion but it is because of
peculiar human psychology of learning things, observation and association that makes them
-follow criminal behavior if placed in circumstances which are conductive to crime.

CONCLUSION

Despite legal, social, psychological and penal measures for combating crime, the problem still
persists in alarming dimensions. With the change of time, new crimes are coming up and the
traditional crimes are vanishing fast. The advancement in knowledge of human behavour and
growth of commerce and industries have brought in their wake new complexities in life. These
complexities account for the rising incidence of criminality. It is therefore apparent that crime.
There is no reason to be upset with the present increase in crime rate. Nor should it create a
misleading impression that the penal programmes have totally failed or proved ineffective. It
must be stated that criminality in Bangladesh is for less than in many other countries of the
world. The reason being that Society of Bangladesh still retains the virtues of the tolerance,
mutual respect and co existence through its social institutions such as religion, family, parental
control etc.

Before concluding, a word must be said about the general tendency among people to keep away
from agencies administering criminal law and justice. The root cause of this apathy is to be
found in common mans distrust for law, justice, prosecutors and the members of the bar.
Instances are not wanting when people watch a crime being committed in their resence but they
never report in to the police because of the fear of the procedure. A commoner always prefers to
avoid police or law courts even at the cost of suffering a slight harm or injury. He refrains from
instituting criminal proceedings against the offender to avoid the botheration of contacting police
or visiting law courts. This apathy of people towards law conforcement agencies provides fertile
ground for offenders to carry on their criminal activities underterred which hinders the cause of
crime prevention. It must be accepted that there is a great divergence in practice and precepts. So
far working of police and law courts is concerned. The problem of the day, therefore is to restore
confidence among the public for these agencies of justice through an extensive propaganda and
convince people that these institutions are meant to help and not to harass them. Prevention of
crime should be treated as everyone’s concern. Unless this broader outlook is developed among
the members of society, elimination of crime seems rather difficult. In general, the state of
lawlessness indicates lapses on the part of the State agencies and the abuse of State power by
corrupt coteries and their immoral behaviours by way of deviating from professional standard
and accepted norms both within the organization and the society. This obviously causes the
public to harbour a feeling to distrust and contempt for the law enforcement agencies and
authorities on whom the responsibility of crime prevention devolves. It is, therefore, necessary
that the traditional outlook that crime prevention is solely the concern of law conforcement
agencies, must be changed and it should be treated as a social cause necessitating involvement of
every citizen. It is only then that the measures to prevent crimes and criminals can succeed and
public tranquility maintained in the community.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX
1. Hornby, A.S, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 6th Edition (Oxford University Press:
2000, UK) 297.

2. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed( West Publishing Co:2004, US) P. 399

3. Saha, A.N., Mitra’s legal and commercial Dictionary, 5th Ed. (Eastern Law House: 2001, New
Delhi) P-187

4. Kabir, Dr., The Penal Code, 2nd Edition (Ain Prokashan, 2008, Dhaka) Page-6.
5. Gillin J.L : Criminology and Penology, 3rd Ed. P-6
6. William Black Stone : Commentaries, Vol. iv, Page-5
7. Sutherland and cressy.,Tthe Principles of Criminology, 6 th Ed. (J.B. Lippincott company:
1960, New York) P-30
8. Paranjape, Dr. N.V, Criminology and Penology, 12th Ed. (Central Law Publication : 2005,
Allahabad) P-3
9. Dr. Pendse S.N: Oaths and Ordeals in Dharamsastr a (M.S university, Brroda
Publication) P. 24.

10. DLR., The Penal Code, Ist Ed. (Esrarul Huq Chowdhury; 2003, Dhaka. P-99

11. R.v.M’ Naghten (1843) 10 CL & F, 200.

12. Ratan Lal and Dhirajlal., The Indian Penal Code, 28th Ed ( Editorial Board, 1998, Nagpur), P-
90

13. State v. Chotelal, AIR 1959 M.P. 203.

14. Jai 1.01 v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1969 SC 15

15. Paranjape, Dr. N.V, Criminology and Penology, 12th Ed ( Central Law Publication, 2005,
Allahabad) P-60

16. See Neelbati Behra V. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960: Gauri Shanker Sharma V. State of
UP, AIR 1990, Saheli V. Policy Commissioner, Delhi, (1990) 1 SCC 422.

17. Islam, Md. Zahurul., The Penal Code, 1st Ed. (Law Book Company, 2005, Dhaka) P-262.

18. The relevant provisions are contained in Section 372 of the Bangladesh Penal Code.