Introduction

Criminal behavior, particularly violent and antisocial behavior, is considered to be a major social
problem with complex causes. It is known that a myriad of environmental, social, and
psychological factors are associated with increased risk of convictions for this type of
criminality. Interrelated factors include poverty, poor housing, high levels of social inequality in
society, low educational attainment, poor diet, low self-esteem, and impulsivity. However,
committing at least one criminal offense is almost normal for young males, with approximately
one-third having a criminal conviction by age 30 in the United Kingdom. Self-report studies
report even higher levels of criminality among both men and women. The peak for offending is
in the teenage years, and most young people ‘grow out of’ crime. Programs that focus on early
identification of children likely to offend and that provide social and educational interventions
and monitoring can claim some success. For example, the Head Start program for children 3–5
years old in the United States has shown success in reducing crime and improving achievement
compared with a control group. However, such interventions are time-consuming and require
many resources to achieve significant but not dramatic improvements in outcome overall.
Research in behavioral genetics generates both excitement and concern. Could a scientific
approach to crime, using our increasing knowledge of genetics, lead eventually to genetic testing,
effective treatments, and even cures? Many young people commit crime, but could genetics help
to identify and treat the smaller numbers of persistent and serious offenders? Could there at last
be an effective approach to the intractable problem of crime? On the other hand, if a strong link
were found between genes and certain types of criminal behavior, there would be ethical issues
regarding what to do with the information. Is an offender more or less blameworthy if there is
a genetic factor in his or her behavior? Could prevention include treating or detaining affected
individuals before they commit any crime? If most young people who commit a crime do not go
on to be adult criminals, could intervention do more harm than good?
View chapterPurchase book
Environmental crime control
Glen Kitteringham, Lawrence J. Fennelly, in Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime
Prevention (Sixth Edition), 2020
Principles of opportunity reduction
•
Criminal behavior is a learned behavior.
•
Reducing criminal opportunity reduces the opportunity to learn criminal behavior.
•
Criminal opportunity can be lessened by improved security measures (target hardening)
and by increasing the level of surveillance on the part of the community.
•
Long-term crime prevention will not be achieved unless criminal opportunities are
reduced either on a local or national bases.
•
Security is in a pivotal position and as such they should be highly trained in crime
prevention and CPTED and become involved in the preplanning of any community
design or activity, where their services will be later requested.
View chapterPurchase book
COURT SYSTEMS | Law, China
Z. Gaoling, H. Youyi, in Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 2005
Withdrawal system
Criminal procedure law states that, in any of the following situations, a member of the judicial,
prosecutorial, or investigative personnel shall voluntarily withdraw, and the parties to the case
and their legal representatives shall have the right to demand his/her withdrawal:
•
if he/she is a party or a near relative of a party to the case
•
if he/she or a near relative has an interest in the case
•
if he/she has served as a witness, expert witness, defender, or agent ad litem in the current
case
•
if he/she has any other relations with a party to the case that could affect the impartial
handling of the case.
The other two procedure laws on civil and administrative cases have similar provisions.
View chapterPurchase book
The relationship between crime and psychiatry
Lindsay D.G. Thomson, Louise Robinson, in Companion to Psychiatric Studies (Eighth Edition),
2010
Traditional view
Criminal behaviour, particularly violence, by the mentally ill has become a major public issue in
the Western world. In the context of an increasing crime rate the public has identified the
mentally ill as a significant contributory factor (Appleby & Wessely 1988, Levey & Howells
1995). The UK government has responded by emphasising public protection as paramount in its
mental health policies. The question ‘how criminal are people with psychiatric disorder?’ can
never be answered with certainty. As a proportion of all psychiatric admissions, the number of
patients admitted compulsorily as a consequence of an offence is tiny. In 2003/04 there were
1300 hospital admissions in England and Wales under Part III (the criminal provisions) of the
Mental Health Act 1983; this represents approximately 5% of all compulsory admissions to
hospitals (Department of Health 2005).
Early research in this area concentrated on arrest rates in former psychiatric patients. These were
shown to be minimally higher than those of the general population, or only higher for certain
offences. However, when arrest rates of former mental hospital patients were compared with
samples matched for demographic variables, the differences disappeared (Monahan & Steadman
1983). Thus for years a somewhat sanguine view of the relation between mental illness and
violent offending prevailed. It was held that the well-established factors associated with
offending, such as poverty, criminality in the family, poor parenting, school failure, and
hyperactivity and antisocial behaviour in childhood, were powerful factors that overshadowed
any effect due to mental illness (West 1988).