The nature of criminal law
A crime is an offence against the whole of society; it is a wrongful act or omission, serious enough for the wrongdoer to be punished by the rest of the community. It has already been observed that the civil law is concerned with wrongful acts or omissions too. However, there the object is not to punish, but rather to compensate the aggrieved person for the loss he has suffered. Of course, a tortuous or contractual wrong in civil law is of interest to society at large — society lays down a framework of legal codes and within that framework the individuals must settle their disputes. Thus it is customary to talk of a 'civil wrong' rather than a 'civil offence'. The word 'offence' invariably means a crime, although sometimes just to make it absolutely clear the phrase 'criminal offence' is used instead. A crime is also a 'wrong' in the broadest sense, but it is simpler and easier to think of an 'offence' as a criminal act or omission and a 'wrong' as a civil one. Therein lies another problem, however: certain legal problems may be both criminal and civil in nature. Indeed the same act may be not only criminal but also doubly civil, that is a tort and a breach of contract. Common examples of wrongs which are both civil and criminal are assault or battery (both offences against the person) or motoring accidents which will usually constitute a criminal offence and may well give rise to a civil action in negligence. The two leading branches of the civil law - tort and contract - are considered in Chapters 9 and 10.
The dividing line between criminal offences and civil wrongs is not always easy to draw. Nowadays, however, it is Parliament which decides what constitutes a crime; most criminal law is now derived from one or more statutes. Obviously an offence such as murder must be a crime, but it is not always clear whether other matters, such as euthanasia, drug abuse and sexual 'deviation', should be; the controversies in recent years surrounding cannabis and homosexuality underline the point. Similarly, is it right to classify a parking 'offence' as a crime? It is a long way removed from murder; most members of the public would hardly regard such an activity as a 'true' crime. Nonetheless there would be real practical difficulties in treating homosexuality, misuse of drugs and parking on yellow lines as merely civil wrongs.
It seems that crime is a subject of inherent interest to people. Due to ideological biases, many people firmly believe that they understand the causes of crime and what ought to be done about it. Yet despite some surface agreement, for example ranking crimes by "seriousness." more complex questioning reveals many differences in public views on crime issues. Unfortunately, the rational approach of most" professional criminologists is often resisted while politicians respond to, or even exploit, public emotions about crime. Consequently, crime policy is often based on emotion rather than rational analysis.
Even among criminologists, ideology is hotly debated. Depending upon their ideological leanings, criminologists vary considerably in the methods they employ, what is seen as the ultimate goal or purpose or criminology, the very meaning of the "crime''' phenomenon that defines the realm of their work, and the paradigm or theoretical orientation that guides their work.
While most criminologists view the field through a social science lens, calling for empirical testing of theories, some advocate qualitative approaches to understanding, arguing that observing statistical pattern may miss the human, or even spiritual, element of crime. More mainstream criminologists counter that the discipline must be able to predict conditions that will lead to crime and that denial' of the importance of that predictive power is a reflection of ideological bias. They ask, what is criminology to do if not explain what conditions will lead to crime? While this text includes discussions of works from a variety of methodological perspectives, it reflects the dominance of the scientific approach.
Most criminologists think that their work should lead to insight regarding the causes of crime and hopefully have implications for crime prevention. Some more heavily emphasize the importance of crime aetiology, while others shift more concern to practical implications for crime prevention. The overview of the discipline presented in this book is anchored in Cressey's more idealistic conclusion that criminologists should "work in pursuit of truth, not in pursuit of criminals" (1978:175) and in Bohm's observation that "theory is the foundation of criminology and the basis of action" (1985:4).
Four conceptual definitions of crime, proffered for purposes of delineating the subject matter of the field, were contrasted in this chapter. The idea is that conceptions of crime fall along a continuum from relatively narrow to quite broad. The latter three (modified legalistic, normative, and new) are well represented in contemporary criminology. One of the major themes for Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context is the relativity of crime, as is emphasized in the normative definition.