Definitions of Criminal Law

Few people know the answer to this question. "This is - the international police organization," - said the majority. And if you ask what the Interpol, the answer will follow very non-specific: "He is responsible for coordinating the international police," or "It's like an international police postal service."
Headquartered in Lyon is not only a center for the entire network of Interpol, and the Regional Centre (RC) for Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as North America and the Middle East. Five CS related computer network and radio, also function as a regional center.
Nairobi - East Africa,
Abidjan - West Africa,
Buenos Aires - for South America,
Tokyo - for Asia,
Puerto Rico - for the Caribbean and Central America.In addition, the Centre is located in Bangkok, communication and coordination of efforts to fight drug trafficking, sprawling all over the world with the infamous opium plantations of the "Golden Triangle" - the area where the borders are closed in Thailand, Laos and Burma.
Five minutes at the headquarters of Interpol
It is similar to frames of an ordinary film version of James Bond. Huge sterile clean room, cool and does not stand out - such a study could be anywhere, in any country of the world. And in fact, we are in the help-desk department (I&R), which is located on the third floor of the "fortress" made of glass and granite, which give the impression of impregnability by deep trench and a steel fence, guarded the most advanced electronic devices of control security.
Since Biblical times, when Cain killed Abel, there is crime. Along with violence, lust and envy mankind for a long time accompanied by murder, rape and theft . The ancient Romans minted fake coins in ancient Greece robbery is a crime, and in London at the beginning of XIX century, for every 22 residents there was one culprit. There has never been a people who have had the exclusive right to virtue. Nevertheless, up to the XVIII century, the power was not interested crime. France, Germany, Austria and Russia maintained their own State Police, using it for political repression, as a bulwark of tyranny, but not to combat with the criminal world.
In the early 90's of the last century, the Berlin police chief can say with confidence: if the witness is able to determine the growth of the robber to within three inches, show him photographs of known criminals, with growth in this range and the offender will be found. And in Vienna in those years a complex system of registration of offenders, including the smallest details, down to religion of suspect was developed.
Finally, it made ​​an important discovery of XIX century in the field of criminology - the identification of the perpetrator by fingerprints on the basis that the world no two people have the same fingerprints. Most believe that the first time this method was applied, at the beginning of this century metropolitan Police headed by Commissioner outstanding se-rum Edward Henry. In fact, Argentina in 1896 used it as the basis for a national system of identification of criminals after the local police chief Juan Yusetich found in Buenos Aires, the murderer, identify it on the bloody thumbprint, abandoned on the door.
Definition of criminology
Different researchers give different definitions of the science of crime. For example, the "Encyclopedia Britannica" defines criminology as the scientific study of criminal behavior. This study is based on the provisions of such disciplines as biology, anthropology, physiology, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, criminology, sociology, economics, law and science of prisons. Criminologists sometimes is called skilled and highly professional detective or investigator.
Criminology is juridical and sociological science studying the criminality like mass phenomenon, motives, the personality of criminal and reasons of criminal behavior, arrangements of influence on the criminality and work out the ways of criminological investigations and arrangements of prevention the criminality.
The subject of criminology is criminality, motives, personality of criminal, ways of criminological investigations and prevention.
Approaches to analyze the criminality
Legal: criminality is system of crimes and criminals
Sociological: criminality is disease of society and crimes are reasons of the disease
Anthropological: criminality is sickness of separate persons, the result of degeneration, the effect of psychophysiological aperiodicity of personal which bring with it the moral insanity
Theological: criminality is demonstration of evil
There are two forms of causality: immediate and mediate.
Causality - it is such a connection between the phenomena in which one generates more. Call two forms of causality: immediate, indirect. The basis of causality is the transfer of energy, matter, or information from the phenomenon of the cause-consequence to the phenomenon.
The basis of causation in the criminal sphere can be considered as the flow of information, which forms the criminogenic qualities: information effects on personality and person "creates" criminal behavior. Source of information that forms the criminogenic quality in the broadest sense is the surrounding reality: everything with what people interact and what falls into the orbit of its perception.
There are two types of laws: the dynamic and statistical models. At the dynamic patterns of each change phenomena, accompanied by mandatory change cause-effect phenomenon. When statistical laws change phenomena, causes only in some cases leads to a change-effect phenomenon.The probabilistic character of the criminal causality due to the fact that the person being in the criminogenic information field:
may not perceive the negative information or evaluate it as false (and then criminogenic qualities in the person will not develop);
criminogenic beliefs, habits of man cannot always be realized in criminal behavior due to lack of necessary and sufficient conditions.
Thus, the cause in the criminal sphere is mediated, information, probabilistic.
Sources of crime data is often called factors.
Factor - the essential circumstance that makes a phenomenon, a process. The connection between them is such that a change in the factor causes a change in the phenomena of the process.
Factors of criminality - the sources of the driving forces that may cause, identify crime, but may oppose it.
Crime can be applied to two groups of factors:
1. Criminogenic (negative) factors contributing to the growth of crime and worsening its structure or hindering improvement of its characteristics.
2. Antikriminogenic (positive) factors contributing to stabilize or reduce crime, improve its structure, the nature (for example, reducing the proportion of violent crimes) or impeding deterioration of its characteristics.
Talking about the causes of crime, usually emphasize economy and way of life. They eventually help to educate negative qualities and personality traits, and sometimes actually push people to commit a crime, but it does not take away his freedom to choose his behavior, if there is question of a state of emergency. This choice predetermines the nearest action and immediate cause of the blame for the crime.
Terms of crime - a complex of phenomena, which themselves cannot generate crime, but serve as certain circumstances that contribute to its origin and existence. They are divided into the necessary (without which the event or phenomenon cannot be) and sufficient and the accompanying (the circumstances of time and place, which form the general background of the event or phenomenon).
Classification of the causes and conditions of crime carried out on the following bases:
a) by mechanism of action - the reasons, conditions and criminogenic factors;
b) the level of functioning - (causes and conditions) crime in general, the types (categories, groups) the crimes of certain crimes;
c) the content - the legal, socio-economic, socio-psychological, organizational, managerial, political, ideological, educational, etc.;
d) the nature of occurrence - objective, subjective, objective and subjective;
e) on the proximity to the event (phenomenon or combination) - immediate and distant, direct and indirect;
e) sources - internal and external;
g) on set of circumstances - a complete and specific cause
All the variety of views on the causes of crime can be reduced to two main areas (schools, concepts): sociological and biological.
Sociological explanation of the causes of crime in the proposed theory of anomie and social disorganization, cultural conflict theory stigmatization (or stamping) stratification (stratification of society into strata).
Biological explanation for the causes of crime suggested C. Lombroso (in pure form only in the early stages of their research.) Most supporters of this trend, recognizing the role of biological factors at the same time recognize the importance and social factors.
Due to the fact that the biological causes in its pure form almost never occur usually distinguish sociological and biosocial concepts areas of causes.
Criminology (from Latin crīmen, "accusation"; and Greek -λογία, -logia) is the scientific study of the nature, extent, causes, and control of criminal behavior in both the individual and in society. Criminology is an interdisciplinary field in the behavioral sciences, drawing especially upon the research of sociologists (particularly in the sociology of deviance), psychologists and psychiatrists, social anthropologists as well as on writings in law.
Areas of research in criminology include the incidence, forms, causes and consequences of crime, as well as social and governmental regulations and reaction to crime. For studying the distribution and causes of crime, criminology mainly relies upon quantitative methods. The term criminology was coined in 1885 by Italian law professor Raffaele Garofalo as criminologia. Later, French anthropologist Paul Topinard used the analogous French term criminologie.
The term behavioural sciences encompasses all the disciplines that explore the activities of and interactions among organisms in the natural world. It involves the systematic analysis and investigation of human and animal behaviour through controlled and naturalistic observation, and disciplined scientific experimentation. It attempts to accomplish legitimate, objective conclusions through rigorous formulations and observation. Examples of behavioural sciences include psychology, psychobiology, and cognitive science.
Both the Positivist and Classical Schools take a consensus view of crime — that a crime is an act that violates the basic values and beliefs of society. Those values and beliefs are manifested as laws that society agrees upon. However, there are two types of laws:
Natural laws are rooted in core values shared by many cultures. Natural laws protect against harm to persons (e.g. murder, rape, assault) or property (theft, larceny, robbery), and form the basis of common law systems.
Statutes are enacted by legislatures and reflect current cultural mores, albeit that some laws may be controversial, e.g. laws that prohibit cannabis use and gambling. Marxist criminology, Conflict criminology and Critical Criminology claim that most relationships between state and citizen are non-consensual and, as such, criminal law is not necessarily representative of public beliefs and wishes: it is exercised in the interests of the ruling or dominant class. The more right wing criminologies tend to posit that there is a consensual social contract between State and citizen.
Therefore, definitions of crimes will vary from place to place, in accordance to the cultural norms and mores, but may be broadly classified as blue-collar crime, corporate crime, organized crime, political crime, public order crime, state crime, state-corporate crime, and white-collar crime. However, there have been moves in contemporary criminological theory to move away from liberal pluralism, culturalism and postmodernism by introducing the universal term 'harm' into the criminological debate as a replacement for the legal term 'crime'.
Blue-collar crime
In criminology, blue-collar crime is any crime committed by an individual from a lower social class as opposed to white-collar crime which is associated with crime committed by individuals of a higher social class.
Blue-collar crimes are crimes that happen on the streets every day. This is just one among the many types of crimes such as white-collar crimes and computer crimes which involves the use of computers in committing the crimes. Blue-collar crimes can include, but are not limited to kidnapping, shoplifting, vandalism, and rape.
In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute. When it is done with legal authority, it is often called arrest or imprisonment.
In some countries such as the United States a large number of child abductions arise after separation or divorce when one parent wishes to keep a child against the will of the other or against a court order. In these cases, some jurisdictions do not consider it kidnapping if the child, being competent, agrees.
False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention. When it comes to public police, the proving of false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.
Imprisonment is a legal term. It refers to the restraint of a person's liberty.
The book Termes de la Ley contains the following definition:
Imprisonment is no other thing than the restraint of a man's liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man's own house, as well as in the common gaols; and in all the places the party so restrained is said to be a prisoner so long as he hath not his liberty freely to go at all times to all places whither he will without bail or mainprise or otherwise.
The following are false imprisonment scenarios.
The taking hostage of a bank's customers and employees by bank robbers.
The detention of a customer by a business owner (e.g., hotel operator, apartment owner, credit card company) for the failure to pay a bill.
Certain situations arising from controversial legislation, like California's Assembly Bill 1421, Laura's Law.
A robber in a home invasion ties hostage up and takes them to a separate room.
Under United States law, the police have the right to detain someone if they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and that the person is so involved, or if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Probable" in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word "probable" here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will be issued. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing. In Ireland, they also functioned as local government authorities.
A grand jury is so named because traditionally it has a greater number of jurors than a trial jury (also known as a petit jury or, in English usage the spelling can be petty jury, from the French for small).
A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.
In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is one of many tools for explaining the law to a jury. The "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law. While there is (loose) consensus in black letter law, there is no universally accepted, technical definition. As a legal fiction, the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person. Instead, the "reasonable person" is a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public.
The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.
The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.
The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different. It is used to determine contractual intent, or if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.
The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.
In common law legal systems, the term black letter law is used to refer to the technical legal rules to be applied in a particular area, which are most often largely well-established and no longer subject to reasonable dispute. The term is not confined to one doctrinal area; one may speak of the "black-letter law" of contracts or the "black-letter law" of trademarks, for example. Should one wish to draw a distinction, one would typically contrast black-letter law and legal theory, or black-letter law and unsettled legal issues.
A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way. For example, the rules of the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament specify that a Member of Parliament cannot resign from office, but since the law also states that a Member of Parliament who is appointed to a paid office of the Crown must either step down or stand for re-election, the effect of a resignation can be accomplished by appointment to such an office. The second rule is used to circumvent the first rule.
Legal fictions may be counterintuitive in the sense that one might not normally view a certain fact or idea as established in the course of everyday life, but they are preserved to advance public policy and preserve the rights of certain individuals and institutions. A common example of a legal fiction is a corporation, which is regarded in many jurisdictions as a "person" who has many of the same legal rights and responsibilities as a natural person.
Legal fictions are mostly encountered under common law systems.
The term "legal fiction" is not usually used in a pejorative way, and has been likened to scaffolding around a building under construction.
Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.
According to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law, "The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause harm to other people."
"those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision."
Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause their injury, they can recover damages to compensate for their harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proven in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.
Negligence suits have historically been analyzed in stages, called elements, similar to the analysis of crimes (see Element (criminal law)). An important concept related to elements is that if a plaintiff fails to prove any one element of his claim, he loses on the entire tort claim. For example, assume that a particular tort has five elements. Each element must be proven. If the plaintiff proves only four of the five elements, the plaintiff has not succeeded in making out his claim.
Common law jurisdictions may differ slightly in the exact classification of the elements of negligence, but the elements that must be established in every negligence case are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Each is defined and explained in greater detail in the paragraphs below. Negligence can be conceived of as having just three elements - conduct, causation and damages. More often, it is said to have four (duty, breach, causation and pecuniary damages) or five (duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages). Each would be correct, depending on how much specificity someone is seeking. "The broad agreement on the conceptual model", writes Professor Robertson of the University of Texas, "entails recognition that the five elements are best defined with care and kept separate. But in practice", he goes on to warn, "several varieties of confusion or conceptual mistakes have sometimes occurred.
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson illustrates the law of negligence, laying the foundations of the fault principle around the Commonwealth. The Pursuer, Donoghue, drank ginger beer given to her by a friend, who bought it from a shop. The beer was supplied by a manufacturer, a certain Stevenson in Scotland. While drinking the drink, Donoghue discovered the remains of an allegedly decomposed slug. She then sued Stevenson, though there was no relationship of contract, as the friend had made the payment. As there was no contract the doctrine of privity prevented a direct action against the manufacturer, Andrew Smith.
In his ruling, justice Lord MacMillan defined a new category of delict (the Scots law nearest equivalent of tort), (which is really not based on negligence but on what is now known as the "implied warranty of fitness of a product" in a completely different category of tort--"products liability") because it was analogous to previous cases about people hurting each other. Lord Atkin interpreted the biblical passages to 'love thy neighbour,' as the legal requirement to 'not harm thy neighbour.' He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." Reasonably foreseeable harm must be compensated. This is the first principle of negligence.
In England the more recent case of Caparo v. Dickman [1990] introduced a 'threefold test' for a duty of care. Harm must be
(1) reasonably foreseeable
(2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and
(3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.
Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective) exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any reasonable person [objective] in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty.
Breach of duty is not limited to professionals or persons under written or oral contract; all members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care toward others and their property. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. An example is shown in the facts of Bolton v. Stone, a 1951 legal case decided by the House of Lords which established that a defendant is not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. In the case, a Miss Stone was struck on the head by a cricket ball while standing outside her house. Cricket balls were not normally hit a far enough distance to pose a danger to people standing as far away as was Miss Stone. Although she was injured, the court held that she did not have a legitimate claim because the danger was not sufficiently foreseeable. As stated in the opinion, 'Reasonable risk' cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. As Lord Denning said in Roe v. Minister of Health, the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the medical professionals in a case faulting them for using contaminated medical jars because the scientific standards of the time indicated a low possibility of medical jar contamination. Even if some were harmed, the professionals took reasonable care for risk to their patients.
For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred but for, or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.
Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.
Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of Cardozo, J., "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class." It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. Note that a 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? For instance, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. the judge decided that the defendant, a railway, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell. Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence.
The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons, written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.
Such disparity of views on the element of remoteness continues to trouble the judiciary. Courts that follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view. However, some courts follow the position put forth by Judge Andrews. In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.
Remoteness takes another form, seen in The Wagon Mound (No. 1). The Wagon Mound was a ship in Sydney harbour. The ship leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf.
The UK House of Lords determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner.
In Australia, the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of Jaensch v. Coffey. The wife of a policeman, Mrs Coffey suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle collision although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the collision. The court upheld in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it also required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the collision. Here there was sufficient causal proximity.
Even though there is breach of duty, and the cause of some injury to the defendant, a plaintiff may not recover unless he can prove that the defendant's breach caused a pecuniary injury. This should not be mistaken with the requirements that a plaintiff prove harm to recover. As a general rule, a plaintiff can only rely on a legal remedy to the point that he proves that he suffered a loss. It means something more than pecuniary loss is a necessary element of the plaintiff's case in negligence. When damages are not a necessary element, a plaintiff can win his case without showing that he suffered any loss; he would be entitled to nominal damages and any other damages according to proof.
Negligence is different in that the plaintiff must prove his loss, and a particular kind of loss, to recover. In some cases, a defendant may not dispute the loss, but the requirement is significant in cases where a defendant cannot deny his negligence, but the plaintiff suffered no loss as a result. If the plaintiff can prove pecuniary loss, then he can also obtain damages for non-pecuniary injuries, such as emotional distress.
The requirement of pecuniary loss can be shown in a number of ways. A plaintiff who is physically injured by allegedly negligent conduct may show that he had to pay a medical bill. If his property is damaged, he could show the income lost because he could not use it, the cost to repair it, although he could only recover for one of these things.
The damage may be physical, purely economic, both physical and economic (loss of earnings following a personal injury), or reputational (in a defamation case).
In English law, the right to claim for purely economic loss is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services.
Emotional distress has been recognized as an actionable tort. Generally, emotional distress damages had to be parasitic. That is, the plaintiff could recover for emotional distress caused by injury, but only if it accompanied a physical or pecuniary injury.
A claimant who suffered only emotional distress and no pecuniary loss would not recover for negligence. However, courts have recently allowed recovery for a plaintiff to recover for purely emotional distress under certain circumstances. The state courts of California allowed recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury, when the defendant physically injures a relative of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff witnesses it.
On the other hand, nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual. Perhaps the most famous nominal damages award in modern times has been the $1 verdict against the National Football League (NFL) in the 1986 antitrust suit prosecuted by the United States Football League. Although the verdict was automatically trebled pursuant to antitrust law in the United States, the resulting $3 judgment was regarded as a victory for the NFL. Historically, one of the best known nominal damage awards was the farthing that the jury awarded to James Whistler in his libel suit against John Ruskin. In the English jurisdiction, nominal damages are generally fixed at £2.
Many times a party that has been wronged but is not able to prove significant damages will sue for nominal damages. This is particularly common in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim.
One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "reasonable person". The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury) be damaged by the breach of duty. Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort.
Damages are compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages addresses a plaintiff/claimant's losses (in cases involving physical or mental injury the amount awarded also compensates for pain and suffering). The award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position he or she was before Defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort.
Types of damage
Special damages - quantifiable dollar losses suffered from the date of defendant's negligent act (the tort) up to a specified time (proven at trial). Special damage examples include lost wages, medical bills, and damage to property such as one's car.
General damages - these are damages that are not quantified in monetary terms (e.g., there's no invoice or receipt as there would be to prove special damages). A general damage example is an amount for the pain and suffering one experiences from a car collision. Lastly, where the plaintiff proves only minimal loss or damage, or the court or jury is unable to quantify the losses, the court or jury may award nominal damages.
Punitive damages - Punitive damages are to punish a defendant, rather than to compensate plaintiffs, in negligence cases. In most jurisdictions punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence action, but only if the plaintiff shows that the defendant’s conduct was more than ordinary negligence (i.e., wanton and willful or reckless).
In law, damages are an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury;. The rules for damages can and frequently do vary based on the type of claim which is presented (e.g., breach of contract versus a tort claim).
Compensatory damages, called actual damages, are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of (see requirement of causation) another's breach of duty. (e.g., in a negligence claim under tort law).
Expectation damages are used in contract law.
Neal Townsend signs a contract agreeing to buy 10 hours of landscaping services from Wisda's Landscaping for $50 an hour. If Neal Townsend breaks the contract and doesn't use any of Wisda's Landscaping's services, expectation damages paid to Wisda's Landscaping would be $500, which is the economic loss they suffered. If Wisda's Landscaping breaks the contract, and Neal Townsend is forced to hire another service for $60 an hour, expectation (direct) damages paid to Neal Townsend would equal $100 ($10 an hour, the difference in price between the original contract and the new contract).
Breach of contract duty - (ex contractu)
On a breach of contract by a defendant, a court generally awards the sum that would restore the injured party to the economic position they expected from performance of the promise or promises (known as an "expectation measure" or "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages).
When it is either not possible or not desirable to award the victim in that way, a court may award money damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position s/he occupied at the time the contract was entered (known as the "reliance measure"), or designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched ("restitution") (see below).
Parties may contract for liquidated damages to be paid upon a breach of the contract by one of the parties. Under common law, a liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if the purpose of the term is solely to punish a breach (in this case it is termed penal damages). The clause will be enforceable if it involves a genuine attempt to quantify a loss in advance and is a good faith estimate of economic loss. Courts have ruled as excessive and invalidated damages which the parties contracted as liquidated, but which the court nonetheless found to be penal.
Expectation damages are damages recoverable from a breach of contract by the non-breaching party. It originates from an injured party's interest in realizing the value of the expectancy that was created by the promise of the other party.
The purpose of expectation damages is to put the non-breaching party in the position he would have occupied had the contract been fulfilled. Expectation damages can be contrasted to reliance damages and restitution damages, which are remedies that address other types of interests of parties involved in enforceable promises.
The default for expectation damages are monetary damages which are subject limitations or exceptions (see below)
Expectation damages are measured by the diminution in value, coupled with consequential and incidental damages.
Reliance damages is the measure of compensation given to a person who suffered an economic harm for acting in reliance on a party who failed to fulfill their obligation.
Reliance damages are valued by a party's reliance interest for the foreseeable amount. They put the injured party in the same dollar position as if the contract had never been formed.
Under contract law, in a bilateral contract two or more parties owe obligations to each other. Each party acts in reliance that the other party will fulfill their respective obligation. If one party fails to respect their obligation, then the other party or parties may suffer an economic harm. Reliance damages compensate the harmed party/ies for the amount of damages they suffered for acting in reliance on the other party's contractual obligations. They are most often rewarded when the aggrieved party's damages are not capable of accurate estimation, and ordering Specific Performance would be inappropriate.
Reliance damages are the type of damages awarded in promissory estoppel claims, although they can also be awarded in traditional contract breaches. This is appropriate because even there is no bargain principle in the agreement, one party has relied on a promise and thus is damaged to the extent of their reliance. These damages must be proven with reasonable certainty. It is not enough that one party simply guess as to how much they are actually damaged.
In a losing contract, reliance damages will be reduced because the aggrieved party cannot be put in a better position had the contract been performed. Here, the losses from the contract will be subtracted from the reliance damages.
Neal Townsend and Matt Wisda formed a bilateral contract. Neal spent $100 in reliance on the contract, which was foreseeable. However, Matt breached the contract.
Reliance damages protect a party's reliance interest. Neal spent $100 in reliance on the contract, which constituted Neal's reliance interest.
Since reliance damages equal to the value of the reliance interest of the injured party, Matt owes Neal $100. This puts Neal in the same economic position as if the contract never happened.
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery. It is to be contrasted with the law of compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. Obligations to make restitution and obligations to pay compensation are each a type of legal response to events in the real world. When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant. When a court orders compensation it orders the defendant to compensate the claimant for his or her loss.
This type of damages restores the benefit conferred to the non-breaching party (the plaintiff). Simply, the plaintiff will get the value of whatever was conferred to the defendant when there was a contract. There are two general limits to recovery, which is that a complete breach of contract is needed, and the damages will be capped at the contract price if the restitution damages exceed it.
The orthodox view suggests that there is only one principle on which the law of restitution is dependent, namely the principle of unjust enrichment. However, the view that restitution, like other legal responses, can be triggered by any one of a variety of causative events is increasingly prevalent. These are events in the real world which trigger a legal response. It is beyond doubt that unjust enrichment and wrongs can trigger an obligation to make restitution. Certain commentators propose that there is a third basis for restitution, namely the vindication of property rights with which the defendant has interfered. It is arguable that other types of causative event can also trigger an obligation to make restitution.
Imagine that A commits a wrong against B and B sues in respect of that wrong. A will certainly be liable to pay compensation to B. If B seeks compensation then the court award will be measured by reference to the loss that B has suffered as a result of A’s wrongful act. However, in certain circumstances it will be open to B to seek restitution rather than compensation. It will be in his interest to do so if the profit that A made by his wrongful act is greater than the loss suffered by B.
Whether or not a claimant can seek restitution for a wrong depends to a large extent on the particular wrong in question. For example, in English law, restitution for breach of fiduciary duty is widely available but restitution for breach of contract is fairly exceptional. The wrong could be of any one of the following types:
A statutory tort
A common law tort
An equitable wrong
A breach of contract
Criminal offences
Notice that (1)-(5) are all causative events. The law responds to each of them by imposing an obligation to pay compensatory damages. Restitution for wrongs is the subject which deals with the issue of when exactly the law also responds by imposing an obligation to make restitution.
Example. In Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, an English court found itself faced with the following claim. The defendant had made a profit somewhere in the region of £60,000 as a direct result of breaching his contract with the claimant. The claimant was undoubtedly entitled to claim compensatory damages but had suffered little or no identifiable loss. It therefore decided to seek restitution for the wrong of breach of contract. The claimant won the case and the defendant was ordered to pay over his profits to the claimant. However, the court was careful to point out that the normal legal response to a breach of contract is to award compensation. An order to make restitution was said to be available only in exceptional circumstances.
Cases of intentional torts or breaches of fiduciary duty often allow for claims of unjust enrichment, as well as cases of statutory torts and breaches of contract. A plaintiff can even have a claim in unjust enrichment when there is no other substantive claim. The Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") entitles a buyer who defaults restitution of the buyer's deposit to the extent it exceeds reasonable liquidated damages or actual damages. If the contract does not have a liquidated damages clause, the UCC provides a statutory sum: 20% of the price or $500, whichever is less, and the buyer who defaulted is entitled to restitution of any excess.
In expectation damages, the measure of damages is the difference between what was given and what was promised, along with consequential and incidental expenses MINUS any payments received from the breaching party and any costs saved as a result of the breach. The proper amount is that which gives the non-breaching party the "benefit of the bargain." However, it is important to note that expectation damages are not punitive; its theoretical purpose is to place the injured, non-breaching party in the same position that they would have occupied had there been full performance of the contract. In other words, it is the amount that makes the injured party indifferent to the breach.
Example: General contractor accepts an offer from a subcontractor and enters into a contract. The general contractor breaches / repudiates their contract part way through the subcontractor's performance. Generally, the subcontractor is entitled to seek an amount equal to the contract price or unrealized value of the promised performance plus costs incurred in preparing or performing under the contract (and costs incidental to the breach e.g., storage costs, restocking fees for returns; penalties or costs for canceling contracts, supply orders etc) MINUS any progress payments made by the general contractor and minus costs saved by the breach; can include anticipated profit.
Neal Townsend signs a contract agreeing to buy 10 hours of landscaping services from Wisda's Landscaping for $50 an hour. If Neal Townsend breaks the contract and doesn't use any of Wisda's Landscaping's services, expectation damages paid to Wisda's Landscaping would be $500, which is the economic loss they suffered. If Wisda's Landscaping breaks the contract, and Neal Townsend is forced to hire another service for $60 an hour, expectation (direct) damages paid to Neal Townsend would equal $100 ($10 an hour, the difference in price between the original contract and the new contract).
Potential Exceptions or Limitations to General Rule on Measure of Damages (expectation damages)
Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages. Failure to take such steps can cut off damages which arose from such a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate. This is a duty of reasonable care thus no duty to take steps which are unreasonably burdensome. Example - buyer breaches contract to purchase produce; seller is expected to mitigate e.g., "cover" under the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code or resale; failure to make reasonable attempts to resell can be a ground to deny damages arising from breach e.g., spoilage. Breaching party is liable for costs which arise from an effort to take reasonable steps to mitigate. E.g., party continues to work after being notified of a breach and running up the bill. (however, this might be reasonable if the aggrieved party reasonably believed they had a better chance of selling a completed product to an alternative buyer).
Reasonable certainty - must be able to calculate the damages based on reasonably certain facts or comparable situations. Cannot have a calculation based wholly on guesses. In cases of doubt, many jurisdictions have adopted a view that the breaching party should bear the risk of doubt rather than the aggrieved party.
Foreseeability - Generally, no consequential damages unless they are known or foreseeable. e.g., No lost profits for third party transactions (e.g., Hadley v. Baxendale case below), holding that Baxendale could only be held liable for losses that were generally foreseeable, or if Hadley had mentioned his special circumstances in advance. The mere fact that a party is sending something to be repaired does not indicate that they would lose profits if it were not delivered on time. The court suggested various other circumstances under which Hadley could have entered into this contract that would not have presented such dire circumstances, and noted that where special circumstances exist, provisions can be made in the contract voluntarily entered into by the parties to impose extra damages for a breach. e.g.,
Cost of performance or a proposed measure of damage greatly exceeds market value of full performance (Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal Mining Co) E.g., land owner contract with coal company promised restoration of land after mining complete - coal company refused to comply; court found the cost of restoration (~$30k) grossly exceeded value of the property in unrestored condition ($300 price difference between condition before and after coal mining). However, this case has been widely criticized; 2nd Restatement of the Law criticized it; many courts will not follow this rule thus would decline to award damages based on market value based on view that damages should be awarded based on actual harm to injured party versus hypothetical market value - dependent on jurisdiction)
Reliance damages is the measure of compensation given to a person who suffered an economic harm for acting in reliance on a party who failed to fulfill their obligation.
Reliance damages are valued by a party's reliance interest for the foreseeable amount. They put the injured party in the same dollar position as if the contract had never been formed.
Under contract law, in a bilateral contract two or more parties owe obligations to each other. Each party acts in reliance that the other party will fulfill their respective obligation. If one party fails to respect their obligation, then the other party or parties may suffer an economic harm. Reliance damages compensate the harmed party/ies for the amount of damages they suffered for acting in reliance on the other party's contractual obligations. They are most often rewarded when the aggrieved party's damages are not capable of accurate estimation, and ordering Specific Performance would be inappropriate.
Reliance damages are the type of damages awarded in promissory estoppel claims, although they can also be awarded in traditional contract breaches. This is appropriate because even there is no bargain principle in the agreement, one party has relied on a promise and thus is damaged to the extent of their reliance. These damages must be proven with reasonable certainty. It is not enough that one party simply guess as to how much they are actually damaged.
In a losing contract, reliance damages will be reduced because the aggrieved party cannot be put in a better position had the contract been performed. Here, the losses from the contract will be subtracted from the reliance damages.
Neal Townsend and Matt Wisda formed a bilateral contract. Neal spent $100 in reliance on the contract, which was foreseeable. However, Matt breached the contract.
Reliance damages protect a party's reliance interest. Neal spent $100 in reliance on the contract, which constituted Neal's reliance interest.
Since reliance damages equal to the value of the reliance interest of the injured party, Matt owes Neal $100. This puts Neal in the same economic position as if the contract never happened.
Damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position that would have been taken had the tort not taken place. Damages in tort are quantified under two headings: general damages and special damages.
In personal injury claims, damages for compensation are quantified by reference to the severity of the injuries sustained (see below general damages for more details). In non-personal injury claims, for instance, a claim for professional negligence against solicitors, the measure of damages will be assessed by the loss suffered by the client due to the negligent act or omission by the solicitor giving rise to the loss. The loss must be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. Financial losses are usually simple to quantify but in complex cases which involve loss of pension entitlements and future loss projections, the instructing solicitor will usually employ a specialist expert actuary or accountant to assist with the quantification of the loss.
General damages, sometimes styled hedonic damages, compensate the claimant for the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm suffered. This is usually termed 'pain, suffering and loss of amenity'. Examples of this include physical or emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of consortium, disfigurement, loss of reputation, loss or impairment of mental or physical capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, etc. This is not easily quantifiable, and depends on the individual circumstances of the claimant. Judges in the United Kingdom base the award on damages awarded in similar previous cases.
General damages are generally awarded only in claims brought by individuals, when they have suffered personal harm. Examples would be personal injury (following the tort of negligence by the defendant), or the tort of defamation.
The quantification of personal injury is not an exact science. In English law solicitors like to call personal injury claims as “general damages” for pain and suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA). Solicitors quantify personal injury claims by reference to previous awards made by the courts which are “similar” to the case in hand.
The guidance solicitors will take into account to help quantify general damages are as hereunder:
1 The age of the client
The age of the client is important especially when dealing with fatal accident claims or permanent injuries. The younger the injured victim with a permanent injury the longer that person has to live with the PSLA. As a consequence, the greater the compensation payment. In fatal accident claims, generally the younger deceased, the greater the dependency claim by the partner and children.
2 The nature and extent of the injuries sustained.
Solicitors will consider “like for like” injuries with the case in hand and similar cases decided by the courts previously. These cases are known as precedents. Generally speaking decisions from the higher courts will bind the lower courts. Therefore, judgments from the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal have greater authority than the lower courts such as the High Court and the County Court. A compensation award can only be right or wrong with reference to previous judgments. Sometimes it is a matter of opinion of how much an injury claim is worth and the skill of the solicitor is persuading the opponent and ultimately the judge that their assessment is right. Solicitors must be careful when looking at older cases when quantifying a claim to ensure that the award is brought up to date and to take into account the court of appeal case in Heil v Rankin. Generally speaking the greater the injury the greater the damages awarded.
A quick guide to assess personal injury claims is by reference to the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases. Some case examples can also be considered
3 Gender of the client
Generally speaking damages for personal injury for males and females are the same. However where there can be a difference weighted in favour of females is where the injury results in permanent scarring to the skin. Where the scarring is clearly visible such as the face, legs, and arms, females will usually obtain a greater amount of compensation than males. The compensation reflects the general assumption that females will be affected more than males by scarring and thus will be awarded more. However each case will be decided on its own particular facts. For instance a male model who sustains a scarring tissue to his face may obtain just as much as a female.
4 Personal attributes and fortitude of the client
This heading is inextricably linked with the other points above. Where two clients are of the same age, experience and suffer the same injury, it does not necessarily mean that they will be affected the same. We are all different. Some people will recover more quickly than others. The courts will assess each claim on its own particular facts and therefore if one claimant recovers more quickly than another, the damages will be reflected accordingly. It is important to note here that “psychological injuries” may also follow from an accident which may increase the quantum of damages.
When a personal injury claim is settled either in court or out of court, the most common way the compensation payment is made is by a lump sum award in full and final settlement of the claim. Once accepted there can be no further award for compensation at a later time unless the claim is settled by provisional damages often found in industrial injury claims such as asbestos related injuries.
Special damages
Special damages compensate the claimant for the quantifiable monetary losses suffered by the plaintiff. For example, extra costs, repair or replacement of damaged property, lost earnings (both historically and in the future), loss of irreplaceable items, additional domestic costs, and so on. They are seen in both personal and commercial actions.
Special damages can include direct losses (such as amounts the claimant had to spend to try to mitigate problems) and consequential or economic losses resulting from lost profits in a business. Special damages basically include the compensatory and punitive damages for the tort committed in lieu of the injury or harm to the plaintiff.
Damages in tort are awarded generally to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the tort not taken place. Damages for breach of contract are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the contract not been breached. This can often result in a different measure of damages. In cases where it is possible to frame a claim in either contract or tort, it is necessary to be aware of what gives the best outcome.
If the transaction was a "good bargain" contract generally gives a better result for the claimant.
As an example, Neal sells Mary a watch for £100. Neal tells Mary it is an antique Rolex. In fact it is a fake one and worth £50. If it had been a genuine antique Rolex, it would be worth £500. Neal is in breach of contract and could be sued. In contract, Mary is entitled to an item worth £500, but she has only one worth £50. Her damages are £450. Neal also induced Mary to enter into the contract through a misrepresentation (a tort). If Mary sues in tort, she is entitled to damages that put herself back to the same financial position place she would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. She would clearly not have entered into the contract knowing the watch was fake, and is entitled to her £100 back. Thus her damages in tort are £100. (However, she would have to return the watch, or else her damages would be £50.)
If the transaction were a "bad bargain", tort gives a better result for the claimant. If in the above example Mary had overpaid, paying £750 for the watch, her damages in contract would still be £450 (giving him the item he contracted to buy), however in tort damages are £700. This is because damages in tort put her in the position she would have been in had the tort not taken place, and are calculated as her money back (£750) less the value of what she actually got (£50).
Various matters
Judicial remedies
Legal remedies (Damages)
Compensatory damages
Punitive damages
Incidental damages
Consequential damages
Liquidated damages
Reliance damages
Nominal damages
Statutory damages
Treble damages
Equitable remedies
Specific performance
Account of profits
Constructive trust
Injunction Restitution
Rescission Rectification
Declaratory relief
Related issues
Adequate remedy
Election of remedies
Provisional remedy
Tracing Legal costs
v t e
Incidental and consequential losses
Special damages are sometimes divided into incidental damages, and consequential damages.
Incidental losses include the costs needed to remedy problems and put things right. The largest element is likely to be the reinstatement of property damage. Take for example a factory which was burnt down by the negligence of a contractor. The claimant would be entitled to the direct costs required to rebuild the factory and replace the damaged machinery.
The claimant may also be entitled to any consequential losses. These may include the lost profits that the claimant could have been expected to make in the period whilst the factory was closed and rebuilt.
Proximate cause
Recovery of damages is subject to the legal principle that damages must be proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. This is known as the principle of proximate cause. This principle governs the recovery of all compensatory damages, whether the underlying claim is based on contract, tort, or both. Damages are likely to be limited to those reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. If a defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that someone might be hurt by their actions, there may be no liability.
This rule does not usually apply to intentional torts (for example, deceit), and also has stunted applicability to the quantum in negligence where the maxim Intended consequences are never too remote applies – 'never' is inaccurate here but resorts to unforeseeable direct and natural consequences of an act.
Quantifying losses in practice – expert evidence
It may be useful for the lawyers for the plaintiff and/or the defendant to employ forensic accountants or forensic economists to give evidence on the value of the loss. In this case, they may be called upon to give opinion evidence as an expert witness.
Statutory damages
Statutory damages are an amount stipulated within the statute rather than calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine the value of the harm to the victim. Mere violation of the law can entitle the victim to a statutory award, even if no actual injury occurred. These are similar to, but different from, nominal damages, in which no written sum is specified.
For example, United States Civil Code 18 USC §§2520 provides for statutory damages to victims of various wiretapping offences. The Lanham (Trademark) Act provides for minimum damages of $500 per type of item, for goods sold with unauthorized use of a trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), Lanham Act Section 35(c).). In copyright law, European directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights bases damages on, "the amount of royalties which would have been due if the infringer has requested authorisation".
Nominal damages
On the other hand, nominal damages are very small damages awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual. Perhaps the most famous nominal damages award in modern times has been the $1 verdict against the National Football League (NFL) in the 1986 antitrust suit prosecuted by the United States Football League. Although the verdict was automatically trebled pursuant to antitrust law in the United States, the resulting $3 judgment was regarded as a victory for the NFL. Historically, one of the best known nominal damage awards was the farthing that the jury awarded to James Whistler in his libel suit against John Ruskin. In the English jurisdiction, nominal damages are generally fixed at £2.
Many times a party that has been wronged but is not able to prove significant damages will sue for nominal damages. This is particularly common in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
Punitive damages (non-compensatory)
Punitive damages
Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:
Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
Where a statute expressly authorises the same.Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council.
Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate order public.
Contemptuous damages
This type of damages are rarely awarded. They are given when the plaintiff's suit is trivial, used only to settle a point of honour or law. Awards are usually of the smallest amount, usually 1 cent or similar. Court costs are not awarded.
Aggravated damages
Aggravated damages are not often awarded; they apply where the injury has been aggravated by the wrongdoer's behaviour, for example, their cruelty.
Restitutionary or disgorgement damages
In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in restitution. Doyle and Wright define restitutionary damages as being a monetary remedy that is measured according to the defendant's gain rather than the plaintiff's loss. The plaintiff thereby gains damages which are not measured by reference to any loss sustained. In some areas of the law this heading of damages is uncontroversial; most particularly intellectual property rights and breach of fiduciary relationship.
In England and Wales the House of Lords case of Attorney-General v. Blake opened up the possibility of restitutionary damages for breach of contract. In this case the profits made by a defecting spy, George Blake, for the publication of his book, were awarded to the British Government for breach of contract. The case has been followed in English courts, but the situations in which restitutionary damages will be available remain unclear.
The basis for restitutionary damages is much debated, but is usually seen as based on denying a wrongdoer any profit from his wrongdoing. The really difficult question, and one which is currently unanswered, relates to what wrongs should allow this remedy.
Legal costs
In addition to damages, the successful party is entitled to be awarded his reasonable legal costs that he spent during the case. This is the rule in most countries other than the United States. In the United States, a party generally is not entitled to its attorneys' fees or for hardships undergone during trial unless the parties agreed in a contract that attorney's fees should be covered or a specific statute or law permits recovery of legal fees, such as discrimination.
Criminal personality
Criminological theory of criminal personality comes from the fact that people - biosocial being, because the nature of his is biosocial, and the biological is in a subordinate relationship to the social, the individual as a complete formation is a product of socialization.
On the relation between social and biological well said AF Koni: "In every man, in spite of his spiritual development, sits beast seeking at irritation or excitation, to devour, to destroy, to satisfy his lust, etc. When a person owns this beast sitting in his body, he is normal in his relations with people and society, and when he consciously makes the beast gain the upper hand in itself and does not want to fight him - he falls into sin, he commits a crime, but when he is powerless to fight consciously - then he is sick. Invoke the first judge, punish the second, but do not punish better treat the third, and if there is reason to doubt, who stands before you - a second or third - call the aid of science and do not hesitate to loss of time and labor. Study the loss of truth! "
Identity of the perpetrator - a set of significant features of criminal person that caused them to commit a crime, or as a system or a set of psycho-social properties of the individual, which in certain situational circumstances (or in addition to) lead the offense.The structure of personality here includes the following: social status (position in the system of social relations), social functions (display in spheres of activity), moral-psychological attitudes (in relation to the law, duties, law and order, etc.).
Identity of the perpetrator as an abstract phenomenon, which has no analogue in the real world, as all of the negative qualities that may cause any offense. This phenomenon is to analyze only the mass, the statistical level and, in fact, is a list of various criminogenic qualities of people.
Under the identity of the perpetrator is meant person who has committed the crime with which manifested his anti-social orientation that expresses a set of socially significant negative properties affecting in conjunction with external conditions and circumstances of the nature of criminal behavior.
Specified generalizing research allow to carry out typology of offender, or to identify the most frequently occurring criminogenic features of criminals in particular type, such as highly dangerous, violent, selfish, reckless, crimes against public order.
If the criterion of social orientation typology serves individual, rather the ratio of its negative and positive component, isolated types such as professional, familiar, erratic, negligent, casual.
For juvenile offenders are two main types: criminogenic and casual.
The first (criminogenic) type, in turn, is divided into consistently criminogenic, criminogenic-situational and situational.
We know that not only human being affects the surrounding world but also environment affects individual's personality. In this regard, the events that lie in the future, may affect our intentions and actions. Intentions, which are carried out in some more than others, perhaps an unconscious form of predestination, anticipation of future events.A person is free to choose, consciously or accidentally one or another version of a set of possible events in a single reality. Potential options for the way that he did not choose, continue to be invisible next to the one on which he goes, that apparently take into account the deep structures of consciousness, responsible, along with the mind for the decision. Consequently, the re-socialization of the individual, crime prevention - it is not hopeless.
The mechanism of criminal behavior - is the interaction of mental processes and states of the individual with the external environment govern the selection and implementation of the criminal conduct of a number of options possible. Socio-psychological mechanism of specific crime includes the motivation of the crime, his plan (if intentional), implementation (execution) and of post-behavior.
Criminal motivation includes an internal process of the emergence, formation motive of criminal behavior and its purpose.
Shoplifting (also known as boosting; five-finger discount, or shrinkage within the retail industry) is theft of goods from a retail establishment. It is one of the most common crimes.
Most shoplifters are amateurs; however, there are people and groups who make their living from shoplifting, who tend to be more skilled. Generally, criminal theft involves taking possession of property illegally. In the case of shoplifting, customers are allowed by the property owner to take physical possession of the property by holding or moving it. This leaves areas of ambiguity that could criminalize some people for simple mistakes, such as accidental hiding of a small item or forgetting to pay. For this reason penalties for shoplifting are often lower than those for general theft. Few jurisdictions have specific shoplifting legislation with which to differentiate it from other forms of theft, so reduced penalties are usually at a judge's discretion. Most retailers are aware of the seriousness of making a false arrest, and will only attempt to apprehend a person if their guilt is undoubted. Depending on local laws, arrests made by anyone other than law enforcement officers may also be illegal.
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny. Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief. The act of theft is known by terms such as stealing, thieving, and filching.
Theft is the name of a statutory offence in California, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Victoria.
Burglary (also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking) is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. To engage in the act of burglary is to burgle (in British English) or to burglarize (in American English).
The common law burglary was defined by Sir Matthew Hale as:
The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.
Breaking can be either actual, such as by forcing open a door, or constructive, such as by fraud or threats. Breaking does not require that anything be "broken" in terms of physical damage occurring. A person who has permission to enter part of a house, but not another part, commits a breaking and entering when they use any means to enter a room where they are not permitted, so long as the room was not open to enter.
Entering can involve either physical entry by a person or the insertion of an instrument with which to remove property. Insertion of a tool to gain entry may not constitute entering by itself. Note that there must be a breaking and an entering for common law burglary. Breaking without entry or entry without breaking is not sufficient for common law burglary.
Although rarely listed as an element, the common law required that "entry occur as a consequence of the breaking". For example, if a wrongdoer partially opened a window by using a pry bar and then noticed an open door through which he entered the dwelling, there is no burglary at common law. The use of the pry bar would not constitute an entry even if a portion of the pry bar "entered" the residence. Under the instrumentality rule the use of an instrument to effect a breaking would not constitute an entry. However, if any part of the perpetrator's body entered the residence in an attempt to gain entry, the instrumentality rule did not apply. Thus, if the perpetrator uses the pry bar to pry open the window and then used his hands to lift the partially opened window, an "entry" would have taken place when he grasped the bottom of the window with his hands.
House includes a temporarily unoccupied dwelling, but not a building used only occasionally as a habitation
Night time is defined as hours between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise
Typically this element is expressed as the intent to commit a felony “therein”. The use of the word “therein” adds nothing and certainly does not limit the scope of burglary to those wrongdoers who break and enter a dwelling intending to commit a felony on the premises. The situs of the felony does not matter, and burglary occurs if the wrongdoer intended to commit a felony at the time he broke and entered.
The common law elements of burglary often vary between jurisdictions. The common law definition has been expanded in most jurisdictions, such that the building need not be a dwelling or even a building in the conventional sense, physical breaking is not necessary, the entry does not need to occur at night, and the intent may be to commit any felony or theft.
The etymology originates from Anglo-Saxon or Old English, one of the Germanic languages. According to one textbook, "The word burglar comes from the two German words berg, meaning "house", and laron, meaning "thief" (literally "house thief"). Another suggested etymology is from the later Latin word burgare, "to break open" or "to commit burglary", from burgus, meaning "fortress" or "castle", with the word then passing through French and Middle English, with influence from the Latin latro, "thief". The British verb "burgle" is a late back-formation.
Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly withholding assets for the purpose of conversion (theft) of such assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted, to be held and/or used for other purposes.
Embezzlement is a kind of financial fraud. For instance, a lawyer could embezzle funds from clients' trust accounts, a financial advisor could embezzle funds from investors, or a spouse could embezzle funds from his or her partner. Embezzlement may range from the very minor in nature, involving only small amounts, to the immense, involving large sums and sophisticated schemes.
More often than not, embezzlement is performed in a manner that is premeditated, systematic and/or methodical, with the explicit intent to conceal the activities from other individuals, usually because it is being done (by the perpetrator) without the other individuals' knowledge or consent. Often it involves the trusted individual embezzling only a small proportion or fraction of the total of the funds or resources he/she receives or controls; in an attempt to minimize the risk of the detection of the misallocation of the funds or resources. When successful, embezzlements continue for years (or even decades) without detection. It is often only when a relatively large proportion of the funds are needed at one time; or they are called upon for another use; or, when a major institutional reorganization (the closing or moving of a plant or business office, or a merger/acquisition of a firm) requires the complete and independent accounting of all real and liquid assets; prior to, or concurrent with, the reorganization, that the victims realize the funds, savings, assets or other resources, are missing and that they have been duped by the embezzler.
In America, embezzlement is a statutory offense so the definition of the crime varies from statute to statute. Typical elements are the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who has lawful possession of the property.
Fraudulent: The requirement that the conversion be fraudulent means simply that the defendant wilfully and without claim of right or mistake converted the property to his or her own use.
Conversion: Embezzlement is a crime against ownership; that is, the owner's right to control the disposition and use of the property. The conversion element requires a substantial interference with the true owner's property rights (unlike larceny, where the slightest movement of the property when accompanied by the intent to deprive one of the possession of the property permanently is sufficient).
Property: Embezzlement statutes do not limit the scope of the crime to conversions of personal property. Statutes generally include conversion of tangible personal property, intangible personal property and choses in action. Real property is not typically included.
Of another: A person cannot embezzle his own property.
Lawful possession: The critical element is that the defendant must have been in lawful possession of the property at the time of the fraudulent conversion and not have mere custody of the property. If the defendant had lawful possession the crime is embezzlement. If the defendant merely had custody, the crime is larceny. Determining whether a particular person had lawful possession or mere custody is sometimes extremely difficult.
In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain or of damaging or depriving the victim.
In criminal law, intention is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime.
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.
In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.
In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim.
The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor.
Under English and Welsh law, in cases where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her act or omission (as in nuisance).
Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus.
The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though the same or similar concept may appear in contexts where the term itself is not used. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need to prove only that the defendant was operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.
Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is specified, under the Model Penal Code or MPC, the default mens rea requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element".
Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven.
Intention is defined in R. v Mohan as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."
A range of words represents shades of intention in criminal laws around the world. The mental element, or mens rea, of murder, for example, is traditionally expressed as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "wilfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending on the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed and the seriousness of the offence.
A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well.
Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property."
The policy issue for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. But, is the test of culpability based on purely a subjective measure of what is in a person's mind, or does a court measure the degree of fault by using objective tools?
For example, suppose that A, a jealous wife, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. Wishing only to drive B away from the neighbourhood, she goes to B's house one night, pours petrol on and sets fire to the front door. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to her that B might be physically in danger and there was no conscious plan in her mind to injure B when the fire began. But when A's behaviour is analysed, B's death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she would not have started the fire. Or, if verbally warning B to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before starting the fire. As it was, she waited until night when it was more likely that B would be at home and there would be fewer people around to raise the alarm.
On a purely subjective basis, A intended to render B's house uninhabitable, so a reasonably substantial fire was required. The reasonable person would have foreseen a probability that people would be exposed to the risk of injury. Anyone in the house, neighbours, people passing by, and members of the fire service would all be in danger. The court therefore assesses the degree of probability that B or any other person might be in the house at that time of the night. The more certain the reasonable person would have been, the more justifiable it is to impute sufficient desire to convert what would otherwise only have been recklessness into intention to constitute the offence of murder. But if the degree of probability is lower, the court finds only recklessness proved. Some states once had a rule that a death that occurred during commission of a felony automatically imputed sufficient mens rea for murder. (See felony murder). This rule has been mostly abolished, and direct evidence of the required mental components is now required. Thus, the courts of most states use a hybrid test of intention, combining both subjective and objective elements, for each offence changed.
In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework within which mens rea is assessed. It states:
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
Under s8(b) therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intention or foresight (for the purposes of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence. See Intention in English law.
In some states, a distinction is made between an offense of basic (sometimes termed "general") intent and an offense of specific intent.
Offenses requiring basic intent specify a mens rea element that is no more than the intentional or reckless commission of the actus reus. The actor either knew (intended) or deliberately closed his mind to the risk (recklessness) that his action (actus reus) would result in the harm suffered by the victim. The crime of battery, for example, only requires the basic intent that the actor knew or should have known that his action would lead to harmful contact with the victim.
A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. There are two classes of such offences:
(a) Some legislatures decide that particular criminal offenses are sufficiently serious that the mens rea requirement must be drafted to demonstrate more precisely where the fault lies. Thus, in addition to the conventional mens rea of intention or recklessness, a further or additional element is required. For example, in English law, s18 Offences against the Person Act 1861 defines the actus reus as causing grievous bodily harm but requires that this be performed:
unlawfully and maliciously – the modern interpretation of "malice" for these purposes is either intention or recklessness, "unlawfully" means without some lawful excuse (such as self-defence); and with
the intent either to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist lawful arrest.
The rule in cases involving such offenses is that the basic element can be proved in the usual way, but the element of specific intent must be shown using a more subjective than objective test so that the legislature's express requirement can be seen to be satisfied.
(b) The inchoate offenses such as attempt and conspiracy require specific intent in a slightly different sense. The rationale for the existence of criminal laws is as a deterrent to those who represent a danger to society. If an accused has actually committed the full offense, the reality of the danger has been demonstrated. But, where the commission of the actus reus is in the future and the accused is merely acting in anticipation of committing the full offense at some time in the future, a clear subjective intention to cause the actus reus of the full offense must be demonstrated. Without this specific intent, there is insufficient evidence that the accused is the clear danger as feared because, at any time before the commission of the full offense, the accused may change their mind and not continue. Hence, this specific intent must also be demonstrated on a subjective basis.
At times a forensic psychiatric examination may be helpful in ascertaining the presence or absence of mens rea in crimes which require specific intent.
Direct intent: a person has direct intent when they intend a particular consequence of their act.
Oblique intent: a person has oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The 'natural consequence' definition was replaced in R v Woollin with the 'virtually certain' test. A person is now held to intend a consequence (obliquely) when that consequence is a virtually certain consequence of their action, and they knew it to be a virtually certain consequence. The first leg of this test has been condemned as unnecessary: a person should be held as intending a consequence if (s)he believed it to be a virtually certain consequence, regardless of whether it was in fact virtually certain.
This has two applications:
When a person is planning to achieve a given consequence, there may be several intermediate steps that have to be taken before the full result as desired is achieved. It is not open to the accused to pick and choose which of these steps are or are not intended. The accused is taken to intend to accomplish all outcomes necessary to fulfill the overall plan. For example, if A wishes to claim on B's life insurance policy, and so shoots at B who is sitting in a bus, the bullet may have to pass through a window. Thus, even though A may not have desired B's death, it was an inevitable precondition to a claim. Similarly, he may never consciously have considered the damage to the window, but both the murder and the damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 are intended. This is distinguishing between the direct intention, which is the main aim of the plan—and the oblique intention, which covers all intermediate steps. More generally, someone directly intends a consequence when their purpose or aim is to cause it, even though they believe the likelihood of success is remote. In R v Dadson, for example, the defendant shot at a man he wrongly believed was out of range. In R v Mohan (1975) 2 All ER 193, the court held that direct intention means, "aim or purpose"—"a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused's power, the commission of the matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not."
Sometimes, by accident, a plan miscarries and the accused achieves one or more unintended consequence. In this situation, the accused is taken to have intended all of the additional consequences that flow naturally from the original plan. This is tested as matters of causation and concurrence, i.e. whether the given consequences were reasonably foreseeable, there is no novus actus interveniens and the relevant mens rea elements were formed before all of the actus reus components were completed.
In Holloway v. United States, the United States Supreme Court case upheld the use of "conditional intent" as a necessary element of the crime of carjacking.[3] Conditional intent means that a defendant may not negate a proscribed intent merely by requiring the victim to comply with a condition. For example, a person saying, "Get out of the car or I'll shoot you" satisfies the "intent to kill" – so long as the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have at least attempted to harm or kill if the victim had not complied (in other words, the prosecution must show that the threat was real, and not a bluff).
In many situations in the United States, a person is considered to have acted with intent if the definitions of purpose and/or knowledge are satisfied. In other situations (especially regarding specific intent crimes that have "with intent to" in their definition), intent may be considered to refer to purpose only. Quite arguably, the most influential legal definitions of purpose and knowledge come from the Model Penal Code's definitions of mens rea.
Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, and sleight of hand, as well as distraction, camouflage, or concealment. There is also self-deception, as in bad faith.
Deception is a major relational transgression that often leads to feelings of betrayal and distrust between relational partners. Deception violates relational rules and is considered to be a negative violation of expectations. Most people expect friends, relational partners, and even strangers to be truthful most of the time. If people expected most conversations to be untruthful, talking and communicating with others would require distraction and misdirection to acquire reliable information. A significant amount of deception occurs between romantic and relational partners.
Deception includes several types of communications or omissions that serve to distort or omit the complete truth. Deception itself is intentionally managing verbal and/or nonverbal messages so that the message receiver will believe in a way that the message sender knows is false. Intent is critical with regard to deception. Intent differentiates between deception and an honest mistake. The Interpersonal Deception Theory explores the interrelation between communicative context and sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors in deceptive exchanges.
The five primary forms of deception are:
Lies: making up information or giving information that is the opposite or very different from the truth.
Equivocations: making an indirect, ambiguous, or contradictory statement.
Concealments: omitting information that is important or relevant to the given context, or engaging in behavior that helps hide relevant information.
Exaggerations: overstatement or stretching the truth to a degree.
Understatements: minimization or downplaying aspects of the truth.
There are three primary motivations for deceptions in close relationships.
Partner-focused motives: using deception to avoid hurting the partner, to help the partner to enhance or maintain his/her self-esteem, to avoid worrying the partner, and to protect the partner's relationship with a third party. Partner-motivated deception can sometimes be viewed as socially polite and relationally beneficial.
Self-focused motives: using deception to enhance or protect their self-image, wanting to shield themselves from anger, embarrassment, or criticism. Self-focused deception is generally perceived as a more serious transgression than partner-focused deception because the deceiver is acting for selfish reasons rather than for the good of the relationship.
Relationship-focused motives: using deception to limit relationship harm by avoiding conflict or relational trauma. Relationally motivated deception can be beneficial to a relationship, and other times it can be harmful by further complicating matters.
Deception detection between relational partners is extremely difficult, unless a partner tells a blatant or obvious lie or contradicts something the other partner knows to be true. While it is difficult to deceive a partner over a long period of time, deception often occurs in day-to-day conversations between relational partners. Detecting deception is difficult because there are no known completely reliable indicators of deception. Deception, however, places a significant cognitive load on the deceiver. He or she must recall previous statements so that his or her story remains consistent and believable. As a result, deceivers often leak important information both verbally and nonverbally.
Deception and its detection is a complex, fluid, and cognitive process that is based on the context of the message exchange. The Interpersonal Deception Theory posits that interpersonal deception is a dynamic, iterative process of mutual influence between a sender, who manipulates information to depart from the truth, and a receiver, who attempts to establish the validity of the message. A deceiver's actions are interrelated to the message receiver's actions. It is during this exchange that the deceiver will reveal verbal and nonverbal information about deceit. Some research has found that there are some cues that may be correlated with deceptive communication, but scholars frequently disagree about the effectiveness of many of these cues to serve as reliable indicators. Noted deception scholar Aldert Vrij even states that there is no nonverbal behavior that is uniquely associated with deception. As previously stated, a specific behavioral indicator of deception does not exist. There are, however, some nonverbal behaviors that have been found to be correlated with deception. Vrij found that examining a "cluster" of these cues was a significantly more reliable indicator of deception than examining a single cue.
A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment, or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.
Fraud can be committed through many media, including mail, wire, phone, and the Internet (computer crime and Internet fraud). International dimensions of the web and ease with which users can hide their location, the difficulty of checking identity and legitimacy online, and the simplicity with which hackers can divert browsers to dishonest sites and steal credit card details have all contributed to the very rapid growth of Internet fraud. In some countries, tax fraud is also prosecuted under false billing or tax forgery. There have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g., in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
For detection of fraudulent activities on the large scale, massive use of (online) data analysis is required, in particular predictive analytics or forensic analytics. Forensic analytics is the use of electronic data to reconstruct or detect financial fraud. The steps in the process are data collection, data preparation, data analysis, and the preparation of a report and possibly a presentation of the results. Using computer-based analytic methods Nigrini's wider goal is the detection of fraud, errors, anomalies, inefficiencies, and biases which refer to people gravitating to certain dollar amounts to get past internal control thresholds. The analytic tests usually start with high-level data overview tests to spot highly significant irregularities. In a recent purchasing card application these tests identified a purchasing card transaction for 3,000,000 Costa Rica Colons. This was neither a fraud nor an error, but it was a highly unusual amount for a purchasing card transaction. These high-level tests include tests related to Benford's Law and possibly also those statistics known as descriptive statistics. These high-tests are always followed by more focused tests to look for small samples of highly irregular transactions. The familiar methods of correlation and time-series analysis can also be used to detect fraud and other irregularities. Forensic analytics also includes the use of a fraud risk-scoring model to identify high risk forensic units (customers, employees, locations, insurance claims and so on). Forensic analytics also includes suggested tests to identify financial statement irregularities, but the general rule is that analytic methods alone are not too successful at detecting financial statement fraud.
Larceny is a crime involving the wrongful acquisition of the personal property of another person. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law. It has been abolished in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It remains an offense in the United States and New South Wales, Australia, involving the taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation) of personal property.
Embezzlement differs from larceny in two ways. First, in embezzlement, an actual conversion must occur; second, the original taking must not be trespassory. To say that the taking was not trespassory is to say that the person(s) performing the embezzlement had the right to possess, use, and/or access the assets in question, and that such person(s) subsequently secreted and converted the assets for an unintended and/or unsanctioned use. Conversion requires that the secretion interferes with the property, rather than just relocate it. As in larceny, the measure is not the gain to the embezzler, but the loss to the asset stakeholders. An example of conversion is when a person logs checks in a check register or transaction log as being used for one specific purpose and then explicitly uses the funds from the checking account for another and completely different purpose.
It is important to make clear that embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrator(s). Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been entrusted with such assets. The person(s) entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets.
In the case where it is a form of theft, distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny can be tricky. Making the distinction is particularly difficult when dealing with misappropriations of property by employees. To prove embezzlement, the state must show that the employee had possession of the goods "by virtue of his or her employment"; that is, that the employee had formally delegated authority to exercise substantial control over the goods. Typically, in determining whether the employee had sufficient control the courts will look at factors such as the job title, job description and the particular operational practices of the firm or organization. For example, the manager of a shoe department at a Department Store store would likely have sufficient control over the store's inventory (as head of the shoe department) of shoes; that if he or she converted the goods to his or her own use he or she would be guilty of embezzlement. On the other hand, if the same employee were to steal cosmetics from the cosmetics department of the store, the crime would not be embezzlement but larceny. For a case that exemplifies the difficulty of distinguishing larceny and embezzlement see State v. Weaver, 359 N.C. 246; 607 S.E.2d 599 (2005).
North Carolina appellate courts have compounded this confusion by misinterpreting a statute based on an act passed by Parliament in 1528. The North Carolina courts interpreted this statute as creating an offense called "larceny by employee"; an offense that was separate and distinct from common law larceny. However, as Perkins notes, the purpose of the statute was not to create a new offense but was merely to confirm that the acts described in the statute met the elements of common law larceny.
The statute served the purpose of the then North Carolina colony as an indentured servant and slave based political economy. It ensured that an indentured servant (or anyone bound to service of labor to a master, e.g., a slave), would owe to their master their labor; and, if they left their indentured service or bound labor unlawfully, the labor they produced, either for themselves (i.e., self-employed), or for anyone else, would be the converted goods that they unlawfully took, from the rightful owner, their master.
Crucially (and this can be seen as the purpose of the statute), any subsequent employer of such an indentured servant or slave, who was in fact bound to service of labor to a pre-existing master, would be chargeable with misprision-of-a-felony (if it was proved in they knew that the employee was still indentured to a master, or owned as a slave); and chargeable as an accessory-after-the-fact, in the felony, with the servant or slave; in helping them, by employing them, in the unlawfully taking that which was lawfully bound (through the master servant relationship) in exclusive right, to the master of the indentured servant or slave.
Embezzlement and peculation mean almost the same thing, but differ in that embezzlement is used to describe the criminal actions of a private citizen, such as an individual stealing from their employer, while peculation usually applies to the larger-scale misappropriation of public or collective funds by people holding positions of trust within the organization managing those funds, such as government members or high-ranking corporate officers.
Embezzlement sometimes involves falsification of records in order to conceal the activity. Embezzlers commonly secrete relatively small amounts repeatedly, in a systematic and/or methodical manner, over a long period of time, although some embezzlers commonly secrete one large sum at once. Some very successful embezzlement schemes have continued for many years before being detected due to the skill of the embezzler in concealing the nature of the transactions or their skill in gaining the trust and confidence of investors or clients, who are then reluctant to "test" the embezzler's trustworthiness by forcing a withdrawal of funds.
Embezzling should not be confused with skimming which is under-reporting income and pocketing the difference. For example, in 2005, several managers of the service provider Aramark were found to be under-reporting profits from a string of vending machine locations in the eastern United States. While the amount stolen from each machine was relatively small, the total amount taken from many machines over a length of time was very large. A smart technique employed by many small time embezzlers can be covered by falsifying the records. (Example, by removing a small amount of money and falsifying the record the register would be technically correct, while the manager would remove the profit and leave the float in, this method would effectively make the register short for the next user and throw the blame onto them)
Another method is to create a false vendor account, and to supply false bills to the company being embezzled so that the checks that are cut appear completely legitimate. Yet another method is to create phantom employees, who are then paid with payroll checks.
The latter two methods should be uncovered by routine audits, but often aren't if the audit is not sufficiently in-depth, because the paperwork appears to be in order. The first method is easier to detect if all transactions are by cheque or other instrument, but if many transactions are in cash, it is much more difficult to identify. Employers have developed a number of strategies to deal with this problem. In fact, cash registers were invented just for this reason.
Some of the most complex (and potentially most lucrative) forms of embezzlement involve Ponzi-like financial schemes where high returns to early investors are paid out of funds received from later investors duped into believing they are themselves receiving entry into a high return investment scheme. The Madoff investment scandal is an example of this kind of high level embezzlement scheme, where it is alleged that $65 billion was siphoned off from gullible investors and financial institutions.
Proceeds of embezzlement must be included in gross income unless the embezzler repays the money in the same taxable year. Under U.S. tax law, lawful as well as unlawful gains are includable in gross income and that it is inconsequential that an embezzler may lack title to the sums he appropriates. When the embezzler returns the victim’s funds either directly or indirectly (i.e. restitution) then the embezzler may have a reduction in taxable income.
However, at least one case has held that if a corporate embezzler can show four things, then the embezzler need not include the embezzled funds in income:
"Where a taxpayer withdraws funds from a corporation
which he fully intends to repay
which he expects with reasonable certainty he will be able to repay
where he believes that his withdrawals will be approved by the corporation
where he makes a prompt assignment of assets sufficient to secure the amount owed, he does not realize income on the withdrawals under the James test."
Looting also referred to as sacking, plundering, despoiling, despoliation, and pillaging—is the indiscriminate taking of goods by force as part of a military or political victory, or during a catastrophe, such as during war, natural disaster, or rioting. The term is also used in a broader sense, to describe egregious instances of theft and embezzlement, such as the "plundering" of private or public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities. Looting is loosely distinguished from scavenging by the objects taken; scavenging implies taking of essential items such as food, water, shelter, or other material needed for survival while looting implies items of luxury or not necessary for survival such as art work, precious metals or other valuables. The proceeds of all these activities can be described as loot, plunder, or pillage.
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery differs from simple theft in its use of violence and intimidation.
The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words (e.g. deraubare) of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub — "theft".
Among the types of robbery are armed robbery involving use of a weapon and aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. Highway robbery or "mugging" takes place outside and in a public place such as a sidewalk, street, or parking lot. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim by force. Extortion is the threat to do something illegal, or the offer to not do something illegal, in the event that goods are not given, primarily using words instead of actions.
Criminal slang for robbery includes "blagging" (armed robbery, usually of a bank) or "stick-up" (derived from the verbal command to robbery targets to raise their hands in the air), and "steaming" (organized robbery on underground train systems).
Mugging or mugger may refer to:
A type of street robbery
Steaming (crime), a variation of this type of robbery
Model Mugging, a self-defense training technique.
The mugger crocodile, a species native to India, Pakistan, Iran, and Nepal.A disparaging term for rote learning.A slang term for overacting.A Singapore colloquial term for intensive studying; a person who is studying intensively - derived from British colloquial term to mug up.
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In armed robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force. In robbery goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of another—with or without force. A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller. In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur. Under United States federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat.
Blackmail, which involves extortion, is when the offender threatens to reveal information about a victim or his family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met.
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.
Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.
Researchers divide shoplifters into two categories: "boosters," professionals who resell what they steal, and "snitches," amateurs who steal for their personal use.
Motivations for shoplifting are controversial among researchers, although they generally agree that shoplifters are driven by either economic or psychosocial motives. Psychosocial motivations may include peer pressure, a desire for thrill or excitement, impulse, intoxication, or compulsion.
Depression is the psychiatric disorder most commonly associated with shoplifting. Shoplifting is also associated with family or marital stress, social isolation, having had a difficult childhood, alcoholism or drug use, low self-esteem, and eating disorders, with bulimic shoplifters frequently stealing food. Some researchers have theorized that shoplifting is an unconscious attempt to make up for a past loss.
Researchers have found that the decision to shoplift is associated with pro-shoplifting attitudes, social factors, opportunities for shoplifting and the perception that the shoplifter is unlikely to be caught. Researchers say that shoplifters justify their shoplifting through a variety of personal narratives, such as believing they are making up for having been victimized, that they are unfairly being denied things they deserve, or that the retailers they steal from are untrustworthy or immoral. Sociologists call these narratives neutralizations, meaning mechanisms people use to silence values within themselves that would otherwise prevent them from carrying out a particular act.
A 1984 program in West Texas designed to reduce recidivism among convicted adult shoplifters identified eight common irrational beliefs of shoplifters:
If I am careful and smart, I will not get caught.
Even if I do get caught, I will not be turned in and prosecuted.
Even if I am prosecuted, the punishment will not be severe.
The merchants deserve what they get.
Everybody, at some time or another, has shoplifted; therefore it’s ok for me to do it.
Shoplifting is not a major crime.
I must have the item I want to shoplift or if I want it, I should have it.
It is okay to shoplift because the merchants expect it.
Developmental psychologists believe that children under the age of nine shoplift to test boundaries, and that tweens and teenagers shoplift mainly for excitement, are acting out or depressed, or are being pressured by their peers.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent. The term is most often defined in criminal law.
When part of a widespread and systematic practice, rape and sexual slavery are recognized as crimes against humanity and war crimes. Rape is also recognized as an element of the crime of genocide when committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a targeted ethnic group.
Victims of rape can be severely traumatized; in addition to psychological harm resulting from the act, rape may cause physical injury, or have additional effects on the victim, such as acquiring of a sexually transmitted infection or becoming pregnant. Furthermore, following a rape, a victim may face violence or threats of thereof from the rapist, and, in some cultures, from the victim's own family and relatives.
Sexual assault refers to forcing an unwilling person to engage in or suggest behavior involving the genitals or breasts, typically ranging from grabbing or touching over clothes to forced penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus. Specific legal jurisdictions and research often use highly technical or detailed definitions of the term.
The term sexual assault is used, in public discourse, as a generic term that is defined as any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented. This includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.
In legal terms, sexual assault is a statutory offence in various jurisdictions, including United States, Canada, England and Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. The legal definition of the crime of sexual assault is determined by each jurisdiction.
Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly denotes the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction. The term can also describe other sexual penetrative acts, such as anal sex, oral sex, fingering, or use of a strap-on dildo.
Sexual intercourse often plays a strong role in human bonding, usually being used solely for pleasure and commonly leading to stronger emotional bonds, and there are a variety of views concerning what constitutes sexual intercourse or other sexual activity. For example, non-penetrative sex (such as non-penetrative cunnilingus) has been referred to as "outercourse", but may also be among the sexual acts contributing to human bonding and considered intercourse. The term sex, often a shorthand for sexual intercourse, can be taken to mean any form of sexual activity (i.e. all forms of intercourse and outercourse). Because individuals can be at risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections during these activities, although the transmission risk is significantly reduced during non-penetrative sex, safe sex practices are advised.
In human societies, some jurisdictions have placed various restrictive laws against certain sexual activities, such as sex with minors, incest, extramarital sex, position-of-trust sex, prostitution, sodomy, public lewdness, rape, and bestiality. Religious beliefs can play a role in decisions about sex, or its purpose, as well; for example, beliefs about what sexual acts constitute virginity loss or the decision to make a virginity pledge. Some sections of Christianity commonly view sex between a married couple for the purpose of reproduction as holy, while other sections may not. Modern Judaism and Islam view sexual intercourse between husband and wife as a spiritual and edifying action. Hinduism and Buddhism views on sexuality have differing interpretations.
Sexual intercourse between non-human animals is more often referred to as copulation; for most non-human animals, mating and copulation occurs at the point of estrus (the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle), which increases the chances of successful impregnation. However, bonobos, dolphins, and chimpanzees are known to engage in sexual intercourse even when the female is not in estrus, and to engage in sex acts with same-sex partners. Like humans engaging in sex primarily for pleasure, this behavior in the aforementioned animals is also presumed to be for pleasure, and a contributing factor to strengthening their social bonds.
Corporate Crime
In criminology, corporate crime refers to crimes committed either by a corporation (i.e., a business entity having a separate legal personality from the natural persons that manage its activities), or by individuals acting on behalf of a corporation or other business entity. Some negative behaviours by corporations may not actually be criminal; laws vary between jurisdictions. For example, some jurisdictions allow insider trading.
Corporate crime overlaps with:
white-collar crime, because the majority of individuals who may act as or represent the interests of the corporation are white-collar professionals;
organized crime, because criminals may set up corporations either for the purposes of crime or as vehicles for laundering the proceeds of crime. The world’s gross criminal product has been estimated at 20 percent of world trade.
state-corporate crime because, in many contexts, the opportunity to commit crime emerges from the relationship between the corporation and the state.
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity.
In criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a corporation as a legal person can be liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs. It is sometimes regarded as an aspect of criminal vicarious liability, as distinct from the situation in which the wording of a statutory offence specifically attaches liability to the corporation as the principal or joint principal with a human agent.
The imposition of criminal liability is only one means of regulating corporations. There are also civil law remedies such as injunction and the award of damages which may include a penal element. Generally, criminal sanctions include imprisonment, fines and community service orders. A company has no physical existence, so it can only act vicariously through the agency of the human beings it employs. While it is relatively uncontroversial that human beings may commit crimes for which punishment is a just desert, the extent to which the corporation should incur liability is less clear. Obviously, a company cannot be sent to jail, and if a fine is to be paid, this diminishes both the money available to pay the wages and salaries of all the remaining employees, and the profits available to pay all the existing shareholders. Thus, the effect of the only available punishment is deflected from the wrongdoer personally and distributed among all the innocent parties who supply the labour and the capital that keep the corporation solvent.
Because, at a public policy level, the growth and prosperity of society depends on the business community, governments recognise limits on the extent to which each permitted form of business entity can be held liable (including general and limited partnerships which may also have separate legal personalities).
Criminal or civil controls?Using the criminal law
Represents formal public disapproval and condemnation because of the failure to abide by the generally accepted social norms, codified into the criminal law. Police powers to investigate can be more effective, but the availability of relevant expertise may be limited. If successful, prosecution reinforces social values and shows the state's willingness to uphold those values in a trial likely to attract more publicity when previously respected business leaders are called to account. The judgment may also cause a loss of corporate reputation and, in turn, a loss of profitability.
Justifies more severe penalties because it is necessary to overcome the higher burden of proof to establish criminal liability. But the high burden means that it is more difficult to secure a judgment than in the civil courts, and many corporations are cash-rich and so can pay apparently immense fines without difficulty. Further, if the corporation knows that the fine is going to be severe, it may seek bankruptcy protection before sentencing.
The theoretical value of punishment is that the offender feels shame, guilt or remorse, emotional responses to a conviction that a fictitious person cannot feel.
If a state turns too often to the criminal law, it discourages self-regulation and may cause friction between any regulatory agencies and businesses that they are to regulate.
Using the civil law
With the lower burden of proof and better case management tools, civil liability is easier to prove than criminal liability, and offers more flexible remedies which can be preventative as well as punitive.
But there is little moral condemnation and no real deterrent effect so the general management response may be to see civil actions as a routine cost of business which is tax deductible.
Criminal laws
Most jurisdictions use criminal and civil systems in parallel, making the political judgment on how infrequently to use the criminal law to maximise the publicity of those cases that are prosecuted. While others enact specific legislation covering health and safety, and product safety issues which lay down general protections for the public and for the employees. The difficulty of proving a mens rea is avoided in the less serious offences by imposing absolute, strict liability, or vicarious liability which does not require proof that the accused knew or could reasonably have known that its act was wrong, and which does not recognise any excuse of honest and reasonable mistake. But, most legislatures require some element of fault, either by way of an intention to commit the offence or recklessness resulting in the offence, or some knowledge of the relevant circumstances. Thus, companies are held liable when the acts and omissions, and the knowledge of the employees can be attributed to the corporation. This is usually filtered through an identification, directing mind or alter ego test which proves that the employee has sufficient status to be considered the company when acting.
An amnesty law is any law that retroactively exempts a select group of people, usually military leaders and government leaders, from criminal liability for crimes committed.
Most allegations involve human rights abuses and crimes against humanity.
A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty; it is usually granted by a head of state (such as a monarch or president) or by acts of a parliament or a religious authority. Clemency means the forgiveness of a crime or the cancellation (in whole or in part) of the penalty associated with it. It is a general concept that encompasses several related procedures: pardoning, commutation, remission and reprieves. Commutation or remission is the lessening of a penalty without forgiveness for the crime; the beneficiary is still considered guilty of the offense. A reprieve is the temporary postponement of punishment, often with a view to a pardon or other review of the sentence (such as when the reprieving authority has no power to grant an immediate pardon).
Today, pardons are granted in many countries when individuals have demonstrated that they have fulfilled their debt to society, or are otherwise considered to be deserving. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who are wrongfully convicted or claim they have been wrongfully convicted. Some believe accepting such a pardon implicitly constitutes an admission of guilt as a pardon does not set aside the conviction, so in some cases the offer is refused. Cases of wrongful conviction are nowadays more often dealt with by appeal than by pardon however, a pardon is sometimes offered when innocence is undisputed to avoid the costs of a retrial. Clemency plays a very important role when capital punishment is applied.
An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation is no longer applicable to situations to which it previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of such laws is called Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, especially in European Continental systems.
Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. In a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.
"Death penalty" and "Death sentence" redirect here. For other uses, see Death penalty (disambiguation) and Death sentence (disambiguation). "Execution" and "Execute" redirect here. For other uses, see Execution (disambiguation) and Execute (disambiguation). For other uses, see Capital punishment (disambiguation).
Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual process of killing the person is an execution. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (referring to execution by beheading).
Capital punishment has, in the past, been practised by most societies (one notable exception being Kievan Rus); currently 58 nations actively practise it, and 97 countries have abolished it (the remainder have not used it for 10 years or allow it only in exceptional circumstances such as wartime). It is a matter of active controversy in various countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union member states, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment.
Currently, Amnesty International considers most countries abolitionist. The UN General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008 and 2010, non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition. Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where executions take place, such as the People's Republic of China, India, the United States of America and Indonesia, the four most-populous countries in the world, which continue to apply the death penalty (although in India, Indonesia and in many US states it is rarely employed). Each of these four nations voted against the General Assembly resolutions.
At Italy's instigation, the UN moratorium on the death penalty resolution was presented by the EU in partnership with eight co-author member States to the General Assembly of the United Nations, calling for general suspension (not abolition) of capital punishment throughout the world. It was twice affirmed: first, on 15 November 2007 by the Third Committee, and then subsequently reaffirmed on 18 December by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 62/149. New Zealand played a central role facilitating agreement between the co-author group and other supporters.
It calls on States that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolition, and in the meantime, to restrict the number of offences which it punishes and to respect the rights of those on death row. It also calls on States that have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it. Like all General Assembly resolutions, it is not binding on any state.
On 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted 104 to 54 in favour of resolution A/RES/62/149, which proclaims a global moratorium on the death penalty, with 29 abstentions (as well as 5 absent at the time of the vote). Italy had proposed and sponsored this resolution. After the resolution's approval, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema declared: "Now we must start working on the abolition of the death penalty".
On 18 December 2008, the General Assembly adopted another resolution (A/RES/63/168) reaffirming its previous call for a global moratorium on capital punishment 106 to 46 (with 34 abstentions and another 6 were absent at the time of the vote). Working in partnership with the EU, New Zealand and Mexico were co-facilitators of the draft text which was developed over a period of six months, which Chile then presented to the UN General Assembly on behalf of cosponsors.
Once again on 21 December 2010, the 65th General Assembly adopted a third resolution (A/RES/65/206) with 109 countries voting in favour, 41 against and 35 abstentions (another 7 countries were absent at the time of the vote). Another resolution on a moratorium will be then further discussed under the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights” in 2012.
These terms differ subtly from country-to-country, but generally:
Amnesty: 'Forgetting' the crime, e.g. if a car thief witnesses a murder, he will often be granted amnesty for his crime in order to allow him to testify against the murderer, or after a civil war a mass amnesty may be granted to absolve all participants of guilt and 'move on'. Weapon amnesties are often granted so that people can hand in weapons to the police without any legal questions being asked as to where they obtained them/why they had them/etc.
Commutation: Substituting the penalty for a crime with the penalty for another, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime (e.g., in the USA, someone who is guilty of murder may have their sentence commuted to life imprisonment rather than death).Remission: Complete or partial cancellation of the penalty, whilst still being considered guilty of said crime (i.e., reduced penalty).
Reprieve: Temporary postponement of a punishment, usually so that the accused can mount an appeal (especially if he or she has been sentenced to death).
Clemency: Catch-all term for all of the above, or just referring to amnesty and pardons.
Expungement: Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the official repository thus removing any traces of guilt or conviction.
Immunity from prosecution: A prosecutor may grant immunity, usually to a witness, in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. The prosecutor conditionally agrees not to prosecute a crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence.
Other immunity: Several other types of immunity are available depending on the status of a person as a member of the government.
Some criminals who testify for the prosecution put their life in jeopardy by doing so. To coerce witnesses to testify, the government may offer witness protection. In the United States Federal Witness Protection Program, about "95% of [witnesses in the program] are ... criminals." Those who testify for the prosecution may be offered immunity from prosecution for their own crimes.
Among those who see some legitimate use for the power to pardon in some cases, there are those[who?] who see it as being susceptible to abuse if applied inconsistently, selectively, arbitrarily, or without strict, publicly accessible guidelines.
The principle of the rule of law is intended to be a safeguard against such arbitrary governance. The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
The history of this debate reaches at least as far back as Plato, and evidence of it is found in many cultures.
Organised crime or criminal organisations are transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralised enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit. Some criminal organisations, such as terrorist organisations, are politically motivated. Sometimes criminal organisations force people to do business with them, as when a gang extorts money from shopkeepers for so-called "protection". Gangs may become disciplined enough to be considered organised. An organised gang or criminal set can also be referred to as a mob.
In the United States, the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) defines organised crime as "The unlawful activities of [...] a highly organised, disciplined association". Criminal activity as a structured group is referred to as racketeering and such crime is commonly referred to as the work of the Mob. In the UK, police estimate organised crime involves up to 38,000 people operating in 6,000 various groups. In addition, due to the escalating violence of Mexico's drug war, the Mexican drug cartels are considered the "greatest organised crime threat to the United States" according to a report issued by the United States Department of Justice.
The demand for illegal goods and services nurtures the emergence of ever more centralised and powerful criminal syndicates, who may ultimately succeed in undermining public morals, neutralizing law enforcement through corruption and infiltrating the legal economy unless appropriate countermeasures are taken. This theoretical proposition can be depicted in a model comprising four elements: government, society, illegal markets and organised crime. While interrelations are acknowledged in both directions between the model elements, in the last instance the purpose is to explain variations in the power and reach of organised crime in the sense of an ultimately unified organisational entity.
Patron-client networks are defined by the fluid interactions they produce. Organised crime groups operate as smaller units within the overall network, and as such tend towards valuing significant others, familiarity of social and economic environments, or tradition. These networks are usually composed of:
Hierarchies based on 'naturally' forming family, social and cultural traditions;
'Tight-knit' locus of activity/labour;
Fraternal or nepotistic value systems;
Personalised activity; including family rivalries, territorial disputes, recruitment and training of family members, etc.;Entrenched belief systems, reliance of tradition (including religion, family values, cultural expectations, class politics, gender roles, etc.); and,
Communication and rule enforcement mechanisms dependent on organisational structure, social etiquette, history of criminal involvement, and collective decision-making.Perhaps the best known patron-client networks are the Sicilian and Italian American Cosa Nostra, most commonly known as the Sicilian Mafia. The Neapolitan Camorra, the Calabrian and Italian Canadian 'Ndrangheta, and the Apulian Sacra Corona Unita are similar Italian organised crime groups. Other organised enterprises include the Russian mafia, Albanian Mafia, Irish mob, Corsican mafia, Chinese Triads, and the Japanese Yakuza.
Bureaucratic/corporate organised crime groups are defined by the general rigidity of their internal structures. Focusing more on how the operations works, succeeds, sustains itself or avoids retribution, they are generally typified by:
A complex authority structure;
An extensive division of labour between classes within the organisation;
Meritocratic (as opposed to cultural or social attributes);
Responsibilities carried out in an impersonal manner;
Extensive written rules/regulations (as opposed to cultural praxis dictating action); and,
'Top-down' communication and rule enforcement mechanisms.
However, this model of operation has some flaws:
The 'top-down' communication strategy is susceptible to interception, more so further down the hierarchy being communicated to;
Maintaining written records jeopardises the security of the organisation and relies on increased security measures;
Infiltration at lower levels in the hierarchy can jeopardise the entire organisation (a 'house of cards' effect); and,
Death, injury, incarceration or internal power struggles dramatically heighten the insecurity of operations.
Whilst bureaucratic operations emphasis business processes and strongly authoritarian hierarchies, these are based on enforcing power relationships rather than an overlying aim of protectionism, sustainability or growth.
A distinctive gang culture underpins many, but not all, organised groups; this may develop through recruiting strategies, social learning processes in the corrective system experienced by youth, family or peer involvement in crime, and the coercive actions of criminal authority figures. The term “street gang” is commonly used interchangeably with “youth gang,” referring to neighborhood or street-based youth groups that meet “gang” criteria. Miller (1992) defines a street gang as “a self-formed association of peers, united by mutual interests, with identifiable leadership and internal organisation, who act collectively or as individuals to achieve specific purposes, including the conduct of illegal activity and control of a particular territory, facility, or enterprise."
"Zones of transition" refer to deteriorating neighbourhoods with shifting populations - conflict between groups, fighting, "turf wars", and theft promotes solidarity and cohesion. Cohen (1955): working class teenagers joined gangs due to frustration of inability to achieve status and goals of the middle class; Cloward and Ohlin (1960): blocked opportunity, but unequal distribution of opportunities lead to creating different types of gangs (that is, some focused on robbery and property theft, some on fighting and conflict and some were retreatists focusing on drug taking); Spergel (1966) was one of the first criminologists to focus on evidence-based practice rather than intuition into gang life and culture. Klein (1971) like Spergel studied the effects on members of social workers’ interventions. More interventions actually lead to greater gang participation and solidarity and bonds between members. Downes and Rock (1988) on Parker’s analysis: strain theory applies, labelling theory (from experience with police and courts), control theory (involvement in trouble from early childhood and the eventual decision that the costs outweigh the benefits) and conflict theories. No ethnic group is more disposed to gang involvement than another, rather it is the status of being marginalised, alienated or rejected that makes some groups more vulnerable to gang formation, and this would also be accounted for in the effect of social exclusion, especially in terms of recruitment and retention. These may also be defined by age (typically youth) or peer group influences, and the permanence or consistency of their criminal activity. These groups also form their own symbolic identity or public representation which are recognisable by the community at large (include colours, symbols, patches, flags and tattoos).
Research has focused on whether the gangs have formal structures, clear hierarchies and leadership in comparison with adult groups, and whether they are rational in pursuit of their goals, though positions on structures, hierarchies and defined roles are conflicting. Some studied street gangs involved in drug dealing - finding that their structure and behaviour had a degree of organisational rationality. Members saw themselves as organised criminals; gangs were formal-rational organisations, Strong organisational structures, well defined roles and rules that guided members’ behaviour. Also a specified and regular means of income (i.e. drugs). Padilla (1992) agreed with the two above. However some have found these to be loose rather than well-defined and lacking persistent focus, there was relatively low cohesion, few shared goals and little organisational structure. Shared norms, value and loyalties were low, structures "chaotic", little role differentiation or clear distribution of labour. Similarly, the use of violence does not conform to the principles behind protection rackets, political intimidation and drug trafficking activities employed by those adult groups. In many cases gang members graduate from youth gangs to highly developed OC groups, with some already in contact with such syndicates and through this we see a greater propensity for imitation. Gangs and traditional criminal organisations cannot be universally linked (Decker, 1998), however there are clear benefits to both the adult and youth organisation through their association. In terms of structure, no single crime group is archetypal, though in most cases there are well-defined patterns of vertical integration (where criminal groups attempt to control the supply and demand), as is the case in arms, sex and drug trafficking.
The entrepreneurial model looks at either the individual criminal, or a smaller group of organised criminals, that capitalise off the more fluid 'group-association' of contemporary organised crime. This model conforms to social learning theory or differential association in that there are clear associations and interaction between criminals where knowledge may be shared, or values enforced, however it is argued that rational choice is not represented in this. The choice to commit a certain act, or associate with other organised crime groups, may be seen as much more of an entrepreneurial decision - contributing to the continuation of a criminal enterprise, by maximising those aspects that protect or support their own individual gain. In this context, the role of risk is also easily understandable, however it is debatable whether the underlying motivation should be seen as true entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship as a product of some social disadvantage.
The criminal organisation, much in the same way as one would assess pleasure and pain, weighs such factors as legal, social and economic risk to determine potential profit and loss from certain criminal activities. This decision-making process rises from the entrepreneurial efforts of the group's members, their motivations and the environments in which they work. Opportunism is also a key factor – the organised criminal or criminal group is likely to frequently reorder the criminal associations they maintain, the types of crimes they perpetrate, and how they function in the public arena (recruitment, reputation, etc.) in order to ensure efficiency, capitalisation and protection of their interests.
Organised crime often victimize businesses through the use of extortion or theft and fraud activities like hijacking cargo trucks, robbing goods, committing bankruptcy fraud (also known as "bust-out"), insurance fraud or stock fraud (inside trading). Organised crime groups also victimize individuals by car theft (either for dismantling at "chop shops" or for export), art theft, bank robbery, burglary, jewelery theft, computer hacking, credit card fraud, economic espionage, embezzlement, identity theft, and securities fraud ("pump and dump" scam). Some organised crime groups defraud national, state, or local governments by bid rigging public projects, counterfeiting money, smuggling or manufacturing untaxed alcohol (bootlegging) or cigarettes (buttlegging), and providing immigrant workers to avoid taxes.
Organised crime groups seek out corrupt public officials in executive, law enforcement, and judicial roles so that their activities can avoid, or at least receive early warnings about, investigation and prosecution.
Organised crime groups also provide a range of illegal services and goods, such as loansharking of money at very high interest rates, assassination, blackmailing, bombings, bookmaking and illegal gambling, confidence tricks, copyright infringement, counterfeiting of intellectual property, kidnapping, prostitution, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, oil smuggling, organ trafficking, contract killing, identity document forgery, money laundering, point shaving, price fixing. illegal dumping of toxic waste, illegal trading of nuclear materials, military equipment smuggling, nuclear weapons smuggling, passport fraud, providing illegal immigration and cheap labor, people smuggling, trading in endangered species, and trafficking in human beings. Organised crime groups also do a range of business and labour racketeering activities, such as skimming casinos, insider trading, setting up monopolies in industries such as garbage collecting, construction and cement pouring, bid rigging, getting "no-show" and "no-work" jobs, political corruption and bullying.
Art theft is usually for the purpose of resale or for ransom (sometimes called artnapping). Stolen art is sometimes used by criminals as collateral to secure loans. Only a small percentage of stolen art is recovered—estimates range from 5 to 10%. This means that little is known about the scope and characteristics of art theft.
Ransom is the practice of holding a prisoner or item to extort money or property to secure their release, or it can refer to the sum of money involved.
In an early German law, a similar concept was called bad influence.
Julius Caesar was captured by pirates near the island of Pharmacusa, and held until someone paid 50 talents to free him.
In Europe during the Middle Ages, ransom became an important custom of chivalric warfare. An important knight, especially nobility or royalty, was worth a significant sum of money if captured, but nothing if he was killed. For this reason, the practice of ransom contributed to the development of heraldry, which allowed knights to advertise their identities, and by implication their ransom value, and made them less likely to be killed out of hand. Examples include Richard the Lion Heart and Bertrand du Guesclin.
When ransom means "payment", the word comes via Old French rançon from Latin redemptio = "buying back":compare "redemption".
In Judaism ransom is called kofer-nefesh (Hebrew: כפר נפש‎). Among other uses, the word was applied to the poll tax of a half shekel to be paid by every male above twenty years at the census.
East Germany, which built the Inner German border to stop emigration, practiced ransom with people. East German citizens could emigrate through the semi-secret route of being ransomed by the West German government in a process termed Freikauf (literally the buying of freedom). Between 1964 and 1989, 33,755 political prisoners were ransomed. West Germany paid over 3.4 billion DM – nearly $2.3 billion at 1990 prices – in goods and hard currency. Those ransomed were valued on a sliding scale, ranging from around 1,875 DM for a worker to around 11,250 DM for a doctor. For a while, payments were made in kind using goods that were in short supply in East Germany, such as oranges, bananas, coffee and medical drugs. The average prisoner was worth around 4,000 DM worth of goods.
Although ransom is usually demanded only after the kidnapping of a person, it is not unheard of for thieves to demand ransom for the return of an inanimate object or body part. In 1987, thieves broke into the tomb of Argentinian president Juan Perón and stole his hands; they later demanded $8 million US for their return. The ransom was not paid.
The practice of towing vehicles and charging towing fees for the vehicle's release, is often euphemized or referred to as ransoming, especially by opponents of towing. (In Scotland, booting vehicles on private property is outlawed as extortion.)
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In armed robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force. In robbery goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of another—with or without force. A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller. In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur. Under United States federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat.
Blackmail, which involves extortion, is when the offender threatens to reveal information about a victim or his family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met.
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.
Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.
Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
In economics, the bribe has been described as rent. Bribery in bureaucracy has been viewed as a reason for the higher cost of production of goods and services.
Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. Agreement consists of an offer by an indication of one person (the "offeror") to another (the "offeree") of the offeror's willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer (agreement to the terms in it) has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree and there has been consideration bargained-for induced by promises or a promise and performance.
The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind. This classical approach to contract formation has been weakened by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
A gift or a present is an object given without the expectation of payment. Although gift-giving might involve an expectation of reciprocity, a gift is meant to be free. In many human societies, the act of mutually exchanging money, goods, etc. may contribute to social cohesion. Economists have elaborated the economics of gift-giving into the notion of a gift economy. By extension the term gift can refer to anything that makes the other happier or less sad, especially as a favor, including forgiveness and kindness.
Many types of bribes exist: tip, gift, sop, perk, skim, favor, discount, waived fee/ticket, free food, free ad, free trip, free tickets, sweetheart deal, kickback/payback, funding, inflated sale of an object or property, lucrative contract, donation, campaign contribution, fundraiser, sponsorship/backing, higher paying job, stock options, secret commission, or promotion (rise of position/rank).
One must be careful of differing social and cultural norms when examining bribery. Expectations of when a monetary transaction is appropriate can differ from place to place. Political campaign contributions in the form of cash, for example, are considered criminal acts of bribery in some countries, while in the United States, provided they adhere to election law, are legal. Tipping, for example, is considered bribery in some societies, while in others the two concepts may not be interchangeable.
In some Spanish-speaking countries, bribes are referred to as "mordida" (literally, "bite"); in Arab countries they are Baksheesh or Bakshish. However, Bakshish is more akin to tipping. French-speaking countries often use the expressions "dessous-de-table" ("under-the-table" commissions), "pot-de-vin" (literally, "wine-pot"), or "commission occulte" ("secret commission" or "kickback"). While the last two expressions contain inherently a negative connotation, the expression "dessous-de-table" can be often understood as a commonly accepted business practice (for instance, on the occasion of a real estate transaction before the notary, a partial payment made between the buyer and seller; needless to say, this is a good way to launder money). In German, the common term is Schmiergeld ("smoothing money").
The offence may be divided into two great classes: the one, where a person invested with power is induced by payment to use it unjustly; the other, where power is obtained by purchasing the suffrages of those who can impart it. Likewise, the briber might hold a powerful role and control the transaction; or in other cases, a bribe may be effectively extracted from the person paying it, although this is better known as extortion.
The forms that bribery take are numerous. For example, a motorist might bribe a police officer not to issue a ticket for speeding, a citizen seeking paperwork or utility line connections might bribe a functionary for faster service.
Bribery may also take the form of a secret commission, a profit made by an agent, in the course of his employment, without the knowledge of his principal. Euphemisms abound for this (commission, sweetener, kick-back etc.) Bribers and recipients of bribery are likewise numerous although bribers have one common denominator and that is the financial ability to bribe.
Bribery around the world is estimated at about $1 trillion (£494bn).
As indicated on the pages devoted to political corruption, efforts have been made in recent years by the international community to encourage countries to dissociate and incriminate as separate offences, active and passive bribery. From a legal point of view, active bribery can be defined for instance as the promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage [to any public official], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions. (article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe). Passive bribery can be defined as the request or receipt [by any public official], directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)).
The reason for this dissociation is to make the early steps (offering, promising, requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from a criminal policy point of view) that bribery is not acceptable. Besides, such a dissociation makes the prosecution of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. Besides, there is often no such formal deal but only a mutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to the decision maker to obtain a favourable decision.
In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. It may be defined as coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property. It is the name of a statutory offence in the United States, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Victoria, and has been used as a convenient way of referring to other offences, but was not a term of art in English law before 1968. It originally denoted a payment made by English people residing along the border of Scotland to influential Scottish chieftains in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.
Blackmail may also be considered a form of extortion. Although the two are generally synonymous, extortion is the taking of personal property by threat of future harm. It is the use of threats to prevent another from engaging in a lawful occupation and writing libelous letters or letters that provoke a breach of the peace, as well as use of intimidation for purposes of collecting an unpaid debt. Some US states distinguish the offenses by requiring that blackmail be in writing. In some jurisdictions, the offence of blackmail is often carried out during the act of robbery. This occurs when an offender makes a threat of immediate violence towards someone in order to make a gain as part of a theft. For example, the threat of "Give me your money or I will shoot you" is an unlawful threat of violence in order to gain property.
Bank robbery is the crime of stealing from a bank while persons other than the perpetrator(s) are present and are subjected to force, violence or the threat of violence. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, robbery is "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear." By contrast, burglary is defined as, "unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft." Bank robbery is therefore defined as entering a bank when it is open and obtaining money either by using force or the threat of force. Breaking into a bank when it is closed is burglary.
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery differs from simple theft in its use of violence and intimidation.
The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words (e.g. deraubare) of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub — "theft".
Among the types of robbery are armed robbery involving use of a weapon and aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. Highway robbery or "mugging" takes place outside and in a public place such as a sidewalk, street, or parking lot. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim by force. Extortion is the threat to do something illegal, or the offer to not do something illegal, in the event that goods are not given, primarily using words instead of actions.
Criminal slang for robbery includes "blagging" (armed robbery, usually of a bank) or "stick-up" (derived from the verbal command to robbery targets to raise their hands in the air), and "steaming" (organized robbery on underground train systems).
Bank robbery occurs most frequently in cities and large towns. This concentration is often attributed to there being more branches in urban areas, but the number of bank robberies is disproportionately higher than the number of branches. In Canada, for example, seven cities have 30% of all bank branches but 66% of all bank robberies; in the United Kingdom, London has 10% of the nation's branches but 39% of its bank robberies.
This has advantages both for bank robbers and for the law enforcement community. Being in urban areas the transportation infrastructure is more highly developed, especially where banks tend to cluster near to retail shopping areas and commercial districts. Such banks are highly profitable targets for bank robbers who are then afforded a number of potential escape routes. The law enforcement community benefit by being able to respond more quickly, and the likelihood of catching a bank robber on or near the scene is higher than for other types of crime. This is because most bank robberies are reported very quickly, frequently while the crime is in progress; most bank robberies occur during daylight hours, have multiple witnesses and with modern technology often produce photographic images that can be distributed and used immediately to canvass the local area. Consequently, many robbers are caught the same day. In fact, the clearance rate for bank robbery is among the highest of all crimes, at nearly 60%.
The urban locations of the crime also contributes to its repeat victimization profile, a measure of how quickly a crime victim will suffer a repeat of the original crime. One study carried out by the Home Office found that in England, one third of banks at which a robbery has occurred will be robbed again within three months, while the same study found that in Tallahassee, Florida, one quarter of robbed banks will suffer repeat robbery within a week, and over half of robbed banks will be robbed again within a month.
In the computer security context, a hacker is someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or computer network. Hackers may be motivated by a multitude of reasons, such as profit, protest, or challenge. The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground and is now a known community. While other uses of the word hacker exist that are not related to computer security, such as referring to someone with an advanced understanding of computers and computer networks, they are rarely used in mainstream context. They are subject to the long standing hacker definition controversy about the true meaning of the term hacker. In this controversy, the term hacker is reclaimed by computer programmers who argue that someone breaking into computers is better called a cracker, not making a difference between computer criminals (black hats) and computer security experts (white hats). Some white hat hackers claim that they also deserve the title hacker, and that only black hats should be called crackers.
Several subgroups of the computer underground with different attitudes use different terms to demarcate themselves from each other, or try to exclude some specific group with which they do not agree. Eric S. Raymond (author of The New Hacker's Dictionary) advocates that members of the computer underground should be called crackers. Yet, those people see themselves as hackers and even try to include the views of Raymond in what they see as one wider hacker culture, a view harshly rejected by Raymond himself. Instead of a hacker/cracker dichotomy, they give more emphasis to a spectrum of different categories, such as white hat, grey hat, black hat and script kiddie. In contrast to Raymond, they usually reserve the term cracker for more malicious activity. According to (Clifford R.D. 2006) a cracker or cracking is to "gain unauthorized access to a computer in order to commit another crime such as destroying information contained in that system". These subgroups may also be defined by the legal status of their activities.
White hat
A white hat hacker breaks security for non-malicious reasons, perhaps to test their own security system or while working for a security company which makes security software. The term "white hat" in Internet slang refers to an ethical hacker. This classification also includes individuals who perform penetration tests and vulnerability assessments within a contractual agreement. The EC-Council, also known as the International Council of Electronic Commerce Consultants, is one of those organisations that have developed certifications, courseware, classes, and online training covering the diverse arena of Ethical Hacking.
Black hat
A "black hat" hacker is a hacker who "violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain" (Moore, 2005). Black hat hackers form the stereotypical, illegal hacking groups often portrayed in popular culture, and are "the epitome of all that the public fears in a computer criminal". Black hat hackers break into secure networks to destroy data or make the network unusable for those who are authorized to use the network. They choose their targets using a two-pronged process known as the "pre-hacking stage".
Part 1: Targeting
The hacker determines what network to break into during this phase. The target may be of particular interest to the hacker, either politically or personally, or it may be picked at random. Next, they will port scan a network to determine if it is vulnerable to attacks, which is just testing all ports on a host machine for a response. Open ports—those that do respond—will allow a hacker to access the system.
Part 2: Research and Information Gathering
It is in this stage that the hacker will visit or contact the target in some way in hopes of finding out vital information that will help them access the system. The main way that hackers get desired results from this stage is from "social engineering", which will be explained below. Aside from social engineering, hackers can also use a technique called "dumpster diving". Dumpster diving is when a hacker will literally search through users' garbage in hopes of finding documents that have been thrown away, which may contain information a hacker can use directly or indirectly, to help them gain access to a network.
Part 3: Finishing The Attack
This is the stage when the hacker will invade the primary target that he/she was planning to attack or steal from. Many "hackers" will be caught after this point, lured in or grabbed by any data also known as a honeypot (a trap set up by computer security personnel).
Grey hat
A grey hat hacker is a combination of a Black Hat and a White Hat Hacker. A Grey Hat Hacker may surf the internet and hack into a computer system for the sole purpose of notifying the administrator that their system has been hacked, for example. Then they may offer to repair their system for a small fee.
"Pump and dump" is a form of microcap stock fraud that involves artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements, in order to sell the cheaply purchased stock at a higher price. Once the operators of the scheme "dump" their overvalued shares, the price falls and investors lose their money. Stocks that are the subject of pump and dump schemes are sometimes called "chop stocks".
While fraudsters in the past relied on cold calls, the Internet now offers a cheaper and easier way of reaching large numbers of potential investors.
Pump and dump schemes may take place on the Internet using an e-mail spam campaign, through media channels via a fake press release, or through telemarketing from "boiler room" brokerage houses (for example, see Boiler Room). Often the stock promoter will claim to have "inside" information about impending news. Newsletters that purport to offer unbiased recommendations then tout the company as a "hot" stock. Messages in chat rooms and email spam urge readers to buy the stock quickly.
Unwitting investors then purchase the stock, creating high demand and raising the price. This seemingly "real" rise in prices can entice more people to believe the hype and to buy shares as well. When the people behind the scheme sell their shares and stop promoting the stock, the price plummets, and other investors are left holding stock that is worth significantly less than what they paid for it.
Fraudsters frequently use this ploy with small, thinly traded companies—known as "penny stocks," generally traded over-the-counter (in the United States, this would mean markets such as the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink Sheets), rather than markets such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or NASDAQ—because it is easier to manipulate a stock when there is little or no independent information available about the company. The same principle applies in the United Kingdom, where target companies are typically small companies on the AIM or OFEX.
A more modern spin on this attack is known as hack, pump and dump. In this form a person purchases penny stocks in advance and then uses compromised brokerage accounts to purchase large quantities of that stock. The net result is a price increase, which is often pushed further by day traders seeing a quick advance in a stock. The holder of the stock then sells his stock at a premium.
A variant of the pump and dump scam, the "short and distort" works in the opposite manner. Instead of first buying the stock, and then artificially raising its price before selling, in a "short and distort" the scammer first short-sells the stock, and then artificially lowers the price, using the same techniques as the pump and dump but using criticism or negative predictions regarding the stock. The scammer then buys back the stock at the lower price.
Bid rigging is a form of fraud in which a commercial contract is promised to one party even though for the sake of appearance several other parties also present a bid. This form of collusion is illegal in most countries. It is a form of price fixing and market allocation, often practiced where contracts are determined by a call for bids, for example in the case of government construction contracts.
Bid rigging almost always results in economic harm to the agency which is seeking the bids, and to the public, who ultimately bear the costs as taxpayers or consumers.
Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.
Practices that suggest collusion include:
Uniform prices
A penalty for price discounts
Advance notice of price changes
Information exchange
There can be significant barriers to collusion. In any given industry, these may include:
The number of firms: As the number of firms in an industry increases, it is more difficult to successfully organize, collude and communicate.
Cost and demand differences between firms: If costs vary significantly between firms, it may be impossible to establish a price at which to fix output.
Cheating: There is considerable incentive to cheat on collusion agreements; although lowering prices might trigger price wars, in the short term the defecting firm may gain considerably. This phenomenon is frequently referred to as "chiseling".
Potential entry: New firms may enter the industry, establishing a new baseline price and eliminating collusion (though anti-dumping laws and tariffs can prevent foreign companies entering the market).
Economic recession: An increase in average total cost or a decrease in revenue provides incentive to compete with rival firms in order to secure a larger market share and increased demand.
Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied.
Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers. The purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders. For example, manufacturers and retailers may conspire to sell at a common "retail" price; set a common minimum sales price, where sellers agree not to discount the sales price below the agreed-to minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified maximum price; adhere to a price book or list price; engage in cooperative price advertising; standardize financial credit terms offered to purchasers; use uniform trade-in allowances; limit discounts; discontinue a free service or fix the price of one component of an overall service; adhere uniformly to previously-announced prices and terms of sale; establish uniform costs and markups; impose mandatory surcharges; purposefully reduce output or sales in order to charge higher prices; or purposefully share or pool markets, territories, or customers.
Price fixing is permitted in some markets but not others; where allowed, it is often known as resale price maintenance or retail price maintenance.
In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient. The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a deadweight loss.
A call for bids, call for tenders, or invitation to tender (ITT) (often called tender for short) is a special procedure for generating competing offers from different bidders looking to obtain an award of business activity in works, supply, or service contracts. They are usually preceded by a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ).
Open tenders, open calls for tenders, or advertised tenders are open to all vendors or contractors who can guarantee performance.
Restricted tenders, restricted calls for tenders, or invited tenders are only open to selected prequalified vendors or contractors. This may be a two-stage process, the first stage of which produces a short list of suitable vendors.
The reasons for restricted tenders differ in scope and purpose. They are called because:
There is essentially only one suitable supplier of the services or product
There are confidentiality issues such as military contracts
There are reasons for expedience such as emergency situations
There is a need to weed out tenderers who do not have the financial or technical capabilities to fulfill the requirements
There are some very common bid rigging practices:
Subcontract bid rigging occurs where some of the conspirators agree not to submit bids, or to submit cover bids that are intended not to be successful, on the condition that some parts of the successful bidder's contract will be subcontracted to them. In this way, they "share the spoils" among themselves.
Bid suppression occurs where some of the conspirators agree not to submit a bid so that another conspirator can win the contract.
Complementary bidding, also known as cover bidding or courtesy bidding, occurs where some of the bidders bid an amount knowing that it is too high or contains conditions that they know to be unacceptable to the agency calling for the bids. Complementary bidding, however, is not always a corrupt practice. A contractor that is too busy to complete the work will often place a high bid simply to maintain a relationship with government agencies.
Bid rotation occurs where the bidders take turns being the designated successful bidder, for example, each conspirator is designated to be the successful bidder on certain contracts, with conspirators designated to win other contracts. This is a form of market allocation, where the conspirators allocate or apportion markets, products, customers or geographic territories among themselves, so that each will get a "fair share" of the total business, without having to truly compete with the others for that business.
These forms of bid rigging are not mutually exclusive of one another, and two or more of these practices could occur at the same time. For example, if one member of the bidding ring is designated to win a particular contract, that bidder's conspirators could avoid winning either by not bidding ("bid suppression"), or by submitting a high bid ("cover bidding").
In criminology, a political crime or political offence is an offence involving overt acts or omissions (where there is a duty to act), which prejudice the interests of the state, its government or the political system. It is to be distinguished from state crime when it is the states that break both their own criminal laws or public international law.
States will define as political crimes any behaviour perceived as a threat, real or imagined, to the state's survival including both violent and non-violent oppositional crimes. A consequence of such criminalisation may be that a range of human rights, civil rights, and freedoms are curtailed, and conduct which would not normally be considered criminal per se (in other words, that is not antisocial according to those who engage in it) is criminalised at the convenience of the group holding power.
Thus, while the majority of those who support the current regime may consider criminalisation of politically motivated behaviour an acceptable response when the offender is driven by more extreme political, ideological, religious or other beliefs, there may be a question of the morality of a law which simply criminalises ordinary political dissent.
In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.
In the criminal law, at common law, there was no general duty of care owed to fellow citizens. The traditional view was encapsulated in the example of watching a person drown in shallow water and making no rescue effort, where commentators borrowed the line, "Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive." (Arthur Hugh Clough (1819–1861)) in support of the proposition that the failure to act does not attract criminal liability. Nevertheless, such failures might be morally indefensible and so both legislatures and the courts have imposed liability when the failure to act is sufficiently blameworthy to justify criminalisation. Some statutes therefore explicitly state that the actus reus consists of any relevant "act or omission", or use a word that may include both. Hence, the word "cause" may be both positive in the sense that the accused proactively injured the victim and negative in that the accused intentionally failed to act knowing that this failure would cause the relevant injury. In the courts, the trend has been to use objective tests to determine whether, in circumstances where there would have been no risk to the accused's health or well-being, the accused should have taken action to prevent a foreseeable injury being sustained by a particular victim or one from a class of potential victims.
So, returning to the drowning example, the accused would be liable if the victim was a child in a pool with a water depth of six inches, or there was a floatation device nearby that could easily be thrown to the victim, or the accused was carrying a mobile phone that could be used to summon help. However, the law will never penalise someone for not jumping into a raging torrent of water, i.e. the law does not require the potential saver to risk drowning even though the individual might be a lifeguard paid to patrol the given beach, river or pool. No matter what the terms of employment, an employee can never be required to do more than what is reasonable in all the circumstances. In R v Dytham (1979) QB 722 an on-duty police officer stood and watched a man beaten to death outside a nightclub. He then left without calling for assistance or summoning an ambulance. He was convicted of the common law offence of wilful misconduct in public office. Widgery CJ said:
The allegation was not one of mere non-feasance, but of deliberate failure and wilful neglect. This involves an element of culpability which is not restricted to corruption or dishonesty, but which must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment.
In the Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) (2004) EWCA Crim 868 police officers arrested a man with head injuries for a breach of the peace because of his abusive and aggressive behaviour towards the hospital staff who were trying to treat him. He later stopped breathing in the police station and all attempts at resuscitation failed. Five police officers, who were involved in the care of A at the time of his death, were charged with manslaughter by gross negligence and misconduct in a public office. It was held that the latter offence required that a public officer was acting as such, that he wilfully neglected to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducted himself in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification; that whether the misconduct was of a sufficiently serious nature would depend upon the responsibilities of the office and the office holder, the importance of the public objects which they served, the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities and the seriousness of the consequences which might follow from the misconduct; that to establish the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of the offence, it had to be proved that the office holder was aware of the duty to act or was subjectively reckless as to the existence of the duty; that the test of recklessness applied both to the question whether in particular circumstances a duty arose at all and to the conduct of the defendant if it did arise; and that the subjective test applied both to reckless indifference to the legality of the act or omission and in relation to the consequences of the act or omission.
Statutory omissions
Misprision of felony was abolished in 1967 but new statutory offences of failure to comply with a duty to disclose terrorist acts or funding under s19(2) Terrorism Act 2000, and failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering maintain the tradition. Similarly, the appropriation element in s1 theft may be committed by an act or by keeping when there is a duty to return the property, a deception under s15(4) Theft Act 1968 may be committed by what is not said or done, and "dishonestly secures" under s2(1) Theft Act 1978 may also be committed by omission (see R v Firth (1990) CLR 326 in which the defendant failed to tell the NHS that patients using NHS facilities were in fact private patients thereby obtaining the use of the facilities without payment). One of the simpler examples is the offence of failing to report a road traffic accident (s. 170 Road Traffic Act 1988).
Duty to act when the defendant has created the danger
A person who creates a dangerous situation may be under a duty to take reasonable steps to avert that danger. In R v Miller (1983) 2 AC 161, the defendant was sleeping rough in a building. He fell asleep on his mattress while smoking a cigarette. When he woke, he found that the mattress was smouldering but, instead of calling for help, he simply moved into another room. This allowed the fire to spread. He was convicted under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for recklessly causing damage by omission. Lord Diplock said:
...I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one's power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one's state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence.
But although this may apply to the generality of offences, "constructive manslaughter" is different. R v Lowe (1973) QB 702, the defendant committed the offence of neglecting his child under s1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and this caused the child's death. It was held that there should be a difference between commission and omission. Mere neglect without some foresight of the possibility of harm resulting is not a ground of constructive manslaughter, even if that omission is deliberate. R v Khan & Khan (1998) CLR 830, confirmed that there is no separate category of manslaughter by omission unless the omission constitutes a breach of duty to act. The defendants supplied a 15 year old prostitute with twice the amount of heroin likely to be taken by a regular user. The defendants left her unconscious in the flat, returning the next day to find that she had died of the overdose. Had medical assistance been called, the girl would probably not have died. The unlawful act was supplying the drug but the death was caused by the quantity injected by the victim. The trial judge invited jury to consider liability on the basis of the defendants' failure to summon medical assistance. On appeal, the conviction was quashed because the brothers had not accepted a duty to act before she took the heroin.
Failure to provide medical treatment
In general terms, doctors and hospitals have a duty to provide appropriate care for their patients, and an omission may breach that duty except where an adult patient of ordinary capacity terminates the duty by refusing consent. There is a conflict in public policy. The policy of patient autonomy enshrines a right of self-determination—patients have a right to live their lives how they wish, even if it will damage their health or lead to premature death. Society’s interest is in upholding the concept that all human life is sacred and should be preserved if at all possible. It is now well established that the right of the individual is paramount. In Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) (1994) 1 WLR 290, a patient diagnosed as a chronic, paranoid schizophrenic refused to allow his gangrenous foot to be amputated. This was permitted because his general capacity showed him capable of understanding the nature, purpose and effect of the life-saving treatment. In Re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (2002) 2 AER 449 the presumption that an adult has full capacity can be rebutted if:
(a) the person is unable to understand the information relevant to the decision, especially as to the likely consequences of having or not having the treatment; or
(b) the patient is unable to use the information and weigh it in the balance as part of the process of arriving at a decision.
Ms B was a competent but paralysed, ventilator-dependent patient, and she won the right to have the ventilator turned off. Although the switching-off had to be performed by a doctor, and this is an act intentionally causing death, the law characterises this as an omission because it amounts simply to a cessation of the ongoing treatment. The doctors’ conduct qualifies as lawful "passive euthanasia". If the particular doctor invited to omit further treatment has conscientious objections, a doctor who will undertake the omission should be sought. But, in more general cases of necessity, urgent surgery may not be unlawful to preserve life pending any judicial decision. Similarly, when the patient is a minor, emergency treatment to preserve life will not be unlawful (note the power to refer issues of consent to the courts under their wardship jurisdiction).
In death with dignity situations where a patient is incapable of communicating his wishes, a doctor may be relieved of his duty, as the House of Lords recognised in Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland (1993) AC 789. Here a patient who had survived for three years in a persistent vegetative state after suffering irreversible brain damage in the Hillsborough disaster continued to breathe normally, but was kept alive only by being fed through tubes. It was held that treatment could properly be withdrawn in such circumstances, because the best interests of the patient did not involve him being kept alive at all costs. Lord Goff nevertheless drew a fundamental distinction between acts and omissions in this context:
. . . the law draws a crucial distinction between cases in which a doctor decides not to provide, or to continue to provide, for his patient treatment or care which could or might prolong his life, and those in which he decides, for example by administering a lethal drug, actively to bring his patient's life to an end . . . the former may be lawful, either because the doctor is giving effect to his patient's wishes . . . or even in certain circumstances in which . . . the patient is incapacitated from stating whether or not he gives his consent. But it is not lawful for a doctor to administer a drug to his patient to bring about his death, even though that course is prompted by a humanitarian desire to end his suffering, however great that suffering may be.
Duty to act when contracted to do so
In R v Pittwood (1902), the defendant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after he failed to close the gate on a level crossing as he was contracted to do. This caused a train to collide with a hay cart, and the court ruled that "a man might incur criminal liability from a duty arising out of contract."
Preventing and prosecuting war crimes
Following the Nuremberg Trials international law developed the concept of command responsibility. It holds that military commanders are imposed with individual responsibility for war crimes, committed by forces under their effective command and control, they failed to prevent or adequately prosecute, if they:
"either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes."
Some offences require acts
Some offences appear to be capable of commission only by positive acts, e.g. s4 Criminal Law Act 1967 acting with intent to prevent the apprehension of an offender, or Protection from Eviction Act 1977 "doing acts likely to interfere with the peace and comfort of a residential occupier" albeit that in R v Yuthiwattana (1985) 80 Cr. App. R. 55, a landlord's failure to replace a lost key was held an "act" of harassment against a tenant.
A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.
In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. However, such a duty may arise in two situations:
A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Emergency workers (firefighters, emergency medical technicians, etc.) have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. DC that the police have no duty to protect any citizen not in custody, and cannot be sued for their failure to protect.
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.
Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.
Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.
Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.
Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.
In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person. These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.
Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with reasonable care, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have limited or removed liability from rescuers in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuer need not endanger himself in conducting the rescue.
U.S. example
In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.
Civil law
Many civil law systems, which are common in Continental Europe, Latin America and much of Africa impose a far more extensive duty to rescue. The only exclusion is that the person must not endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue.
This can mean that if a person finds someone in need of medical help, he or she must take all reasonable steps to seek medical care and render best-effort first aid. Commonly, the situation arises on an event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take an action to help the injured without regard to possible personal reasons not to help (e.g. having no time, being in a hurry) or ascertain that help has been requested from officials. In practice however, almost all cases of compulsory rescue simply require the rescuer to alert the relevant entity (police, fire brigade, ambulance) with a phone call.
Criminal law
In some countries, there exists a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put themselves or others in harm's way. Citizens are often required to, at minimum, call the local emergency number, unless doing so would be harmful, in which case the authorities should be contacted when the harmful situation has been removed. As of 2012, there were such laws in countries, including Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, and Switzerland.
Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Crimes may also result in cautions, rehabilitation or be unenforced. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently, in different localities (state, local, international), at different time stages of the so-called "crime", from planning, disclosure, supposedly intended, supposedly prepared, incomplete, complete or future proclaimed after the "crime".
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Modern societies generally regard crimes as offences against the public or the state, as distinguished from torts (wrongs against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action).
Crime in the social and legal framework is the set of facts or assumptions (causes, consequences and objectives) that are part of a case in which they were committed acts punishable under criminal law, and the application of which depends on the agent of a sentence or security measure criminal. Usually includes a felony violation of a criminal rule or act against law, in particular at the expense of people or moral. A crime may be illegal (as is the cause of evil or injury) or perfectly legal (when the act done is not a necessary consequence of the conduct of the agent but determined by others). Illegal and punishable crime is the violation of any rule of administrative, fiscal or criminal liability on the part of agents of the state or practice of any wrongdoing and notoriously harmful to self or against third parties, provided for in criminal law, since they practiced with guilt (the first act that causes injury criminal actions or omissions to produce adequate evidence also illegal). Legal and not punishable crime are all acts in self-defense or otherwise determined by the illegal or criminal conduct of others that happened in the first place (or omission adequate to protect the staff member who is a victim of illegal crime).
A police caution is a formal alternative to prosecution in minor cases, administered by the police and other law enforcement agencies in England and Wales, and in Hong Kong. It is commonly used to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution.
A police caution administered for the purpose of disposing of a criminal offense should not be confused with the caution used for the purpose of advising a suspect of their right to silence. A police caution (more properly known as a simple caution) is given by the police and is a non-statutory disposal for adult offenders.
The purposes of a formal police caution are:
to allow the police and crown prosecution service in the case of large criminal cases to deal quickly with low to mid level offenders allowing time and resources to be focused on the most serious offenders;
to deal quickly and simply with less serious offenders;
to divert them from unnecessary appearance in the criminal courts; and
to reduce the chances of their re-offending.
Types of cautions
As a result of changes made by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, cautions can be administered in two forms: as a simple caution or as a conditional caution, which has specific conditions attached that the offender must satisfy—attending a course aimed at targeting offending behaviour, for example. The Home Office has released guidance to the police and prosecutors on the use of the simple caution.
Circumstances for use
According to the Home Office, a police caution is a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences, such as vandalism or petty theft. According to the Magistrates' Association, a minor offence is one triable only summarily. Cautions are not given to young offenders (those aged 17 and under), who instead are given 'reprimands' and 'final warnings'.
According to the Home Office, a police caution does form a part of a person's criminal record. A caution may adversely affect both employment and travel prospects. A caution may be considered in court in the event of the offender being tried for a similar offence. A caution remains in police records along with photographs, fingerprints and any other samples taken at the time, although cautions (including reprimands and warnings) are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). Simple cautions normally expire after 5 years whereas conditional cautions expire after the designated conditions are met. Although simple cautions can show up on CRB checks, records of simple cautions may be deleted after five years if no convictions are on record, although records are often retained longer or indefinitely in practice.
A caution is intended to act as a first official warning and to deter people from getting involved in crime.
As of 2008, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has been extended to cover police cautions, which are thereof considered to be expunged (spent) as soon as they are given.
Police and other enforcement agencies such as Local Authorities and Government departments have the power to administer a simple caution, while conditional cautions only be administered only by the police or a person authorised by a relevant prosecutor. However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has a role to play in helping the police to ensure that the Home Office Guidelines on the Cautioning of Offenders are applied consistently and fairly.
CPS officers are instructed to refer to the police any case in which they consider a caution is the appropriate way of handling the offence. Where the CPS remains satisfied that a caution is appropriate but the police refuse to administer one, the CPS guidance recommends that the case is not accepted for the prosecution.
In order to safeguard the offender's interests, the following conditions must be met before a caution can be administered:
there must be evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction;
the offender must admit the offence;
the offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being cautioned.
Where the available evidence does not meet the standard normally required to bring a prosecution, a caution cannot be administered. A caution will not be appropriate where a person does not make a clear and reliable admission of the offence (for example if intent is denied or there are doubts about his mental health or intellectual capacity).
The Home Office recommends that cautions should never be used for the most serious offences (indictable-only offences). However, cautions are given for indictable-only offences. The CPS suggests that this might be a result of the police issuing a caution for the offence that was reported or first suspected, rather than the offence that is revealed by the evidence at the end of the investigation. However, a caution must be administered and recorded for the correct offence, that is, for the offence revealed by the evidence. The CPS goes on to say that it will only be in rare circumstances that a caution will be a suitable disposition for an indictable offence.
Cautions can be administered in the case of an offence that is triable either-way or summarily.
Rehabilitation means "to restore to useful life, as through therapy and education" or "to restore to good condition, operation, or capacity".
The assumption of rehabilitation is that people are not permanently criminal and that it is possible to restore a criminal to a useful life, to a life in which they contribute to themselves and to society. A goal of rehabilitation is to prevent habitual offending, also known as criminal recidivism. Rather than punishing the harm out of a criminal, rehabilitation would seek, by means of education or therapy, to bring a criminal into a more peaceful state of mind, or into an attitude which would be helpful to society, rather than be harmful to society.
This theory of punishment is based on the notion that punishment is to be inflicted on an offender so as to reform him/her, or rehabilitate them so as to make their re-integration into society easier. Punishments that are in accordance with this theory are community service, probation orders, and any form of punishment which entails any form of guidance and aftercare towards the offender.
This theory is founded on the belief that one cannot inflict a severe punishment of imprisonment and expect the offender to be reformed and to be able to re-integrate into society upon his/her release. Indeed, the United States Code states that sentencing judges shall make imprisonment decisions "recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation". Although the importance of inflicting punishment on those persons who breach the law, so as to maintain social order, is retained, the importance of rehabilitation is also given priority. Humanitarians have, over the years, supported rehabilitation as an alternative, even for capital punishment.
Practical difficulties
Rehabilitation theories present however the following deficiencies:
First, there is no sound scientific research to determine how different individuals react to the same rehabilitating methods.
Second, rehabilitation may depend more decisively on the individual psychological background, hence on his particular motives to commit crimes, than on the rehabilitating methods or philosophy.
Third, a rehabilitation program may prove to be too costly and complex to be successfully implemented and utilized in most countries.
Finally, rehabilitation must refer to the sociological findings on the socialization and resocialization processes, as change in lifelong socially acquired patterns of behavior and values entails a much more complex – and sometime traumatic – change on the individual's structure of character.
Psychopathy and recidivism
Criminal recidivism is highly correlated with psychopathy. The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions.
Findings indicate psychopathic prisoners have a 2.5 time higher probability of being released from jail than undiagnosed ones, even though they are more likely to recidivate.
It has been shown that punishment and behavior modification techniques do not improve the behavior of a psychopath. Psychopathic individuals have been regularly observed to become more cunning and better able to hide their behaviour. It has been suggested by them traditional therapeutic approaches actually make psychopaths if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable.
Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behavior.
A habitual offender is a person who is convicted of a new crime, who was previously convicted of a crime(s). Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.
The nature, scope and type of habitual offender statutes vary, but generally they apply when a person has been convicted twice for various crimes. Some codes may differentiate between classes of crimes (for example, some codes only deal with violent crime) and the length of time between convictions. Usually the sentence is greatly enhanced, in some circumstances it may be substantially more than the maximum sentence for the crime.
Habitual offender laws may provide for mandatory sentencing - in which a minimum sentence must be imposed, or may allow judicial discretion in allowing the court to determine a proper sentence. One example of a habitual offender statute is a provision requiring the revocation of a driver's license for a person convicted multiple times of driving under the influence
The practice of imposing longer prison sentences on repeat offenders than on first-time offenders who commit the same crime is not an innovation. For example, New York has a persistent felony offender law that dates back to the late 19th century. These early habitual offender laws did not provide for mandatory sentencing.
Recidivism (pron.: /rɨˈsɪdɨvɪzəm/; from recidive + ism, from Latin recidīvus "recurring", from re- "back" + cadō "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested.
The term is most frequently used in conjunction with criminal behavior and substance abuse (often synonymous with "relapse" - more commonly used in medicine and in the disease model of addiction). For example, scientific literature may refer to the recidivism of sexual offenders, meaning the frequency with which they are detected or apprehended committing additional sexual crimes after being released from prison for similar crimes.
Criminal recidivism is highly correlated with psychopathy. The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions.
To be counted as recidivism, the re-offending requires voluntary disclosure of arrest and conviction, so the real recidivism rate may differ substantially from reported rates. As another example, alcoholic recidivism might refer to the proportion of people who, after successful treatment, report having, or are determined to have, returned to the abuse of alcohol.
The effect of incarceration on former prisoners has been a very common topic of discussion for many years. In most cases, it is believed that many prisoners will find themselves right back where they started, in jail. In the United States, 53% of arrested males and 39% of arrested females are re-incarcerated (2003).
In recent history, the rate of incarceration in the U.S. has increased dramatically, resulting in prisons being filled to capacity with bad conditions and environment for inmates. In many prisons, crime continues inside the prison walls. Gangs exist and flourish on the inside, often with many key tactical decisions being made by leaders who are in jail.
While the U.S. Justice System has traditionally focused its efforts at the front end of the system, by locking people up, it has not exerted an equal effort at the tail end of the system: decreasing the likelihood of reoffending among formerly incarcerated persons. This is a significant issue because ninety-five percent of prisoners will be released back into the community at some point.
According to a national study, within 3 years almost 7 out of 10 released males will be rearrested and half will be back in prison. The study says this happens due to personal and situation characteristics, including the individual’s social environment of peers, family, community, and state-level policies.
Many other things need to be taken into consideration as well, such as the individual’s circumstances before incarceration, the things that happened while they were incarcerated, and the period after they are released from prison, both immediate and long term.
One of the main reasons why they find themselves back in jail is because it is difficult for the individual to fit back in with ‘normal’ life. They have to reestablish ties with their family, return to high-risk places and secure formal identification; they often have a poor work history and now have a criminal record to deal with. Many prisoners report being anxious about their release; they are excited about how their life will be different “this time” which does not always end up being the case.
At the most direct and personal level, those who have the greatest stake in recidivism are: the formerly incarcerated person; their family (especially children); the victim of the crime they were re-incarcerated for (if there was one); and those employed by the justice system (from police, to parole officers, to jail guards, to those who build and profit from prisons, etc.). More broadly, however, recidivism affects everyone. Crime is a problem in every community (though some more so than others) and anyone can be a victim. Victimization can take many forms— from being directly injured in a violent crime, to being robbed, to having your sense of safety violated as result of living in an area where crime exists. Furthermore, all taxpayers are greatly impacted by the economic costs of crime.
Psychopathic prisoners have a 2.5 times higher probability of being released from jail than undiagnosed ones, even though they are more likely to recidivate.
Punishment and behavior modification techniques do not improve the behavior of a psychopath. Psychopathic individuals have been regularly observed to become more cunning and better able to hide their behaviour. It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually create psychopaths, if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable.
Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.
Drug-Related Crime
Of federal inmates in 2010, about half (51%) were serving time for drug offenses and many others likely committed crimes under the influence of one or more drugs, over drug-related disputes (turf battles etc.), or in order to obtain money to buy drugs—factors which were not necessarily cited in their charges.
It is estimated that three quarters of those returning from prison have a history of substance abuse. Over 70 percent of prisoners with serious mental illnesses also have a substance use disorder. Nevertheless, only 7 to 17 percent of prisoners who meet DSM criteria for alcohol/drug dependence or abuse receive treatment in jail or prison.
Those involved in the criminal justice system have rates of substance abuse and dependence that are more than four times higher than the general population and fewer than 20 percent of federal and state prisoners who meet the criteria receive treatment.
Effectiveness-Studies have shown that inmates who participate in residential treatment programs while incarcerated have 9 to 18 percent lower recidivism rates and 15 to 35 percent lower drug relapse rates than their counterparts who receive no treatment in prison.
Classification and categorization of crime
Categorisation by type
The following classes of offences are used, or have been used, as legal terms of art:
Offence against the person
Violent offence
Sexual offence
Offence against property
Researchers and commentators have classified crimes into the following categories, in addition to those above:
Forgery, personation and cheating
Firearms and offensive weapons
Offences against the State/Offences against the Crown and Government/Political offences
Harmful or dangerous drugs
Offences against religion and public worship
Offences against public justice/Offences against the administration of public justice
Public order offence
Commerce, financial markets and insolvency
Offences against public morals and public policy
Motor vehicle offences
Conspiracy, incitement and attempt to commit crime
Inchoate offence
Juvenile Delinquency
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, aka either-way offence in England and Wales
Summary offence, aka 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
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. 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 categorised 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.
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.
Crimes in international law
Crimes defined by treaty as crimes against international law include:
Crimes against peace
Crimes of apartheid
Forced disappearance
Sexual 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.
Popular opinion in the Western World and Former Soviet Union often[when?] associates international law with the concept of opposing terrorism— seen as a crime as distinct from warfare.
Religion and crime
Religious sentiment often becomes a contributory factor of crime. 1819 anti-Jewish riots in Frankfurt where 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
Occupational crime
Two common types of employee crime exist: embezzlement and sabotage.
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.
Most people guilty of embezzlement do not have criminal histories. Embezzlers tend to have a gripe against their employer, have financial problems, or simply an inability to resist the temptation of a loophole they have found. Screening and background checks on perspective employees can help in prevention; however, many laws make some types of screening difficult or even illegal. Fired or disgruntled employees sometimes sabotage their company's computer system as a form of "pay back". This sabotage may take the form of a logic bomb, a computer virus, or creating general havoc.
Some places of employment have developed measures in an attempt to combat and prevent employee crime. Places of employment sometimes implement security measures such as cameras, fingerprint records of employees, and background checks. Although privacy-advocates have questioned such methods, they appear to serve the interests of the organisations using them. Not only do these methods help prevent employee crime, but they protect the company from punishment and/or lawsuits for negligent hiring.
Offence against the person
In criminal law, an offence against the person usually refers to a crime which is committed by direct physical harm or force being applied to another person.
They are usually analysed by division into the following categories:
Fatal offences
Sexual offences
Non-fatal non-sexual offences
They can be further analysed by division into:
And it is then possible to consider degrees and aggravations, and distinguish between intentional actions (e.g., assault) and criminal negligence (e.g., criminal endangerment).
Offences against the person are usually taken to comprise:
Fatal offences
Non-fatal non-sexual offences
Assault, or common assault
Battery, or common battery
Wounding or wounding with intent
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (and derivative offences)
Inflicting grievous bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm with intent (and derivative offences)
The crimes are usually grouped together in common law countries as a legacy of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Although most sexual offences will also be offences against the person, for various reasons (including sentencing and registration of offenders) sexual crimes are usually categorised separately. Similarly, although many homicides also involve an offence against the person, they are usually categorised under the more serious category.
A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, (including criminal ends) such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all reported violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime.
This article examines how human sexuality and sexual behavior interact with, and are regulated by, laws. In general, laws proscribe acts which are considered either sexual abuse or behavior that societies consider to be inappropriate and against the social norms. In addition, certain categories of activity may be considered crimes even if freely consented to. Sex laws vary from place to place, and over time, and sexual acts which are prohibited by law in a jurisdiction are also called sex crimes.
Custom and tradition are the most frequently cited reasons for female genital mutilation (FGM), with the practices often being performed to exert control over the sexual behavior of girls and women or as a perceived aesthetic improvement to the appearance of their genitalia. The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of many health organizations that have campaigned against the procedures on behalf of human rights, stating that "FGM has no health benefits" and that it is "a violation of the human rights of girls and women" and "reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes".
In the United Kingdom, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 outlawed the procedure of female genital mutilation in Britain, and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 made it an offence for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on British citizens or permanent residents in the UK.
Laws regarding incest
Incest is illegal in many jurisdictions. The exact legal definition of "incest," including the nature of the relationship between persons, and the types sexual activity, varies by country, and by even individual states or provinces within a country. These laws can also extend to marriage between subject individuals.
Age of consent
While the phrase "age of consent" typically does not appear in legal statutes, when used in relation to sexual activity, the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts. This should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, or the marriageable age.
The age of consent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The median seems to range from 16 to 18 years, but laws stating ages ranging from 9 to 21 do exist. In many jurisdictions, age of consent is interpreted to mean mental or functional age. As a result, victims can be of any chronological age if their mental age is below the age of consent.
Some jurisdictions forbid sexual activity outside of legal marriage completely. The relevant age may also vary by the type of sexual act, the sex of the actors, or other restrictions such as abuse of a position of trust. Some jurisdictions may also make allowances for minors engaged in sexual acts with each other, rather than a hard and fast single age. Charges resulting from a breach of these laws may range from a relatively low-level misdemeanor such as "corruption of a minor", to "statutory rape" (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing).
Sex crimes
Sex crimes are forms of human sexual behavior that are crimes. Someone who commits one is said to be a sex offender. Some sex crimes are crimes of violence that involve sex. Others are violations of social taboos, such as incest, sodomy, indecent exposure or exhibitionism. There is much variation among cultures as to what is considered a crime or not, and in what ways or to what extent crimes are punished.
Western cultures are often far more tolerant of acts, such as oral sex, that have traditionally been held to be crimes in some cultures, but combine this with lesser tolerance for the remaining crimes. By contrast, many cultures with a strong religious tradition consider a far broader range of activities to be serious crimes.
As a general rule, the law in many countries often intervenes in sexual activity involving young or adolescent children below the legal age of consent, non-consensual deliberate displays or illicit watching of sexual activity, sex with close relatives (incest), harm to animals, acts involving the deceased (necrophilia), and also when there is harassment, nuisance, fear, injury, or assault of a sexual nature, or serious risk of abuse of certain professional relationships. Separately, the law usually regulates or controls the censorship of pornographic or obscene material as well. A rape charge can only be issued when a person(s) of any age does not provide consent for sexual activity.
Common sex crimes
The activities listed below carry a condition of illegality in some jurisdictions if acted upon, though they may be legally role-played between consenting partners of legal age:
Rape, lust murder and other forms of sexual assault and sexual abuse
Child sexual abuse
Statutory rape
Spousal rape
Human trafficking
Frotteurism, sexual arousal through rubbing one's self against a non-consenting stranger in public
Exhibitionism and voyeurism, if deliberate and non-consensual, called "indecent exposure" and "peeping tom" respectively in this context.Incest between close relatives
Telephone scatologia, making obscene telephone calls for the purpose of sexual arousal
Sex with animals
Sexual harassment
Sexual acts by people in a position of trust (such as teachers, doctors and police officers), towards people under 18 which they are involved with professionally.Public order crimes are crimes that interrupt the flow of daily life and business according to local community standards. Public order crimes include paraphilia (deviancies).
Various paraphilias and sexual fetishes such as transvestitism
Prostitution and/or pimping
Ownership of vibrators and other sex toys
Public urination
Stealing underwear, sometimes regarded as more serious when done in a sexual context.
A variety of laws aim to protect children by making various acts with children a sex crime. For example, the "Corruption of Minors" by introducing age-inappropriate material, esp. of a sexual nature, is often a misdemeanor but can lead to a felony charge. These can include Age of Consent laws, laws preventing the exposure of children to pornography, laws making it a crime for a child to be involved in (or exposed to) certain sexual behaviors, and laws against child grooming and the production and ownership of child pornography (sometimes including simulated images). In some countries such as the UK, the age for child pornography is higher than the age of consent, hence child pornography laws also cover images involving consenting adults.
Non-consensual sadomasochistic acts may legally constitute assault, and therefore belong in this list. In addition, some jurisdictions criminalize some or all sadomasochistic acts, regardless of legal consent and impose liability for any injuries caused.
Property crime is a category of crime that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime only involves the taking of money or property, and does not involve force or threat of force against a victim. Although robbery involves taking property, it is classified as a violent crime, as force or threat of force on an individual that is present is involved in contrast to burglary which is typically of an unoccupied dwelling or other unoccupied building.
Property crimes are high-volume crimes, with cash, electronics (e.g. televisions), power tools, cameras, and jewelry often targeted. "Hot products" tend to be items that are concealable, removable, available, valuable, and enjoyable, with an ease of "disposal" being the most important characteristic.
Types of property crime
Burglary of residences, retail establishments, and other commercial facilities involves breaking and entering, and stealing property. Attempted forcible entry into a property is also classified as burglary, in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) definition.
As of 1999, there were 1.4 million residential burglaries reported in the United States, which was a record low number, not seen since 1966. Though, up to 50% of burglaries are not reported to the police. The clearance rate for burglary is low, with only 12.7% of cases being solved in the United States in 2005, and 23% in the United Kingdom.
In the United States, burglary rates are highest in August and lowest in February, with weather, length-of-day, and other factors having an effect on rates. Fall and Winter are peak seasons for burglary in Denmark. Most residential burglaries occur on weekdays, between 10-11 a.m. and 1-3 p.m, when homes are the least likely to be occupied. The temporal pattern is reversed for non-residential burglaries, which are more likely to occur at night and on weekends when commercial premises are unattended.
Burglary at single-family home construction sites is an increasing problem in the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, and Japan, and elsewhere in the world, with burglary of tools and equipment at residential subdivision construction sites comprising between 5 and 20 percent of building costs. In the United States, equipment worth $300 million to $1 billion is stolen each year. Large-scale tract developers are hardest hit by this form of crime.
Distraction burglary is a form of burglary where the offender(s) trick or dupe the occupant or distract them, allowing co-offender(s) to gain access and commit burglary. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to distraction burglary.
Some crime prevention programs, such as Neighborhood Watch, have shown little effectiveness in reducing burglary and other crime, though can be effective when at least some community participants are home during the weekdays, thus avoiding any large gaps in the Neighborhood Watch during the peak residential property crime hours of 10am to 11am and 1pm to 3pm.
Theft of cash is most common, over everything else, followed by vehicle parts, clothing, and tools.
In 2005, only 18% of reported cases of larceny/theft were cleared in the United States.
Shoplifting is a specific type of theft, with products taken from retail shops without paying. Items popular with shoplifters include cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and fashionable clothing.
Motor vehicle theft
Motor vehicle theft is a common form of property crime, often perpetrated by youths for joyriding. The FBI includes attempted motor vehicle thefts in its Uniform Crime Report (UCR) definition. About 15-20% of motor vehicle thefts are committed for their auto parts or with an intent of re-selling them on the black market. Crime prevention and target-hardening measures, such as car alarms and ignition locks, have been effective deterrents against motor vehicle theft, as have been practices such as etching VINs on car parts.
Only 13% of reported motor vehicle theft cases were cleared in the United States in 2005.
Some car types are more popular with thieves, with sports cars often being preferred by those stealing cars for joyriding. Sport utility vehicles also have higher rates of theft, with the Cadillac Escalade cited in 2003 by the Highway Data Loss Institute as having the most frequent theft claims in the United States.
Construction vehicles are also often stolen, as they can easily be re-sold in the second-hand market.
Arson involves any intentional fire setting or attempting to set fire. A frequent motive for arson is insurance fraud, with the fire staged to appear accidental. Other motives for arson include desire to commit vandalism or mischief, for thrill or excitement, for revenge, to conceal other crimes, or as a hate crime.
Public-order crime
In criminology, public-order crime is defined by Siegel (2004) as "...crime which involves acts that interfere with the operations of society and the ability of people to function efficiently", i.e. it is behaviour that has been labelled criminal because it is contrary to shared norms, social values, and customs. Robertson (1989:123) maintains that a crime is nothing more than " act that contravenes a law." Generally speaking, deviancy is criminalized when it is too disruptive and has proved uncontrollable through informal sanctions.
Public order crime should be distinguished from political crime. In the former, although the identity of the "victim" may be indirect and sometimes diffuse, it is cumulatively the community that suffers, whereas in a political crime, the state perceives itself to be the victim and criminalizes the behaviour it considers threatening. Thus, public order crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime. It asserts the need to use the law to maintain order both in the legal and moral sense. Public order crime is now the preferred term by proponents as against the use of the word "victimless" based on the idea that there are secondary victims (family, friends, acquaintances, and society at large) that can be identified.
For example, in cases where a criminal act subverts or undermines the commercial effectiveness of normative business practices, the negative consequences extend beyond those at whom the specific immediate harm was intended. Similarly, in environmental law, there are offences that do not have a direct, immediate and tangible victim, so crimes go largely unreported and unprosecuted because of the problem of lack of victim awareness. In short, there are no clear, unequivocal definitions of 'consensus', 'harm', 'injury', 'offender', and 'victim'. Such judgments are always informed by contestable, epistemological, moral, and political assumptions.
In public order crimes, there are many instances of criminality where a person is accused because he/she has made a personal choice to engage in an activity of which society disapproves, e.g. private recreational drug use. Thus, there is continuing political debate on criminalization versus decriminalization, focusing on whether it is appropriate to use punishment to enforce the various public policies that regulate the nominated behaviours. After all, society could deal with unpopular behaviour without invoking criminal or other legal processes.
Following the work of Schur (1965), the types of crime usually referred to include the sexually based offences of prostitution, paraphilia (i.e., sexual practices considered deviant), underage sex, and pornography; and the offences involving substance abuse which may or may not involve some element of public disorder or danger to the public as in driving while intoxicated. Since 1965, however, societal views have changed greatly, for example, prostitution, often considered a victimless crime, is classified by some countries as a form of exploitation of women—such views are held in Sweden, Norway and Iceland, where it is illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute), see Prostitution in Sweden.
When deciding whether harm to innocent individuals should be prohibited, the moral and political beliefs held by those in power interact and inform the decisions to create or repeal crimes without apparent victims. These decisions change over time as moral standards change. For example, Margaret Sanger who founded the first birth control clinic in New York City was accused of distributing obscene material and violating public morals. Information about birth control is no longer considered obscene (see the U.S. case law examples). Within the context of a discussion (Feinberg: 1984) on whether governments should regulate public morals in the interest of the public good, Meier & Geis (1997) identify which social problems might be deemed appropriate for legal intervention and the extent to which the criminal law should enforce moral positions which may lack societal consensus.
This reflects a more fundamental problem of legal consistency. People have the right to engage in some self-destructive activities. For all its carcinogenic qualities, tobacco is not a prohibited substance. Similarly, the excessive consumption of alcohol can have severe physical consequences, but it is not a crime to consume it. This is matched in gambling. The state and its institutions often rely on lotteries, raffles, and other legal forms of gambling for operating funds, whether directly or indirectly through the taxation of profits from casinos and other licensed outlets. Qualitatively, there is nothing to distinguish the forms of gambling deemed illegal. A side effect of turning too many people into criminals is that the concept of crime becomes blurred and genuine criminality becomes less unacceptable. If the key distinction between real crime and moral regulation is not made clearly, as more consensual activities become crimes, ordinary citizens are criminalized for tax-evasion, illegal downloading, and other voluntary rule-breaking. A further perceptual problem emerges when laws remain in force but are obviously not enforced, i.e. the police reflect the consensus view that the activity should not be a crime. Alternatively, if the activities prohibited are consensual and committed in private, this offers incentives to the organizers to offer bribes in exchange for diverting enforcement resources or to overlooking discovered activity, thereby encouraging political and police corruption. Thus, any deterrent message that the state might wish to send is distorted or lost.
More generally, political parties find it easier to talk dismissively about crimes if they are classified as victimless because their abolition or amendment looks to have fewer economic and political costs, i.e. the use of the word "victimless" implies that there are no injuries caused by these crimes (Robertson 1989:125) and, if that is true, then there is no need to create or retain the criminal offences. This may reflect a limited form of reality that, in the so-called "victimless crimes", there are no immediate victims to make police reports and those who engage in the given behaviour regard the law as inappropriate, not themselves. This has two consequences:
because these crimes often take place in private, comprehensive law enforcement (often including entrapment and the use of agent provocateurs) would consume an enormous amount of resources. It is therefore convenient for the law enforcement agencies to classify a crime as victimless because that is used as a justification for devoting fewer resources as against crimes where there are "real" victims to protect; and
these crimes usually involve something desirable where large profits can be made, e.g. drugs or sex.
Why criminalize?
Criminalization is intended as a pre-emptive, harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to those proposing to engage in the behaviour causing harm. The state becomes involved because the costs of not criminalizing (i.e. allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalizing it (i.e. restricting individual liberty and so minimising harm to others). The process of criminalization should be controlled by the state because:
Victims or witnesses of crimes might be deterred from taking any action if they fear retaliation. Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit reporting or co-operation in a trial.
The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while being indifferent to the more general need for deterrence: see Polinsky & Shavell (1997) on the fundamental divergence between the private and the social motivation for using the legal system.
Even if the victims recognize that they are victims, they may not have the resources to investigate and seek legal redress for the injuries suffered: the enforcers formally appointed by the state have the expertise and the resources.
Victims do not have economies of scale to administer a penal system, let alone collect any fines levied by a court (see Polinsky (1980) on the enforcement of fines). But Garoupa & Klerman (2002) warn that a rent-seeking government's primary motivation is to maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient wealth, a rent-seeking government is more aggressive 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 lax in enforcing laws against major crimes.
The hidden crime factor
Because most of these crimes take place in private or with some degree of secrecy, it is difficult to establish the true extent of the crime. The "victims" are not going to report it and arrest statistics are unreliable indicators of prevalence, often varying in line with local political pressure to "do something" about a local problem rather than reflecting the true incidence of criminal activity. In addition to the issue of police resources and commitment, many aspects of these activities are controlled by organized crime and are therefore more likely to remain hidden. These factors are used to argue for decriminalization. Low or falling arrest statistics are used to assert that the incidence of the relevant crimes is low or now under control. Alternatively, keeping some of these "vices" as crimes simply keeps organized crime in business.
White-collar crime
White-collar crime is financially-motivated nonviolent crime committed for illegal monetary gain. Within criminology, it was first defined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation". Sutherland was a proponent of symbolic interactionism and believed that criminal behavior was learned from interpersonal interactions. White-collar crime is similar to corporate crime as white-collar employees are more likely to commit fraud, bribery, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, embezzlement, cybercrime, copyright infringement, money laundering, identity theft, and forgery.
Victimology is the study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system — that is, the police and courts, and corrections officials — and the connections between victims and other social groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social movements. Victimology is however not restricted to the study of victims of crime alone but may include other forms of human rights violations.
Victimisation (or victimization) is the process of being victimised or becoming a victim. Research that studies the process, rates, incidence, and prevalence of victimisation falls under the body of victimology.
victim (plural victims)
(original sense) A living creature which is slain and offered as human or animal sacrifice, usually in a religious rite; by extension, the transfigurated body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
Anyone who is harmed by another.An aggrieved or disadvantaged party in a crime (e.g. swindle.)
A person who suffers any other injury, loss, or damage as a result of a voluntary undertaking.An unfortunate person who suffers from a disaster or other adverse circumstance.
Narratology. A character who is conquered or manipulated by a villain.
Peer victimisation is the experience among children of being a target of the aggressive behaviour of other children, who are not siblings and not necessarily age-mates.
Secondary victimisationSecondary victimisation (also known as post crime victimisation or double victimisation) relates to further victimisation following on from the original victimisation. For example, victim blaming, inappropriate post-assault behaviour or language by medical personnel or other organisations with which the victim has contact may further add to the victim's suffering. Victims may also experience secondary victimisation by justice system personnel upon entering the criminal justice system. Victims will lose time, suffer reductions in income, often be ignored by bailiffs and other courthouse staff and will remain uninformed about updates in the case such as hearing postponements, to the extent that their frustration and confusion will turn to apathy and a declining willingness to further participate in system proceedings.
For example, rape is especially stigmatising in cultures with strong customs and taboos regarding sex and sexuality. For example, a rape victim (especially one who was previously a virgin) may be viewed by society as being "damaged." Victims in these cultures may suffer isolation, be disowned by friends and family, be prohibited from marrying, or be divorced if already married.
The re-traumatisation of the sexual assault, abuse, or rape victim through the responses of individuals and institutions is an example of secondary victimisation. Secondary victimisation is especially common in cases of drug-facilitated, acquaintance, and statutory rape.
RevictimisationThe term revictimisation refers to a pattern wherein the victim of abuse and/or crime has a statistically higher tendency to be victimised again, either shortly thereafter or much later in adulthood in the case of abuse as a child. This latter pattern is particularly notable in cases of sexual abuse. While an exact percentage is almost impossible to obtain, samples from many studies suggest the rate of revictimisation for people with histories of sexual abuse is very high. The vulnerability to victimisation experienced as an adult is also not limited to sexual assault, and may include physical abuse as well.
Reasons as to why revictimisation occurs vary by event type, and some mechanisms are unknown. Revictimisation in the short term is often the result of risk factors that were already present, which were not changed or mitigated after the first victimisation; sometimes the victim cannot control these factors. Examples of these risk factors include living or working in dangerous areas, chaotic familial relations, having an aggressive temperament, drug or alcohol usage and unemployment.
Revictimisation of adults who were previously sexually abused as children is more complex. Multiple theories exist as to how this functions. Some scientists propose a maladaptive form of learning; the initial abuse teaches inappropriate beliefs and behaviours that persist into adulthood. The victim believes that abusive behaviour is "normal" and comes to expect it from others in the context of relationships, and thus may unconsciously seek out abusive partners or cling to abusive relationships. Another theory draws on the principle of learned helplessness. As children, they are put in situations that they have little to no hope of escaping, especially when the abuse comes from a caregiver. One theory goes that this state of being unable to fight back or flee the danger leaves the last primitive option: freeze, an off-shoot of death-feigning. In adulthood, this response remains, and some professionals have noted that victimisers sometimes seem to pick up subtle cues of this when choosing a victim. This behaviour makes the victim an easy target, as they sometimes make little effort to fight back or even vocalise. And after the fact, they often make excuses and minimise what happened to them, sometimes never even reporting the assault to the authorities.
Self-victimisationVictim playing
Self-victimisation (or victim playing) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking.
Self-image of victimisation (victim mentality)
Victims of abuse and manipulation often get trapped into a self-image of victimisation. The psychological profile of victimisation includes a pervasive sense of helplessness, passivity, loss of control, pessimism, negative thinking, strong feelings of guilt, shame, self-blame and depression. This way of thinking can lead to hopelessness and despair.
In criminology and criminal law, a victim of a crime is an identifiable person who has been harmed individually and directly by the perpetrator, rather than by society as a whole. However, this may not always be the case, as with victims of white collar crime, who may not be clearly identifiable or directly linked to crime against a particular individual. Victims of white collar crime are often denied their status as victims by the social construction of the concept (Croall, 2001). Not all criminologists accept the concept of victimization or victimology. The concept also remains a controversial topic within women's studies.
The Supreme Court of the United States first recognized the rights of crime victims to make a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial in the case of Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808 (1991).
A victim impact panel is a form of community-based or restorative justice in which the crime victims (or relatives and friends of deceased crime victims) meet with the defendant after conviction to tell the convict about how the criminal activity affected them, in the hope of rehabilitation or deterrence.
Consequences of crimes
Emotional distress as the result of crime is a recurring theme for all victims of crime. The most common problem, affecting three quarters of victims, were psychological problems, including: fear, anxiety, nervousness, self-blame, anger, shame, and difficulty sleeping. These problems often result in the development of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Post crime distress is also linked to pre-existing emotional problems and sociodemographic variables. This has been known to become a leading case of the elderly to be more adversely affected.(Ferraro, 1995)
Victims may experience the following psychological reactions:
Increase in the belief of personal vulnerability.
The perception of the world as meaningless and incomprehensible.The view of themselves in a negative light.The experience of victimization may result in an increasing fear of the victim of the crime, and the spread of fear in the community.
Victim facilitation, another controversial sub-topic, but a more accepted theory than victim blaming, finds its roots in the writings of criminologists such as Marvin Wolfgang. The choice to use victim facilitation as opposed to “victim blaming” or some other term is that victim facilitation is not blaming the victim, but rather the interactions of the victim that make him/her vulnerable to a crime.
While victim facilitation relates to “victim blaming” the idea behind victim facilitation is to study the elements that make a victim more accessible or vulnerable to an attack. In an article that summarizes the major movements in victimology internationally, Schneider expresses victim facilitation as a model that ultimately describes only the misinterpretation of victim behavior of the offender. It is based upon the theory of a symbolic interaction and does not alleviate the offender of his/her exclusive responsibility.
In Eric Hickey’s Serial Murderers and their Victims, a major analysis of 329 serial killers in America is conducted. As part of Hickey’s analysis, he categorized victims as high, low, or mixed regarding the victim’s facilitation of the murder. Categorization was based upon lifestyle risk (example, amount of time spent interacting with strangers), type of employment, and their location at the time of the killing (example, bar, home or place of business). Hickey found that 13-15% of victims had high facilitation, 60-64% of victims had low facilitation and 23-25% of victims had a combination of high and low facilitation. Hickey also noted that among serial killer victims after 1975, one in five victims placed themselves at risk either by hitchhiking, working as a prostitute or involving themselves in situations in which they often came into contact with strangers.
There is importance in studying and understanding victim facilitation as well as continuing to research it as a sub-topic of victimization. For instance, a study of victim facilitation increases public awareness, leads to more research on victim-offender relationship, and advances theoretical etiologies of violent crime. One of the ultimate purposes of this type of knowledge is to inform the public and increase awareness so fewer people become victims. Another goal of studying victim facilitation, as stated by Maurice Godwin, is to aid in investigations. Godwin discusses the theory of victim social networks as a concept in which one looks at the areas of highest risk for victimization from a serial killer. This can be connected to victim facilitation because the victim social networks are the locations in which the victim is most vulnerable to the serial killer. Using this process, investigators can create a profile of places where the serial killer and victim both frequent.
Descriptive and prescriptive
Descriptive law is when it describes how people, or even natural phenomena, ussually behave.
Prescriptive law – it prescribes how people ought to behave. For example, the speed limits imposed upon drivers are laws that prescribe how fast we should drive. They rarely describe how fast we actually do drive.
Social morality, rules and law
Prescriptive law regulates relations between people. Some of them are customs – informal rules of social and moral behavior. Customs are not made by government and are not written down. Sometimes we break these rules and suffer any penalty. Other member of society may ridicule us, criticize us or act violently toward us when we break these rules or one important of them. The rules of social institutions tend to be more formal then customs, carrying precise penalties for those who break them. Governments, making laws for their citizens, use system of courts backed by the power of the police to enforce these laws. There are two kinds of prosecution in many countries: a) to conduct a civil action against somebody, demanding compensation for his injury and getting his claim enforced by a court of law; b) police might also start an action against someone for a crime or violence. If found guilty, he/she might be sent to prison, or might be made to pay a fine to the court. Making and enforcing laws government have motives. Without laws there would be anarchy in society. Second purpose is the implementation of justice. Sometimes laws are simply an attempt to implement common sense. Common sense is not such a simple matter. It becomes clear because in order to be enforced, common sense needs to be defined in law and definitions written down. The laws differ in variuous countries. It makes difficulties to write a general introductory book about the law today.
Particular country has particular legal system. There two kinds of law in the world. New of them is based on English Common law, and has been adopted by many Commonwealth countries and most of the US. Another, sometimes known as Continental law, or Roman law, has developed in most of continental Europe, Latin America and many countries in Asia and Africa which have been influenced by Europe. Continental law has also influenced Japan and several socialist countries.
Common law systems
By doctrine of precedent, judges attempted to apply existing customs and laws to each new case, rather than looking to the government to write new laws. If the essential elements of a case were the same as those decision regarding guilt or innocence. If no precedent could be found, then the judge made decision based upon existing legal principles, and his decision would become a precedent for other courts to follow when a similar case arose. The doctrine of precedent is still a central feature of modern common law system. Equity is another important feature of the common law tradition. The courts of common law and of equity existed alongside each other for centuries. In England people were dissatisfied with the inflexibility or the common law, and this practice developed of appealing directly to the king or to his chief legal administrator (lord chancellor). As the lord chancellor’s court became more willing to modify existing common law in order to solve disputes; a new system of law developed alongside the common law. Rights that were not enforced as common law but which were considered “equitable” were recognised of this system. These two systems caused some problems. A person had to begin actions in a different courts in order to get a satisfactory solution. In a breach of contract claim, a person had to seek specific performance in court of equity, and damages in a common law court. Later these two systems were unified.
Continental systems
Continental systems are known as codified legal systems. They have resulted from attempts by governments to produce a set of codes to govern every legal aspect of a citizen’s life. It was necessary to make laws that were clear and comprehensive, in order to separate the roles of legislature and judiciary. The lawmakers were influenced by the model of Canon law. It is important not to increase the differences between these two traditions of law.
Modern Japanese law
In spite of tradition of private law, the lawmaker’s of Japan decided to adopt criminal and civil codes closely based on the Continental law. And new codes of law developed under the postwar occupation show some influence from Anglo-American common law traditions. That is why modern Japanase law consists of two traditions of law.
Socialist legal systems
Codyfying Chinese law system comprehensively, but so far there has been just a little progress. In China, law courts are still primary regarded as political instruments. But recently, citizens in some areas have been encouraged to seek legal redress in disputes with other citizens.
Punishment (also known as discipline or penalty) is the authoritative imposition of something undesirable or unpleasant on, or the removal of something desirable or pleasant from, a person, animal, organization or entity in response to behavior deemed unacceptable by an individual, group or other entity. The authority may be either a group or a single person, and punishment may be carried out formally under a system of law or informally in other kinds of social settings such as within a family. Negative consequences that are not authorized or that are administered without a breach of rules are not considered to be punishment as defined here. The study and practice of the punishment of crimes, particularly as it applies to imprisonment, is called penology, or, often in modern texts, corrections; in this context, the punishment process is euphemistically called "correctional process". Research into punishment often includes similar research into prevention.
Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations such as isolation in order to prevent the wrongdoer's having contact with potential victims. Of the four justifications, only retribution is part of the definition of punishment and none of the other justifications is a guaranteed outcome.
If only some of the conditions included in the definition of punishment are present, descriptions other than "punishment" may be considered more accurate. Inflicting something negative, or unpleasant, on a person or animal, without authority is considered either spite or revenge rather than punishment. In addition, the word "punishment" is used as a metaphor, as when a boxer experiences "punishment" during a fight. In other situations breaking the rules may be rewarded, and is therefore without negative consequences, and so cannot be considered punishment. Finally the condition of breaking (or breaching) the rules must be satisfied to be considered punishment.
Punishments differ in the degree of severity of their unpleasantness, and may include sanctions such as reprimands, deprivations of privileges or liberty, fines, incarcerations, ostracism, the infliction of pain, and the death penalty. Corporal punishment refers to punishments in which pain is intended to be inflicted upon the transgressor. Punishments may be judged as fair or unfair in terms of their degree of reciprocity and proportionality. Punishment can be an integral part of socialization, and punishing unwanted behaviour is often part of a system of pedagogy or behavioral modification which also includes rewards.
Penology (from the Latin poena, "punishment" and the suffix -logy, "study of") is a section of criminology that deals with the philosophy and practice of various societies in their attempts to repress criminal activities, and satisfy public opinion via an appropriate treatment regime for persons convicted of criminal offenses.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines penology as "the study of the punishment of crime and prison management", and in this sense it is equivalent with corrections.
Penology is concerned with the effectiveness of those social processes devised and adopted for the prevention of crime, via the repression or inhibition of criminal intent via the fear of punishment. The study of penology therefore deals with the treatment of prisoners and the subsequent rehabilitation of convicted criminals. It also encompasses aspects of probation (rehabilitation of offenders in the community) as well as penitentiary science relating to the secure detention and retraining of offenders committed to secure institutions.
Penology concerns many topics and theories, including those concerning prisons (Prison reform, Prisoner abuse, Prisoners' rights, and Recidivism), as well as theories of the purposes of punishment (such as Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Utilitarianism). Contemporary penology concerns itself mainly with criminal rehabilitation and prison management. The word seldom applies to theories and practices of punishment in less formal environments such as parenting, school and workplace correctional measures.
A prison (from Old French prisoun), also known as gaol, is a place in which people are physically confined and usually deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal penalty that may be imposed by the state for the commission of a crime. Other terms used are penitentiary, correctional facility, remand centre, detention centre, and gaol or jail. In some legal systems some of these terms have distinct meanings.
A criminal suspect who has been charged with or is likely to be charged with criminal offense may be held on remand in prison if he or she is denied or unable to meet conditions of bail, or is unable or unwilling to post bail. A criminal defendant may also be held in prison while awaiting trial or a trial verdict. If found guilty, a defendant will be convicted and may receive a custodial sentence requiring imprisonment.As well as convicted or suspected criminals, prisons may be used for internment of those not charged with a crime. Prisons may also be used as a tool of political repression to detain political prisoners, prisoners of conscience, and "enemies of the state", particularly by authoritarian regimes. In times of war or conflict, prisoners of war may also be detained in prisons. A prison system is the organizational arrangement of the provision and operation of prisons.
Incarceration is the detention of a person in prison, typically as punishment for a crime (custodial sentence).
People are most commonly incarcerated upon suspicion or conviction of committing a crime, and different jurisdictions have differing laws governing the function of incarceration within a larger system of justice. Incarceration serves four essential purposes with regard to criminals:
to isolate criminals to prevent them from committing more crimes
to punish criminals for committing crimes
to deter others from committing crimes
to rehabilitate criminals
Incarceration rates, when measured by the United Nations, are considered distinct and separate from the imprisonment of political prisoners and others not charged with a specific crime. Historically, the frequency of imprisonment, its duration, and severity have varied considerably. There has also been much debate about the motives for incarceration, its effectiveness and fairness, as well as debate regarding the related questions about the nature and etiology of criminal behavior.
A custodial sentence is a judicial sentence, imposing a punishment (and hence the resulting punishment itself) consisting of mandatory custody of the convict, either in prison (incarceration) or in some other closed therapeutic and/or (re)educational institution, such as a reformatory, (maximum security) psychiatry or drug detoxification (especially cold turkey). For some crimes, such as cases of child sexual abuse, a custodial sentence is almost inevitable.
Although usually not labeled as such (at hence not in the legal sense) it can be considered a type of corporal punishment, even if no further physical punishments are practiced within the institution (these can also be informal, without any rights of defense), since it constitutes a physical coercion. Indeed the technical term duress is equally used for loss of liberty and for coercion.
The concept of penal harm often induces additional elements of physical endurance.
Every other sentence and punishment is non-custodial, such as fines, judicial beatings, various mandatory but 'open' therapy and courses, restriction orders, loss or suspension of civil rights, or even suspended sentences.
Penal harm
Penal harm, an intentionally harsher form of the "deprivation of liberty", is the belief that during custodial sentences (mainly in prison or reformatory), inmates should endure additional pain and suffering, not just having their basic rights taken away, to make the punishment deliberately harder.
While this improves the desirable deterrent effect of detention, and fits the idea of retribution, its perception as cruelty rather than justice may endanger both internal security and prospects for rehabilitation and goes against the humane ideal of most human rights advocates, possibly qualifying legally as inhumane punishment, an infringement on human rights under the UN rules.
Although internal punishments, imposed by prison authorities, are not strictly penal harm as such, since they are not independent from the convict's behavior, arbitrary application and choice of cruel modes, including corporal punishment (in South East Asian countries this can include the dreaded Rotan caning), perfectly fit the rationale.
Traditional forms include
hard labor
rationed, unappetizing or even unhealthy food
various discomforts such as poor hygiene, small and overcrowded cells, hard bunks, insufficient protection against cold
long isolation, even in a dark 'hole'
sleep deprivation
humiliating procedures such as strip searches
prison rape
denial of visits, correspondence and recreation.
In recent years, penal harm has taken (among other things) the form of poor health care for inmates; this includes the denial of medicine for patients diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
It must be pointed out that many of the physical forms can also arise accidentally, as a result of understaffing, insufficient budget, or even legal considerations (such as delays deemed necessary for appeal procedures).
The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the common law adversarial system, or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against an individual accused of breaking the law.
Prosecutors are typically lawyers who possess a law degree, and are recognized as legal professionals by the court in which they intend to represent the state (the society) (that is, they have been admitted to the bar).
They usually only become involved in a criminal case once a suspect has been identified and charges need to be filed. They are typically employed by an office of the government, with safeguards in place to ensure such an office can successfully pursue the prosecution of government officials. Often, multiple offices exist in a single country, especially those countries with federal governments where sovereignty has been bifurcated or devolved in some way.
Since prosecutors are backed by the power of the state, they are usually subject to special professional responsibility rules in addition to those binding all lawyers. For example, in the United States, Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires prosecutors to "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information ... that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." Not all U.S. states adopt the model rules, however U.S. Supreme Court cases and other appellate cases have ruled that such disclosure is required. Typical sources of ethical requirements imposed on prosecutors come from appellate court opinions, state or federal court rules, and state or federal statutes (codified laws).
Directors of Public Prosecutions
In Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, Ireland and South Africa, the head of the prosecuting authority is typically known as the Director of Public Prosecutions, and is appointed, not elected. A DPP may be subject to varying degrees of control by the Attorney General, usually by a formal written directive which must be published.
In Australia, at least in the case of very serious matters, the DPP will be asked by the police, during the course of the investigation, to advise them on sufficiency of evidence, and may well be asked, if he or she thinks it proper, to prepare an application to the relevant court for search, listening device or telecommunications interception warrants.
More recent constitutions, such as South Africa's or Fiji's, tend to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the DPP.
In law, an offence is a violation of the criminal law, an act considered as having caused harm to the public, as opposed to a civil wrong, causing harm to someone under civil law. An offence, if discovered, is a likely start of criminal procedure.
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", They are further split into:
Summary offences
Indictable offences
Any given jurisdiction's definitions of the two respective terms may differ;
In some countries, USA for example, offences can be further divided into misdemeanours and felonies.
In common law usage, 'offence' differs from 'crime' in that there is typically no victim, but the action remains prohibited by statute.
A summary offence is a crime in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.
An indictment (pron.: /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-dyt-mənt), in the common law system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment.
A felony is a serious crime in some common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Many common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and replaced it with other distinctions such as between indictable offences and summary offences. A felony is generally considered to be a crime of "high seriousness", while a misdemeanor is not.
A person convicted in a court of law of a felony crime is known as a felon. In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor. The individual states may differ in this definition, using other categories as seriousness or context.
Similar to felonies in some civil law countries (Italy, etc.) are delicts, whereas in others (France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland etc.) crimes (more serious) and delicts (less serious).
In most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. The right of one accused of a felony or serious crime to have the charges reviewed for probable cause by a grand jury before being tried by a petit jury, except for certain cases tried in courts-martial, is secured by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but this has been abolished in most parts of the world.
In many common law jurisdictions (e.g. the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand), an indictable offence is an offence which can only be tried on an indictment after a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a prima facie case to answer or by a grand jury (in contrast to a summary offence). In the United States, a crime of similar severity is a felony, although it too proceeds after an indictment.
Some offences such as murder and rape are considered so serious that they can only be tried on indictment at the Crown Court where the widest range of sentencing powers is available to the judge.
The expression indictable-only offence was defined by section 51(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as originally enacted, as an offence triable only on indictment. Sections 51 and 52 of, and Schedule 3 to, that Act abolished committal proceedings for such offences and made other provisions in relation to them.
When the accused is charged with an indictable only offence, he is sent to the Crown Court for trial. The rules are different in England and Wales in respect of those under 18 years of age.
Felonies include but are not limited to the following:
Aggravated assault and/or battery;
Various forms of fraud
The manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute of certain types and/or quantities of illegal drugs;
In some states, the simple possession (possession without intent to distribute, e.g., for personal use) of certain types of illegal drugs, usually in more than a certain quantity but regardless of quantity for some drugs in some jurisdictions (such as Virginia for cocaine and heroin);
Grand larceny or grand theft, i.e., larceny or theft above a certain statutorily established value or quantity of goods; and
Vandalism on federal property.Treason;
Check fraud;
Copyright infringement;
Broadly, felonies can be characterized as either violent or nonviolent:
Violent offenses usually contain some element of force or a threat of force against a person. Some jurisdictions classify as violent certain property crimes involving a strong likelihood of psychological trauma to the property owner; for example, Virginia treats both common-law burglary (the breaking and entering of a dwelling house at night with the intent to commit larceny, assault and battery, or any felony therein) and statutory burglary (breaking and entering with further criminal intent but without the dwelling-house or time elements, such that the definition applies to break-ins at any time and of businesses as well as of dwelling houses) as felonies.
Most offenses involving drugs or property alone are characterized as nonviolent.
Some offenses, though similar in nature, may be felonies or misdemeanors depending on the circumstances. For example, the illegal manufacture, distribution or possession of controlled substances may be a felony, although possession of small amounts may be only a misdemeanor. Possession of a deadly weapon may be generally legal, but carrying the same weapon into a restricted area such as a school may be viewed as a serious offense, regardless of whether there is intent to use the weapon. Additionally, driving while intoxicated in some states may be a misdemeanor if a first offense, but a felony on subsequent offenses.
"The common law divided participants in a felony into four basic categories:
(1) first-degree principals, those who actually committed the crime in question; (2) second-degree principals, aiders and abettors present at the scene of the crime;
(3) accessories before the fact, aiders and abettors who helped the principal before the basic criminal event took place; and
(4) accessories after the fact, persons who helped the principal after the basic criminal event took place. In the course of the 20th century, however, American jurisdictions eliminated the distinction among the first three categories." Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (citations omitted).A felony may be punishable with imprisonment for one or more years or death in the case of the most serious felonies, such as murder. Indeed, at common law when the British and American legal systems divorced in 1776, felonies were crimes for which the punishment was either death or forfeiture of property. All felonies remain considered a serious crime, but concerns of proportionality (i.e., that the punishment fit the crime) have in modern times prompted legislatures to require or permit the imposition of less serious punishments, ranging from lesser terms of imprisonment to the substitution of a jail sentence or even the suspension of all incarceration contingent upon a defendant's successful completion of probation. Standards for measurement of an offense's seriousness include attempts to quantitatively estimate and compare the effects of a crime upon its specific victims or upon society generally.
In some states, all or most felonies are placed into one of various classes according to their seriousness and their potential punishment upon conviction. The number of classifications and the corresponding crimes vary by state and are determined by the legislature. Usually, the legislature also determines the maximum punishment allowable for each felony class; doing so avoids the necessity of defining specific sentences for every possible crime. For example:
Virginia classifies most felonies by number, ranging from Class 6 (least severe: 1 to 5 years in prison or up to 12 months in jail) through Class 2 (20 years to life, e.g., first-degree murder and aggravated malicious wounding) up to Class 1 (life imprisonment or the death penalty, reserved for certain types of murders). Some felonies remain outside the classification system.
New York State classifies felonies by letter, with some classes divided into sub-classes by Roman numeral; classes range from Class E (encompassing the least severe felonies) through Classes D, C, B, and A–II up to Class A–I (encompassing the most severe).
Massachusetts classifies as an offense which carries any prison time.
Summary conviction offences
Accused must be charged with a summary conviction within 6 months after the act happened. Note that the statute of limitations does not apply to the Criminal Code. Limitation periods are set out in the Criminal Code directly.
The police can arrest under summary conviction without an arrest warrant if found committing a summary offense notwithstanding s. 495(2)(c) of the Criminal Code
If the police do not find committing a summary offense, an arrest warrant is required.
Accused does not have to submit fingerprints when charged under Summary Conviction.
Appeals of summary conviction offences go first to the highest trial court within the jurisdiction (e.g. provincial superior court in Alberta is the Court of Queen’s Bench).
After Provincial Superior Court a further appeal would go to the Provincial Court of Appeal (e.g. the Court of Appeal of Alberta), and then finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, but as a practical matter very few summary convictions are ever heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Accused convicted under summary conviction are eligible for a pardon after 5 years provided the accused is not convicted of any further offences during that period.
Almost always heard first in a provincial court (although some exceptions apply, such as a summary conviction offence included for trial with an indictable offence).Indictable offences
There is no time limit to when charges can be laid, e.g. an accused can be charged 20 years after an act has occurred. The exception to this point is treason, which has a 3-year limitation period.
Police do not require a warrant to arrest under an indictable offence: see S.495(1)(a) Criminal Code of Canada
Accused has to submit fingerprints when required to appear to answer to an indictable offence.
Appeals always go to the Provincial Court of Appeal first, and then on to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Accused convicted under an indictable offence can apply for pardon after 10 years.
In civil law jurisdictions (countries), not all crimes are (criminal) offences. That is to say, not all breaches of criminal law will be tried by a court of law; the less serious ones can be punished by the police or some administrative body, or by a lower court. Thus offences are often divided into two or three categories.
Particular classification and terminology varies widely from country to country. In France for example:
Contravention – the least serious offences, such as driving offences (somewhat overlapping with infractions of summary offences in common law).
Delict – offences requiring a prison sentence or a large fine. (In other countries, though, delict can have completely different meaning similar to tort in common law.)
Crime – the most serious crimes punishable by a hefty prison sentence (akin to felony).
Violent crime
A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, (including criminal ends) such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all reported violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime
Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.
Globally, violence takes the lives of more than 1.5 million people annually: just over 50% due to suicide, some 35% due to homicide, and just over 12% as a direct result of war or some other form of conflict. For each single death due to violence, there are dozens of hospitalizations, hundreds of emergency department visits, and thousands of doctors' appointments. Furthermore, violence often has lifelong consequences for victims' physical and mental health and social functioning and can slow economic and social development.
Violence, however, is preventable. Evidence shows strong relationships between levels of violence and potentially modifiable factors such as concentrated poverty, income and gender inequality, the harmful use of alcohol, and the absence of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between children and parents. Scientific research shows that strategies addressing the underlying causes of violence can be effective in preventing violence. Examples of scientifically credible strategies to prevent violence include nurse home-visiting and parenting education to prevent child maltreatment; life skills training for children ages 6–18 years; school-based programmes to address gender norms and attitudes; reducing alcohol availability and misuse through enactment and enforcement of liquor licensing laws, taxation and pricing; reducing access to guns and knives; and promoting gender equality by, for instance, supporting the economic empowerment of women.
Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, "to kill oneself") is the act of intentionally causing one's own death. Suicide is often committed out of despair, the cause of which is frequently attributed to a mental disorder such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism, or drug abuse. Stress factors such as financial difficulties or troubles with interpersonal relationships often play a role. Efforts to prevent suicide include limiting access to firearms, treating mental illness and drug misuse, and improving economic development.
The most commonly used method of suicide varies by country and is partly related to availability. Common methods include: hanging, pesticide poisoning, and firearms. Around 800,000 to a million people die by suicide every year, making it the 10th leading cause of death worldwide. Rates are higher in men than in women, with males three to four times more likely to kill themselves than females. There are an estimated 10 to 20 million non-fatal attempted suicides every year. Attempts are more common in the young and females.
Views on suicide have been influenced by broad existential themes such as religion, honor, and the meaning of life. The Abrahamic religions traditionally consider suicide an offense towards God due to the belief in the sanctity of life. During the samurai era in Japan, seppuku was respected as a means of atonement for failure or as a form of protest. Sati, a now outlawed Hindu funeral practice, expected the widow to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre, either willingly or under pressure from the family and society.
Suicide and attempted suicide, while previously criminally punishable, is no longer in most Western countries. It remains a criminal offense in most Islamic countries. In the 20th and 21st centuries, suicide in the form of self-immolation has been used as a medium of protest, and kamikaze and suicide bombings have been used as a military or terrorist tactic.
In the above definition of violence ("the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation) the inclusion of the word ‘‘power,’’ in addition to the phrase "use of physical force," broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation. The "use of power" also serves to include neglect or acts of omission, in addition to the more obvious violent acts of commission. Thus, "the use of physical force or power" should be understood to include neglect and all types of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as suicide and other self-abusive acts.
This definition covers a broad range of outcomes – including psychological harm, deprivation and maldevelopment. This reflects a growing recognition of the need to include violence that does not necessarily result in injury or death, but that nonetheless poses a substantial burden on individuals, families, communities and health care systems worldwide. Many forms of violence against women, children and the elderly, for instance, can result in physical, psychological and social problems that do not necessarily lead to injury, disability or death. These consequences can be immediate, as well as latent, and can last for years after the initial abuse. Defining outcomes solely in terms of injury or death thus limits the understanding of the full impact of violence on individuals, communities and society at large.
In the typology of violence in the figure below, the horizontal array shows who is affected and the vertical array describes how they are affected. The typology divides violence into three broad categories according to characteristics of those committing the violent act:
self-directed violence
interpersonal violence
collective violence
The nature of violent acts, on the vertical axis, can be:
physicalsexualpsychologicalinvolving deprivation or neglect.
This initial categorization differentiates between violence a person inflicts upon himself or herself, violence inflicted by another individual or by a small group of individuals, and violence inflicted by larger groups such as states, organized political groups, militia groups and terrorist organizations. These three broad categories are each divided further to reflect more specific types of violence.
Self-directed violence
Self-directed violence is subdivided into suicidal behavior and self-abuse. The former includes suicidal thoughts, attempted suicides – also called ‘‘para suicide’’ or ‘‘deliberate self-injury’’ in some countries – and completed suicides. Self-abuse, in contrast, includes acts such as self-mutilation.
Interpersonal violence
Interpersonal violence is divided into two subcategories: Family and intimate partner violence – that is, violence largely between family members and intimate partners, usually, though not exclusively, taking place in the home. Community violence – violence between individuals who are unrelated, and who may or may not know each other, generally taking place outside the home. The former group includes forms of violence such as child abuse, intimate partner violence and abuse of the elderly. The latter includes youth violence, random acts of violence, rape or sexual assault by strangers, and violence in institutional settings such as schools, workplaces, prisons and nursing homes.
Collective violence
Collective violence is subdivided into social, political and economic violence. Unlike the other two broad categories, the subcategories of collective violence suggest possible motives for violence committed by larger groups of individuals or by states. Collective violence that is committed to advance a particular social agenda includes, for example, crimes of hate committed by organized groups, terrorist acts and mob violence. Political violence includes war and related violent conflicts, state violence and similar acts carried out by larger groups. Economic violence includes attacks by larger groups motivated by economic gain – such as attacks carried out with the purpose of disrupting economic activity, denying access to essential services, or creating economic division and fragmentation. Clearly, acts committed by larger groups can have multiple motives.
This typology, while imperfect and far from being universally accepted, does provide a useful framework for understanding the complex patterns of violence taking place around the world, as well as violence in the everyday lives of individuals, families and communities. It also overcomes many of the limitations of other typologies by capturing the nature of violent acts, the relevance of the setting, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and – in the case of collective violence – possible motivations for the violence. However, in both research and practice, the dividing lines between the different types of violence are not always so clear.
Violence cannot be attributed to a single factor. Its causes are complex and occur at different levels. To represent this complexity, the ecological, or Social ecological model is often used. The following four-level version of the ecological is often used in the study of violence:
The first level identifies biological and personal factors that influence how individuals behave and increase their likelihood of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence: demographic characteristics (age, education, income), genetics, brain lesions, personality disorders, substance abuse, and a history of experiencing, witnessing, or engaging in violent behaviour.
The second level focuses on close relationships, such as those with family and friends. In youth violence, for example, having friends who engage in or encourage violence can increase a young person’s risk of being a victim or perpetrator of violence. For intimate partner violence, a consistent marker at this level of the model is marital conflict or discord in the relationship. In elder abuse, important factors are stress due to the nature of the past relationship between the abused person and the care giver.
The third level explores the community context—i.e., schools, workplaces, and neighbourhoods. Risk at this level may be affected by factors such as the existence of a local drug trade, the absence of social networks, and concentrated poverty. All these factors have been shown to be important in several types of violence.
Finally, the fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help to create a climate in which violence is encouraged or inhibited: the responsiveness of the criminal justice system, social and cultural norms regarding gender roles or parent-child relationships, income inequality, the strength of the social welfare system, the social acceptability of violence, the availability of firearms, the exposure to violence in mass media, and political instability.
The threat and enforcement of physical punishment has been a tried and tested method of preventing violence since civilisation began. It is used in various degrees in most countries.
The most significant factor for reducing violence in a society is the guidance and discipline of children as they mature. The effectiveness of physical punishment at this level is much debated, but if it is used, it should be as a last resort and never done in anger. More important preventative measures are showing children love and understanding which is described further in the sections that follow.
Interpersonal violence
A rigorous review of the literature on the effectiveness of strategies to prevent interpersonal violence identified the seven strategies below as being supported by either strong or emerging evidence for effectiveness. These strategies target risk factors at all four levels of the ecological model.
Developing safe, stable and nurturing relationships between children and their parents and caregivers
Among the most effective such programmes to prevent child maltreatment and reduce childhood aggression are the Nurse Family Partnership home-visiting programmeand the Triple P (Parenting Program). There is also emerging evidence that these programmes reduce convictions and violent acts in adolescence and early adulthood, and probably help decrease intimate partner violence and self-directed violence in later life.
Developing life skills in children and adolescents
Evidence shows that the life skills acquired in social development programmes can reduce involvement in violence, improve social skills, boost educational achievement and improve job prospects. Life skills refer to social, emotional, and behavioural competencies which help children and adolescents effectively deal with the challenges of everyday life.
Reducing the availability and harmful use of alcohol
Evidence is emerging that violence may be prevented by:
Reducing the availability of alcohol (e.g. by restricting hour or days of sale and raising alcohol prices);
Brief interventions and longer-term treatment for problem drinkers;
Improving the management of environments where alcohol is served (e.g. reducing crowding, increasing comfort levels, improving physical design and staff training).
Reducing access to guns
Evidence emerging suggests that limiting access to firearms can prevent homicides and injuries and reduce the costs of these forms of violence to society. There is some evidence, for example, to suggest that jurisdictions with restrictive firearms legislation and lower firearms ownership tend to have lower levels of gun violence. There is also considerable evidence that just the opposite is true. Chicago, for instance, has some of the toughest gun laws in the United States but has one of the highest murder rates
Promoting gender equality and challenging gender norms and roles to prevent violence against women
Evaluation studies are beginning to support community interventions that aim to prevent violence against women by promoting gender equality. For instance, evidence suggests that programmes that combine microfinance with gender equity training can reduce intimate partner violence. School-based programmes such as Safe Dates programme in the United States of America and the Youth Relationship Project in Canada have been found to be effective for reducing dating violence.
Changing cultural and social norms that support violence
Rules or expectations of behaviour – norms – within a cultural or social group can encourage violence. Interventions that challenge cultural and social norms supportive of violence can prevent acts of violence and have been widely used, but the evidence base for their effectiveness is currently weak. The effectiveness of interventions addressing dating violence and sexual abuse among teenagers and young adults by challenging social and cultural norms related to gender is supported by some evidence
Victim identification, care and support programmesInterventions to identify victims of interpersonal violence and provide effective care and support are critical for protecting health and breaking cycles of violence from one generation to the next. Examples for which evidence of effectiveness is emerging includes: screening tools to identify victims of intimate partner violence and refer them to appropriate services; psychosocial interventions – such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy – to reduce mental health problems associated with violence, including post-traumatic stress disorder; and protection orders, which prohibit a perpetrator from contacting the victim, to reduce repeat victimization among victims of intimate partner violence.
Collective violence
Not surprisingly, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of interventions to prevent collective violence is lacking. However, policies that facilitate reductions in poverty, that make decision-making more accountable, that reduce inequalities between groups, as well as policies that reduce access to biological, chemical, nuclear and other weapons have been recommended. When planning responses to violent conflicts, recommended approaches include assessing at an early stage who is most vulnerable and what their needs are, co-ordination of activities between various players and working towards global, national and local capabilities so as to deliver effective health services during the various stages of an emergency.
Not all suicides can be prevented, but a majority can. There are a number of measures that can be taken at community and national levels to reduce the risk, including:
reducing access to the means of suicide (e.g. pesticides, medication, guns);
treating people with mental disorders (particularly those with depression, alcoholism, and schizophrenia);
following-up people who made suicide attempts;
responsible media reporting;
training primary health care workers.
At a more personal level, it is important to know that only a small number of suicides happen without warning. Most people who kill themselves give definite warnings of their intentions. Therefore, all threats of self-harm should be taken seriously. In addition, a majority of people who attempt suicide are ambivalent and not entirely intent on dying. Many suicides occur in a period of improvement when the person has the energy and the will to turn despairing thoughts into destructive action. However, a once-suicidal person is not necessarily always at risk: suicidal thoughts may return but they are not permanent and in some people they may never return
Criminal justice
The criminal justice approach sees its main task as enforcing laws that proscribe violence and ensuring that "justice is done". The notions of individual blame, responsibility, guilt, and culpability are central to criminal justice's approach to violence and one of the criminal justice system's main tasks is to "do justice", i.e. to ensure that offenders are properly identified, that the degree of their guilt is as accurately ascertained as possible, and that they are punished appropriately. To prevent and respond to violence, the criminal justice approach relies primarily on deterrence, incarceration and the punishment and rehabilitation of perpetrators.
The criminal justice approach, beyond justice and punishment, has traditionally emphasized indicated interventions, aimed at those who have already been involved in violence, either as victims or as perpetrators. One of the main reasons offenders are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted is to prevent further crimes – through deterrence (threatening potential offenders with criminal sanctions if they commit crimes), incapacitation (physically preventing offenders from committing further crimes by locking them up) and through rehabilitation (using time spent under state supervision to develop skills or change one's psychological make-up to reduce the likelihood of future offences).
In recent decades in many countries in the world, the criminal justice system has taken an increasing interest in preventing violence before it occurs. For instance, much of community and problem-oriented policing aims to reduce crime and violence by altering the conditions that foster it - and not to increase the number of arrests. Indeed, some police leaders have gone so far as to say the police should primarily be a crime prevention agency [Bratton W (with Knobler P). Turnaround: how America's top cop reversed the crime epidemic. New York: Random House, 1998.]. Juvenile justice systems – an important component of criminal justice systems – are largely based on the belief in rehabilitation and prevention. In the US, the criminal justice system has, for instance, funded school- and community-based initiatives to reduce children's access to guns and teach conflict resolution. In 1974, the US Department of Justice assumed primary responsibility for delinquency prevention programmes and created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which has supported the "Blueprints for violence prevention" programme at the University of Colorado
The public health approach is a science-driven, population-based, interdisciplinary, intersectoral approach based on the ecological model which emphasizes primary prevention. Rather than focusing on individuals, the public health approach aims to provide the maximum benefit for the largest number of people, and to extend better care and safety to entire populations. The public health approach is interdisciplinary, drawing upon knowledge from many disciplines including medicine, epidemiology, sociology, psychology, criminology, education and economics. Because all forms of violence are multi-faceted problems, the public health approach emphasizes a multi-sectoral response. It has been proved time and again that cooperative efforts from such diverse sectors as health, education, social welfare, and criminal justice are often necessary to solve what are usually assumed to be purely "criminal" or "medical" problems. The public health approach considers that violence, rather than being the result of any single factor, is the outcome of multiple risk factors and causes, interacting at four levels of a nested hierarchy (individual, close relationship/family, community and wider society) of the Social ecological model.
From a public health perspective, prevention strategies can be classified into three types:
Primary prevention – approaches that aim to prevent violence before it occurs.
Secondary prevention – approaches that focus on the more immediate responses to violence, such as pre-hospital care, emergency services or treatment for sexually transmitted infections following a rape.
Tertiary prevention – approaches that focus on long-term care in the wake of violence, such as rehabilitation and reintegration, and attempt to lessen trauma or reduce long-term disability associated with violence.
A public health approach emphasizes the primary prevention of violence, i.e. stopping them from occurring in the first place. Until recently, this approach has been relatively neglected in the field, with the majority of resources directed towards secondary or tertiary prevention. Perhaps the most critical element of a public health approach to prevention is the ability to identify underlying causes rather than focusing upon more visible "symptoms". This allows for the development and testing of effective approaches to address the underlying causes and so improve health.
The public health approach is an evidence-based and systematic process involving the following four steps:
Defining the problem conceptually and numerically, using statistics that accurately describe the nature and scale of violence, the characteristics of those most affected, the geographical distribution of incidents, and the consequences of exposure to such violence.
Investigating why the problem occurs by determining its causes and correlates, the factors that increase or decrease the risk of its occurrence (risk and protective factors) and the factors that might be modifiable through intervention.
Exploring ways to prevent the problem by using the above information and designing, monitoring and rigorously assessing the effectiveness of programmes through outcome evaluations.Disseminating information on the effectiveness of programmes and increasing the scale of proven effective programmes. Approaches to prevent violence, whether targeted at individuals or entire communities, must be properly evaluated for their effectiveness and the results shared. This step also includes adapting programmes to local contexts and subjecting them to rigorous re-evaluation to ensure their effectiveness in the new setting.
In many countries, violence prevention is still a new or emerging field in public health. The public health community has started only recently to realize the contributions it can make to reducing violence and mitigating its consequences. In 1949, Gordon called for injury prevention efforts to be based on the understanding of causes, in a similar way to prevention efforts for communicable and other diseases. In 1962, Gomez, referring to the WHO definition of health, stated that it is obvious that violence does not contribute to "extending life" or to a "complete state of well-being". He defined violence as an issue that public health experts needed to address and stated that it should not be the primary domain of lawyers, military personnel, or politicians.
However, it is only in the last 30 years that public health has begun to address violence, and only in the last fifteen has it done so at the global level. This is a much shorter period of time than public health has been tackling other health problems of comparable magnitude and with similarly severe lifelong consequences.
The global public health response to interpersonal violence began in earnest in the mid-1990s. In 1996, the World Health Assembly adopted Resolution WHA49.25 which declared violence "a leading worldwide public health problem" and requested that the World Health Organization (WHO) initiate public health activities to (1) document and characterize the burden of violence, (2) assess the effectiveness of programmes, with particular attention to women and children and community-based initiatives, and (3) promote activities to tackle the problem at the international and national levels. The World Health Organization's initial response to this resolution was to create the Department of Violence and Injury Prevention and Disability and to publish the World report on violence and health (2002).
The case for the public health sector addressing interpersonal violence rests on four main arguments. First, the significant amount of time health care professionals dedicate to caring for victims and perpetrators of violence has made them familiar with the problem and has led many, particularly in emergency departments, to mobilize to address it. The information, resources, and infrastructures the health care sector has at its disposal are an important asset for research and prevention work. Second, the magnitude of the problem and its potentially severe lifelong consequences and high costs to individuals and wider society call for population-level interventions typical of the public health approach. Third, the criminal justice approach, the other main approach to addressing violence (link to entry above), has traditionally been more geared towards violence that occurs between male youths and adults in the street and other public places – which makes up the bulk of homicides in most countries – than towards violence occurring in private settings such as child maltreatment, intimate partner violence and elder abuse – which makes up the largest share of non-fatal violence. Fourth, evidence is beginning to accumulate that a science-based public health approach is effective at preventing interpersonal violence.
Human rights
The human rights approach is based on the obligations of states to respect, protect and fulfill human rights and therefore to prevent, eradicate and punish violence. It recognizes violence as a violation of many human rights: the rights to life, liberty, autonomy and security of the person; the rights to equality and non-discrimination; the rights to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; the right to privacy; and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. These human rights are enshrined in international and regional treaties and national constitutions and laws, which stipulate the obligations of states, and include mechanisms to hold states accountable. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, for example, requires that countries party to the Convention take all appropriate steps to end violence against women. The Convention on the Rights of the Child in its Article 19 states that States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
Violence, as defined in the dictionary of human geography, “appears whenever power is in jeopardy” and “in and of itself stands emptied of strength and purpose: it is part of a larger matrix of socio-political power struggles”. Violence can be broadly divided into three broad categories – direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence. Thus defined and delineated, it is of note, as Hyndman says, that “geography came late to theorizing violence” in comparison to other social sciences. Social and human geography, rooted in the humanist, Marxist, and feminist subfields that emerged following the early positivist approaches and subsequent behavioral turn, have long been concerned with social and spatial justice Along with critical geographers and political geographers, it is these groupings of geographers that most often interact with violence. Keeping this idea of social/spatial justice via geography in mind, it is worthwhile to look at geographical approaches to violence in the context of politics.
Derek Gregory and Alan Pred assembled the influential edited collection "Violent Geographies: Fear, Terror, and Political Violence", which demonstrates how place, space and landscape are foremost factors in the real and imagined practices of organized violence both historically and in the present. Political violence, evidently, often gives a part for the state to play. When “modern states not only claim a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence; they also routinely use the threat of violence to enforce the rule of law” the law not only becomes a form of violence but is violence. Philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s state of exception and homo sacer are useful to consider within a geography of violence. The state, in the grip of a perceived, potential crisis (whether legitimate or not) takes preventative legal measures, such as a suspension of rights (it is in this climate, as Agamben demonstrates, that the formation of the Social Democratic and Nazi government’s lager or concentration camp can occur). When this ‘in limbo’ reality, however, is designed to be in place “until further notice…the state of exception thus ceases to be referred to as an external and provisional state of factual danger and comes to be confused with juridical rule itself”. For Agamben, the physical space of the camp “is a piece of land placed outside the normal juridical order, but it is nevertheless not simply an external space”. At the scale of the body, in the state of exception, a person is so removed from their rights by “juridical procedures and deployments of power” that “no act committed against them could appear any longer as a crime – man is only homo sacer. Guantanamo Bay could also be said to represent the physicality of the state of exception in space, and can just as easily draw man as homo sacer.
The genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s, under the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, ended with the murder of over two million Cambodians – 25% of the Cambodian population. About fourteen thousand of these people were murdered at Choeung Ek, an extermination camp that came to be called the Killing Fields. Murdered arbitrarily – a person could be killed for wearing glasses which associated them with intellectuals, and so, part of the enemy – the killing fields and the genocide as a whole are one of the many contemporary examples of state sponsored violence. People were murdered with impunity because it was no crime – Cambodians were made homo sacer in a condition of bare life. The killing fields, a manifestation of Agamben’s camp, featured the state of exception. As part of Pol Pot’s “ideological intent…to create a purely agrarian society or cooperative” he “dismantled the country’s existing economic infrastructure and depopulated every urban area”. Forced movement, such as this forced movement applied by Pol Pot, is a clear display of structural violence. When “symbols of Cambodian society were equally disrupted, social institutions of every kind…were purged or torn down”, cultural violence – defined as when “any aspect of culture such as language, religion, ideology, art, or cosmology is used to legitimize direct or structural violence” – is added to the structural violence of forced movement and the direct violence, such as murder, at the killing fields. Vietnam eventually intervened and the genocide officially ended. However, ten million landmines left by opposing guerillas in the 1970s continue to create a violent landscape in Cambodia.
Human geography, though coming late to the theorizing table, has tackled violence through many lenses – anarchist geography, feminist geography, Marxist geography, political geography, and critical geography – and this broad stroke list is by no means exhaustive. But, “as violence spreads and assumes unheard-of forms, it becomes difficult to name in contemporary language”. In facing such a truth, it is prudent to reconsider violence as ‘horrorism’, as Cavarero proposes – “Horrorism – as though ideally all the…victims, instead of their killers, ought to determine the name”. With geography often adding the forgotten spatial aspect to theories of social science, rather than creating them solely within the discipline, it seems that the self-reflexive contemporary geography of today may have an extremely important place in this current (re)imaging of violence, exemplified by Cavarero.
Child maltreatment
Child maltreatment is the abuse and neglect that occurs to children under 18 years of age. It includes all types of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, negligence and commercial or other exploitation, which results in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power. Exposure to intimate partner violence is also sometimes included as a form of child maltreatment.
Child maltreatment is a global problem with serious lifelong consequences, which is, however, complex and difficult to study. There are no reliable global estimates for the prevalence of child maltreatment. Data for many countries, especially low- and middle-income countries, are lacking. Current estimates vary widely depending on the country and the method of research used. Approximately 20% of women and 5–10% of men report being sexually abused as children, while 25–50% of all children report being physically abused.
Consequences of child maltreatment include impaired lifelong physical and mental health, and social and occupational functioning (e.g. school, job, and relationship difficulties). These can ultimately slow a country's economic and social development. Preventing child maltreatment before it starts is possible and requires a multisectoral approach. Effective prevention programmes support parents and teach positive parenting skills. Ongoing care of children and families can reduce the risk of maltreatment reoccurring and can minimize its consequences.
Following the World Health Organization, youth are defined as people between the ages of 10 and 29 years. Youth violence refers to violence occurring between youths, and includes acts that range from bullying and physical fighting, through more severe sexual and physical assault to homicide.
Worldwide some 250 000 homicides occur among youth 10–29 years of age each year, which is 41% of the total number of homicides globally each year (("Global Burden of Disease", World Health Organization, 2008). For each young person killed, 20-40 more sustain injuries requiring hospital treatment. Youth violence has a serious, often lifelong, impact on a person's psychological and social functioning. Youth violence greatly increases the costs of health, welfare and criminal justice services; reduces productivity; decreases the value of property; and generally undermines the fabric of society.
Prevention programmes shown to be effective or to have promise in reducing youth violence include life skills and social development programmes designed to help children and adolescents manage anger, resolve conflict, and develop the necessary social skills to solve problems; schools-based anti-bullying prevention programmes; and programmes to reduce access to alcohol, illegal drugs and guns. Also, given significant neighbourhood effects on youth violence, interventions involving relocating families to less poor environments have shown promising results. Similarly, urban renewal projects such as business improvement districts have shown a reduction in youth violence
Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour in an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours.
Population-level surveys based on reports from victims provide the most accurate estimates of the prevalence of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in non-conflict settings. A study conducted by WHO in 10 mainly developing countries found that, among women aged 15 to 49 years, between 15% (Japan) and 70% (Ethiopia and Peru) of women reported physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner.
Intimate partner and sexual violence have serious short- and long-term physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health problems for victims and for their children, and lead to high social and economic costs. These include both fatal and non-fatal injuries, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Factors associated with the perpetration and experiencing of intimate partner violence are low levels of education, past history of violence as a perpetrator, a victim or a witness of parental violence, harmful use of alcohol, attitudes that are accepting of violence as well as marital discord and dissatisfaction. Factor associated only with perpetration of intimate partner violence are having multiple partners, and an antisocial personality disorder.
The primary prevention strategy with the best evidence for effectiveness for intimate partner violence is school-based programming for adolescents to prevent violence within dating relationships. Evidence is emerging for the effectiveness of several other primary prevention strategies – those that: combine microfinance with gender equality training; promote communication and relationship skills within communities; reduce access to, and the harmful use of alcohol; and change cultural gender norms.
Sexual violence is any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting. It includes rape, defined as the physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration of the vulva or anus with a penis, other body part or object.
Population-level surveys based on reports from victims estimate that between 0.3–11.5% of women reported experiencing sexual violence. Sexual violence has serious short- and long-term consequences on physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health for victims and for their children as described in the section on intimate partner violence. If perpetrated during childhood, sexual violence can lead to increased smoking, drug and alcohol misuse, and risky sexual behaviours in later life. It is also associated with perpetration of violence and being a victim of violence.
Many of the risk factors for sexual violence are the same as for domestic violence. Risk factors specific to sexual violence perpetration include beliefs in family honour and sexual purity, ideologies of male sexual entitlement and weak legal sanctions for sexual violence.
Few intervention to prevent sexual violence have been demonstrated to be effective. School-based programmes to prevent child sexual abuse by teaching children to recognize and avoid potentially sexually abusive situations are run in many parts of the world and appear promising, but require further research. To achieve lasting change, it is important to enact legislation and develop policies that protect women; address discrimination against women and promote gender equality; and help to move the culture away from violence.
Elder maltreatment is a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person. This type of violence constitutes a violation of human rights and includes physical, sexual, psychological, emotional; financial and material abuse; abandonment; neglect; and serious loss of dignity and respect.
While there is little information regarding the extent of maltreatment in elderly populations, especially in developing countries, it is estimated that 4-6% of elderly people in high-income countries have experienced some form of maltreatment at home. However, older people are often afraid to report cases of maltreatment to family, friends, or to the authorities. Data on the extent of the problem in institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are scarce. Elder maltreatment can lead to serious physical injuries and long-term psychological consequences. Elder maltreatment is predicted to increase as many countries are experiencing rapidly ageing populations.
Many strategies have been implemented to prevent elder maltreatment and to take action against it and mitigate its consequences including public and professional awareness campaigns, screening (of potential victims and abusers), caregiver support interventions (e.g. stress management, respite care), adult protective services and self-help groups. Their effectiveness has, however, not so far been well-established.
Suicide is the act harming ones self to the point of death, usually caused by severe depression and mental disorders. Cause of suicide can range from extreme pain, both emotional and physical, to trying to prove a point.
The comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is usually problematic, due to the way different countries classify crime. Valid comparisons require that similar offences between jurisdictions be compared. Often this is not possible because crime statistics aggregate equivalent offences in such different ways that make it difficult or impossible to obtain a valid comparison.
Homicide (Latin: homicidium, Latin: homo human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) is an act of a human killing another human. While homicide is commonly thought of as criminal, it refers to the act in general, which is sometimes legal. Murder is one type of homicide, and so are capital punishment and the use of deadly force by police. Most homicide victims are men. Homicide rates in better developed countries have been falling since 1995, but rates are high in less developed parts of the world.
Rarely, a person who has committed such an act is called a homicide.
Criminal homicide takes several forms and includes certain unintentional killings. The crime committed in a criminal homicide is determined by the state of mind of the defendant and statutes defining the crime. Murder, for example, is usually an intentional crime. In some jurisdictions, certain types of murders automatically qualify for capital punishment, but if the defendant in a capital case is sufficiently mentally disabled in the United States he or she may not be executed, for reasons described in Atkins v. Virginia, similar to those utilizing an insanity defense.
Varying by jurisdiction, a homicide that occurs during the commission of a felony may constitute murder regardless the felon's mental state with regard to the killing. This is known as the felony murder rule. Much abbreviated and incomplete, the felony murder rule says that one committing a felony may be guilty of murder if someone, including the felony victim, a bystander or a co-felon, dies as a result of his acts, regardless his intent—or lack thereof—to kill.
Criminal homicides also include voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The mental state of the perpetrator of these crimes differs from that of one who commits murder.
Although suicide is not a form of homicide, assisting in another's suicide may constitute criminal homicide, as codified, for instance, in California Penal Code Sec. 401.
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, and the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. In most countries, a person convicted of murder is typically given a long prison sentence, possibly a life sentence where permitted, and in some countries, the death penalty may be imposed for such an act – though this practice is becoming less common. In most countries, there is no statute of limitations for murder (no time limit for prosecuting someone for murder). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.
Malice aforethought
Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination" (with malice) that was required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions, and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few.
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being. Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Cal. Pen. Code § 188. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice is an element of the crime of arson in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common law system.
In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance in a public office includes Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] A.C. 158; Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000][1] and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 2 QB 335 in which Steyn LJ. found that malice could be made out if the acts were done with an actual intention to cause injury. Malice could be shown if the acts were done in the knowledge of invalidity or lack of power and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity or lack of power and that likely injury. These elements, with respect, are consistent with the views of the majority albeit that some of those views were expressed tentatively having regard to the basis upon which the case before them was presented.
In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:
an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).
Lord Diplock confirmed the relationship to recklessness in R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421:
In the offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
In the United States, the malice standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil rights campaign. The malice standard decides whether press reports about a public figure can be considered defamation or libel.
Malice aforethought was the mens rea element of murder in 19th-Century America, and remains as a relic in those states with a separate First-degree murder charge.
As of 1891, Texas courts were overwhelmed with discussing whether "malice" needs to be expressed or implied in the judge's jury instructions. However, the 1970s revision of the Texas Penal Code corrected this as "intentionally or knowingly" are the requisite mental state for murder in Texas. See Texas Penal Code Section 19.02.
In English law the mens rea requirement of murder is either an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. In R v Moloney, Lord Bridge held that, intent, as defined in the mens rea requirement of murder 'means intent,' therefore the jury should simply use the term intent legally as they would in normal parlance. Furthermore, in Moloney, Lord Bridge held that, for the defendant to have the mens rea of murder, there must be something more than mere foresight or knowledge that death or serious injury is a "natural" consequence of the current activities: there must be clear evidence of an intention. This element of intention is not only fulfilled when the defendant's motive or purpose was to cause death or serious bodily harm (also known as 'direct intent,') but also when the defendant's motive or purpose was not to cause death or grievous bodily harm, but (as held by Lord Steyn in R v Woollin) death or serious bodily harm was a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's act, and the defendant appreciated this to be so (also known as 'oblique intent.')
To varying extents in the United States, the requisite intention can also be found where the perpetrator acts with gross recklessness showing lack of care for human life, commonly referred to as "depraved heart murder", or during the commission of or while in flight from any felony or attempted felony (termed felony murder.) In England, such mens rea would only find a verdict of reckless or constructive manslaughter.
Note that through the principle of transferred intent, an accused who intended to kill one person but inadvertently killed another instead is still guilty of murder. The intent to kill the first person suffices.
In most common law jurisdictions, the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, and in the various US state statutes which have codified homicide definitions, the term has been abandoned although the meaning remains the mens rea requirement for murder.
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, and the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. In most countries, a person convicted of murder is typically given a long prison sentence, possibly a life sentence where permitted, and in some countries, the death penalty may be imposed for such an act – though this practice is becoming less common. In most countries, there is no statute of limitations for murder (no time limit for prosecuting someone for murder). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.
William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
The elements of common law murder are:
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.
The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war.
Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration. With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.
of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.
by another human – at early common law suicide was considered murder. The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.
with malice aforethought – originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally, second degree murder is common law murder, and first degree is an aggravated form. The aggravating factors of first degree murder are a specific intent to kill, premeditation, and deliberation. In addition, murder committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are also treated as first degree murder.
As with most legal terms, the precise definition of murder varies between jurisdictions and is usually codified in some form of legislation.
At common law
According to Blackstone, English common law identified murder as a public wrong. At common law, murder is considered to be malum in se, that is an act which is evil within itself. An act such as murder is wrong/evil by its very nature. And it is the very nature of the act which does not require any specific detailing or definition in the law to consider murder a crime.
Some jurisdictions still take a common law view of murder. In such jurisdictions, precedent case law or previous decisions of the courts of law defines what is considered murder. However, it tends to be rare and the majority of jurisdictions have some statutory prohibition against murder.
Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.
Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses.
Suicide is not considered murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.
Capital punishment ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal trial with due process for a serious crime.
Killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes.
The administration of lethal drugs by a doctor to a terminally ill patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is seen in many jurisdictions as a special case (see the doctrine of double effect and the case of Dr John Bodkin Adams).
In some cases, killing a person who is attempting to kill another is classified as self-defense and thus, not murder.
Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defense killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place. In the case of self-defense it is called a "justifiable homicide". A killing simply to prevent the theft of one's property may not be a justifiable homicide, depending on the laws of a place.
All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is a human being who was still alive at the time of being murdered. In other words, under the law, one cannot murder a cadaver, a corporation, a non-human animal, or any other non-human organism such as a plant or bacterium.
California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187, was interpreted by the Supreme Court of California in 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction. This holding has two implications. The first is a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime. The second, as stated by Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, because women carrying nonviable fetuses may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of intentionally murdering a person he did not know existed.
Mitigating circumstances
Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.
Mental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused by schizophrenia and dementia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the stress of a trial as to liability. Usually, sociopathy and other personality disorders are not legally considered insanity, because of the belief they are the result of free will in many societies. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of the disorder, the defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used to get a not guilty verdict. This defense has two elements:
That the defendant had a serious mental illness, disease, or defect.That the defendant's mental condition, at the time of the killing, rendered the perpetrator unable to determine right from wrong, or that what he or she was doing was wrong.
Under New York law, for example:
§ 40.15 Mental disease or defect. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong.
Under the French Penal Code:
Article 122-1
A person is not criminally liable who, when the act was committed, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which destroyed his discernment or his ability to control his actions.
A person who, at the time he acted, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which reduced his discernment or impeded his ability to control his actions, remains punishable; however, the court shall take this into account when it decides the penalty and determines its regime.
Those who successfully argue a defense based on a mental disorder are usually referred to mandatory clinical treatment until they are certified safe to be released back into the community, rather than prison.
Post-partum depression
Some countries, such as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, allow postpartum depression (also known as post-natal depression) as a defense against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less than two years old (this may be the specific offense of infanticide rather than murder and include the effects of lactation and other aspects of post-natal care).
For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful, the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.
Diminished capacity
In those jurisdictions using the Uniform Penal Code, such as California, diminished capacity may be a defense. For example, Dan White used this defense to obtain a manslaughter conviction, instead of murder, in the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.
Murder with specified aggravating circumstances is often punished more harshly. Depending on the jurisdiction, such circumstances may include:
Murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime
Murder of a pregnant woman
Committed for pay or other reward
Exceptional brutality or cruelty
In the United States, these murders are referred to as first-degree or aggravated murders. In 2004, American Ryan Holle was convicted of first-degree murder for lending his car to a friend, who used the car in a burglary during which a murder was committed. Holle was convicted under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule.
Killing of self
Suicide – intentional killing of self.
Autocide – suicide by automobile.Medicide – a suicide accomplished with the aid of a physician
Self-immolation – suicide by setting oneself on fire, a form of extreme protest.
Suicide by cop – a suicide by acting threatening and inducing law enforcement personnel to shoot one to death.Aborticide – the act of killing a fetus in the womb
Familicide - is a multiple-victim homicide where a killer's spouse and children are slain.
Feticide (or foeticide) - the act of killing a fetus in the uterus or causing an abortion
Filicide – the act of a parent killing his or her son or daughter.Fratricide – the act of killing a brother, also in military context death by friendly fire.
Geronticide – the abandonment of the elderly to die, commit suicide or be killed. See also Senicide.
Honor-killing – the act of killing a family member who has or was perceived to have brought disgrace to the family.Infanticide – the act of killing a child within the first year of its life.
Mariticide - the act of killing one's spouse, especially the murder of a husband by his wife.
Matricide – the act of killing one's mother.
Neonaticide - the act of killing an infant within the first twenty-four hours or month (varies by individual and jurisdiction) of its life.
Parricide – (also Parenticide) the killing of one's mother or father or other close relative.Patricide – the act of killing of one's father.
Prolicide – the act of killing one's own children.Senicide – the killing of one's elderly family members when they can no longer work or become a burden.Sororicide – the act of killing one's sister.
Uxoricide – the act of killing one's wife
Amicicide – the act of killing a friend.Androcide - the systematic killing of men.Capital punishment – the killing of a human being for odious crimes.Ecocide - the destruction of the natural environment by such activity as war, overexploitation of resources, or pollution
Euthanasia (also mercy killing) – the killing of any being for compassionate reasons i.e. significant injury or disease.Femicide (also Gynecide, Gynaecide, or Gynocide) – the systematic killing of women
Gendercide - the systematic killing of members of a specific sex, either males or females
Genocide – the systematic extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
Homicide – the act of killing of a person
Human sacrifice – the killing of a human for religious reasons
Omnicide – the act of killing all humans, to create intentional extinction of the human species.Populicide – the slaughter of the people.
Xenocide – the act of killing an entire alien species
Deicide – the act of killing a god or divine being
Dominicide – the act of killing one's master.
Episcopicide – the act of killing a bishop.Giganticide – the act of killing a giant.Regicide – the act of killing a king.
Tyrannicide – the act of killing a tyrant.Vaticide – the act of killing a prophet.Chronocide – the killing or wasting of time
Famacide – the killing of another's reputation, a slander.Liberticide – the destruction of liberties.
Urbicide - the destruction of a city or the stifling of an urbanization.
Algaecide – a chemical agent that kills algae
Acaricide – a chemical agent that kills mites.Avacide – a chemical agent that kills birds
Bactericide – a chemical agent that kills bacteria.
Biocide - a chemical agent that kills a broad spectrum of living organisms.
Cervicide – the killing of deer.Ceticide – the killing of whales.Culicide – a chemical agent that kills mosquitos.Felicide – the killing of cats
Fungicide - chemical agents or biological organisms used to kill or inhibit fungi or fungal spores.
Germicide - an agent that kills germs, especially pathogenic microorganisms; a disinfectant
Gonocide (also Gonococcicide) – an agent that kills the bacterium causing gonorrhea
Herbicide - an agent that kills unwanted plants, a weed killer.
Insecticide – an agent that kills unwanted insects.
Larvicide (also Larvacide) - an insecticide targeted against the larval life stage of an insect.
Lupicide – The killing of wolves.Microbicide – an agent used to kill or reduce the infectivity of microorganisms.
Muscicide – an agent that kills fleas.Nemacide (also Nematicide, Nematocide) – a chemical to eradicate or kill nematodes.Ovacide – an agent that kills eggs of an organism particular a pest i.e. lice eggs.
Parasiticide – a general term to describe an agent used to destroy parasites.
Pediculicide – an agent that kills head lice.Pesticide – a general term to describe an agent used to destroy or repel an unwanted pest.
Pulicicide (also Pulicide) – an agent that kills fleas.Raticide – an agent for killing rats.Scabicide – a chemical agent for killing scabies.Spermicide – a contraceptive agent to render sperm inert and prevent fertilization.
Tauricide – the killing of bulls or steers.Teniacide (Also taeniacide, tenicide )– a chemical agent that kills tape worms.
Vermicide - an agent used to kill parasitic intestinal worms
Vespacide – a chemical agent that kills wasps.Virucide (also Viricide) - an agent capable of destroying or inhibiting viruses
Vulpicide (also Vulpecide)- the killing of a fox by methods other than by hunting it with hounds.
1.Definition of Interpol……………………………………………………………………………..1
2.Definition of criminology……………………………………………………………………….2
3.Blue-collar crime……………………………………………………………………………………6
5.PROBABLE CAUSE…………………………………………………………………………………8
7.Criminal personality………………………………………………………………………………33
8. THEFT…………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
9. Rape………………………………………………………………………………………………………56
10. Corporate crime……………………………………………………………………………………..58
11. Amnesty law…………………………………………………………………………………………..61
12. EX POST FACTO LAW……………………………………………………………………………….62
13. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT………………………………………………………………………….63
14. Organized crime……………………………………………………………………………………66
15. Ransom…………………………………………………………………………………………………71
16. EXTORTION…………………………………………………………………………………………..73
17. BRIBERY…………………………………………………………………………………………………75
18. BLACKMAIL……………………………………………………………………………………………77
19. BANK ROBBERY……………………………………………………………………………………..77
20. Computer hacking…………………………………………………………………………………79
21. PUMP AND DUMP………………………………………………………………………………….81
22. BIG RIGGING………………………………………………………………………………………….82
23. POLITICAL CRIME…………………………………………………………………………………..86
24. Criminal OMISSION…………………………………………………………………………………..86
25. DUTY TO RESCUE…………………………………………………………………………………..92
26. CRIME……………………………………………………………………………………………………93
27. POLICE CAUTION…………………………………………………………………………………….95
28. REHABILITATION…………………………………………………………………………………….98
29. HABITUAL OFFENDER…………………………………………………………………………….100
30. RECIDIVISM……………………………………………………………………………………………100
31 Classification and categorization of crime……………………………………………….103
32. Offence against the person…………………………………………………………………….108
33. Property Crime……………………………………………………………………………………….113
34. Public-order crime………………………………………………………………………………….116
35. White-collar crime………………………………………………………………………………….119
36. Victimology……………………………………………………………………………………………..120
37. Law……………………………………………………………………………………………………..….125
38. PUNISHMENT……………………………………………………………………………………….…127
39. Penology………………………………………………………………………………………………..128
40. Prison…………………………………………………………………………………………………….129
41. Incarceration………………………………………………………………………………………….130
42. Penal harm…………………………………………………………………………………………….131
43. Prosecutor…………………………………………………………………………………………….133
44. Offence………………………………………………………………………………………………….134
45. Violent crime………………………………………………………………………………………….140
46. Homicide………………………………………………………………………………………………..157
47. Malice aforethought……………………………………………………………………………….160
48. Murder………………………………………………………………………………………………….162

Приложенные файлы

  • docx 24124220
    Размер файла: 224 kB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий