The discovery of the victim, and a shift from focusing on the offender to the offence have both been identified as salient features of crime policy over the last three decades. Among the most impactful legal reforms achieved by the ‘victims’ movement are the laws that mandate the inputs of victims in the proceedings of the criminal justice (Erez and Rogers 1999, p.244). The aim of the ‘victims movement’ was essentially improving how crime victims are treated, restoring their dignity and giving them a voice in the trials. Although it is difficult to provide a succinct definition of what causes crime, the understanding of what causes crime may be developed by unpacking the theories behind the victim movement. This paper describes how these developments relate to changes in the understanding of what causes crime. In answering the question and developing the arguments, this essay discusses the various definitions of crime. The second part of the article focuses on the positivist versus classical schools of thought. The third segment of the paper describes the changes in the understanding of what causes victimization over time and the last section discusses official versus unofficial data and the final section.
There is no simplistic answer to the question what is crime? (Victorian Law Reform Commission 2015, p.16). There is no general theory that undertakes to give an explanation of all kinds of crimes. This is because it is not a one-dimensional construct (Simpson 1990, p.1). Sheleff (1998, p.135), explains that in understanding crime, there is an extricable link between the one prosecuting the crime and place of the society, the offender and the victim within the criminal justice system. Various disciplines present various theories concerning the definition of crime. One of the definitions of crime is simply what is deemed as criminal in the eyes of the law (Williams 1955, p.107). The legal theorists that propound the preceding definition argue that crime is behavior that receives criminal punishment as a result of criminal proceedings. In this definition, hence, defining crime is done by referring to the procedure used – prosecution, conviction and sentencing – as opposed to any particular wrong attribute.
According to Wells and Quick (2010, p.7), crime is the exclusive and dominant right of action that a state has against deviance in its legal response. Furthermore, other scholars have defined crime to mean that behavior that poses as a threat or causes injury to the common good (Marshall and Duff 1998 p.12). Another definition of crime is inherently immoral conduct according to the standards of the society (Zedner 1991, p.47). Crime is also viewed as a reflection of the values of society concerning appropriate conduct (Hulsman 1986, p.71). Crime is also a tool for ensuring public safety and for governance.
A common theme that runs through the definitions above is the communal or public element of crime as opposed to a wrong done against just an individual. The ultimate meaning of crime is, therefore, summed up in the relationship between the state and citizens. The rationale for the involvement of the state in the administration of the criminal justice system is its ability to exact punishment and retribution while maintaining impartial justice in responding to crime (Victorian Law Reform Commission 2015, p.18). The following section discusses positivist versus classical schools of thought in criminology to advance and refine the arguments herein.
The classical school of thought to crime holds that people are creature of free will in formulating their decisions. This school of thought argues that punishment is capable of having a deterrent effect as long as it is meted appropriately and proportionately to the crime (Criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke n.d.). The classical school of thought avers that people are creatures of morals and have unfettered freedom to choose between what is wrong and that which is right. Moreover, the classical thought of crime postulates that when an individual commits a criminal act, it is solely out of free will and choice. As such, it follows that such individuals who commit wrongs willingly should be punished accordingly for the same. Hence, the advocates of this theory of crime propose that good governments must provide for laws punishments that enable people to behave appropriately in given situations (Criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke n.d).
The positivist school of thought to crime, on the other limb, hold that in committing crime, people act independently of rational thought (Criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke n.d). This school of thought propounds that delinquent behaviour is as a result of psychological and social factors, which provokes criminal propensities in some people compared with others. In other words, there is an inherent goodness in people. However, as a result of exposure to wrong environments and backgrounds, they consequently become bad. This school of thought, therefore, contends with the classical view of wrongful conduct as a result of choice.
Comparatively, the two schools of thought concur that criminal conduct is controllable and is as a result of human nature. However, the positivist philosophy of crime concerns itself with offender reformation, while the classical theory takes a retributive approach to dealing with offenders (Criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke n.d). The positivist school of thought studies crime in terms of its origin and legal consequences and then formulates various remedies for dealing with the causes of crime, and that have the greatest impact. In contrast, the classical school only relates to the causes of crime with regard to justice and penology (Criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke n.d).
Who is a victim? What causes victimisation? After years of neglect, the victim has come to play a central role in the criminal justice system (Nash 2007, p.1419). In theory and in reality, there is a close link between victims and crime. Victimhood, as a matter of law is dependent upon a myriad of factors. These factors include fault of the victim in the crime, the affinity of the connection of injury to the conduct of the offender and he extent and type of injury (Nash 2007, p.1419). According to Fattah (1991, pp.14-15), the high visibility of the victim is as a result of penal reformers, the role of the media and the increasing sensitization during the 1960’s and 70’s of vulnerable groups such as women. Empirical evidence indicates that offenders and victims are not only drawn from the same populace, but also make overlapping groups. For example, in instances of violent offences, it is understood that those who have committed the same are more likely to suffer the same fate compared to those who have never (Fattah 1991, p.20). Laconically, some of the people who start fights end up losing and becoming victims. Therefore, the meaning and understanding of victims has become a blurred category with the recent developments in criminal philosophy and policy. The identity of victims has also been expanded to a broader meaning from the ones affected by conventional predatory and personal crime to include secondary victims (Fattah 1991, p.21). There have been stereotypical assumptions concerning the exact attributes of both victims and offenders and this has affected to a degree, the theory and practice of restorative justice.
Official data with respect to crime is the information collected by the criminal justice system agents such as the police. An example is the Uniform Crime Reporting, and a good example is the British Crime Survey (Fattah 1991, p.18). This kind of data does not usually reflect accurately correct crime rates since numerous crimes usually remain unreported to the police. Surveys conducted on victimisation have indicated the numerous reasons for not reporting to the police. Unofficial crime data, on the other hand, are the statistics that place reliance on self-report surveys and victimization. Victimization reports are those that record the victims of crimes’ personal experiences. In the United States, for instance, there is a fairly new crime gathering tool known as the National Incident-Based Reporting system. The tool is a comprehensive instrument for victimisation and self-reporting.
Restorative justice is the general name given to the victim-oriented justice. It holds offenders responsible for the crimes committed in constructive ways that are not punitive. It also aims at including the voices and experiences of those victims affected by crime. In the traditional court process, offenders remain silent while they are represented by their advocates while there is minimal or no victim participation. Whereas the conventional court process is designed for punishment, deterrence and reformation, restorative justice aims at repairing the harm that crime causes (Daly, Hayes and Marchetti 2006, p.441). Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and indigenous justice are components of a larger regime – inclusion-oriented justice approach – that aims at incorporating more effective and humane responses to victims and offenders. The approaches have a close affinity in that they aim at fostering communication and assisting offenders desist from crime and reintegrate into society (Daly, Hayes and Marchetti 2006, p.440).
Accordingly, the shift from the traditional offender-based criminal justice jurisprudence to offence-based, aids the understanding of what causes crime. The victims movement and the focus on offence brings the understanding that there are several actors in the criminal justice process. There is also a wide array of factors that influence crime and the aim of restorative justice, coupled with the policy shifts toward victims and offences, is bringing all the stakeholders together to deal with the problem of crime.
Reference
Criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke n.d., A Comparison and Contrast of the Classical and the Positivist Schools of Criminology, viewed 4 April 2017, https://criminology-articles.blogspot.co.ke/2014/09/a-comparison-and-contrast-of-classical.html
Daly, K., Hayes, H. and Marchetti, E., 2006. New visions of justice. Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology, 3
Dignan, J., 2004. Understanding victims and restorative justice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK)
Erez, E. and Rogers, L., 1999. Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes: The perspectives of legal professionals. The British Journal of Criminology, pp.216-239
Fattah, E.A., 1991. Understanding criminal victimization: An introduction to theoretical victimology. Prentice-Hall Canada
Groenhuijsen, M., 1996. Conflicts of victims’ interests and offenders’ rights in the criminal justice system. International victimology, pp.163-176
Hulsman, L.H., 1986. Critical criminology and the concept of crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 10(1), pp.63-80
Marshall, S.E. and Duff, R.A., 1998. Criminalization and sharing wrongs. The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 11(01), pp.7-22
Nash, A., 2007. Victims by Definition. Wash. UL Rev., 85, p.1419
Sheleff, L., 1998. Third Parties: Victims and the Criminal Justice System. By Leslie Sebba.[Columbus, Ohio State University Press, 1996]. Israel Law Review, 32(04), pp.712-713
Simpson, S.S., 1990. John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 226, $42.50 (cloth) $14.95 (paper). International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 31(3), pp.262-263
Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2015. The role of victims of crime in the criminal trial process. Consultation paper, July
Wells, C. and Quick, O., 2010. Lacey, Wells and Quick reconstructing criminal law: text and materials. Cambridge University Press
Williams, G., The Definition of Crime’(1955). Current Legal Problems, 8, p.107
Williams, K.R. and Drake, S., 1980. Social structure, crime and criminalization: An empirical examination of the conflict perspective. The Sociological Quarterly, 21(4), pp.563-575
Zedner, L., 1991. Women, crime, and custody in Victorian England (p. 123). Oxford: Clarendon Press
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download