Why is the definition and measurement of crime problematic
Why is the definition and measurement of crime problematic?
The term crime is not by any means easy to define. It does not have any simple or universally accepted definition in modern day society. Crime is the result of a complex social process, therefore not every criminal act is considered to be a crime.
It has been said that a crime has only been committed when a court decides that one has occurred. For example a reported offence may not make it to trial due to a lack of evidence, so no further action is taken so it would not be considered a crime. This way of defining crime can be problematic as a victim may decide not to report a minor infraction when a conviction isn't likely. So would that mean although there had been an offence, there hadn't been a crime?
Legal tradition states that in order for an offence to be a crime there has to be “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea”, with this is mind identical events may be classified as a crime, or otherwise depending on the circumstance of the situation in which it occurred. For example to shoot a man with the intention of killing him is a crime, this has the guilty act and the intention to commit said act. The same act committed by a person under duress could be questionable as they do not have the intention to cause harm.
Another factor to consider when defining crime is whether or not the person knows what they are doing is wrong. For example the criminal age of responsibility in England is ten, this is to say a child under the age of ten is incapable of committing a crime as they are not responsible for their own actions. This however can depend on the severity of the crime. For example a child of four years old who was to take sweets from a shop would not be considered a criminal despite theft been against the law. However a teenager doing the same would be fully responsible for their actions as we would expect them to be aware of the law and the consequences. We must also take into account whether or not the
The term crime is not by any means easy to define. It does not have any simple or universally accepted definition in modern day society. Crime is the result of a complex social process, therefore not every criminal act is considered to be a crime.
It has been said that a crime has only been committed when a court decides that one has occurred. For example a reported offence may not make it to trial due to a lack of evidence, so no further action is taken so it would not be considered a crime. This way of defining crime can be problematic as a victim may decide not to report a minor infraction when a conviction isn't likely. So would that mean although there had been an offence, there hadn't been a crime?
Legal tradition states that in order for an offence to be a crime there has to be “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea”, with this is mind identical events may be classified as a crime, or otherwise depending on the circumstance of the situation in which it occurred. For example to shoot a man with the intention of killing him is a crime, this has the guilty act and the intention to commit said act. The same act committed by a person under duress could be questionable as they do not have the intention to cause harm.
Another factor to consider when defining crime is whether or not the person knows what they are doing is wrong. For example the criminal age of responsibility in England is ten, this is to say a child under the age of ten is incapable of committing a crime as they are not responsible for their own actions. This however can depend on the severity of the crime. For example a child of four years old who was to take sweets from a shop would not be considered a criminal despite theft been against the law. However a teenager doing the same would be fully responsible for their actions as we would expect them to be aware of the law and the consequences. We must also take into account whether or not the