criminology

'''Social anthropology''' is the branch of [[anthropology]] that studies how currently living human beings behave in social groups. Practitioners of social anthropology investigate, often through long term, intensive [[Fieldwork|field studies]] (including [[participant observation]] methods), the [[social organization]] of a particular people: [[Convention (norm)|customs]], [[economics|economic]] and [[Politics|political]] organization, [[law]] and conflict resolution, patterns of [[Consumption (economics)|consumption and exchange]], [[kinship and descent|kinship]] and family structure, [[Sociology of gender|gender relations]], childrearing and [[socialization]], [[religion]], and so on.

Social anthropology also explores the role of meanings, ambiguities and contradictions of [[Social relation|social life]], patterns of sociality, violence and conflict, and the underlying logics of [[Social behavior|social behaviour]]. Social anthropologists are trained in the interpretation of [[narrative]], [[ritual]] and symbolic behaviour not merely as ''text'', but with communication examined in relation to action, practice, and the historical context in which it is embedded. Social anthropologists address the diversity of positions and perspectives to be found within any [[social group]].

== Substantive focus and practice ==
Social anthropology is distinguished from subjects such as [[economics]] or [[political science]] by its [[holistic]] range and the attention it gives to the diversity of culture and society across the world, and the capacity this gives the discipline to re-examine Euro-American assumptions. It is differentiated from [[sociology]] both in its main methods (based on long-term participant observation and linguistic competence),{{Fact|date=June 2007}} its commitment to the relevance and illumination provided by micro studies, and its extension beyond strictly social phenomena to culture, art, individuality, and cognition.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} While some social anthropologists use quantitative methods (particularly those whose research touches on topics such as local economies, [[demography]], or health and illness), social anthropologists generally emphasize qualitative analysis of long-term fieldwork, rather than the more quantitative methods used by most economists or sociologists.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}

===Specialisations===
Specialisations within social anthropology shift as its objects of study are transformed and as new intellectual paradigms appear; [[ethnomusicology]] and [[medical anthropology]] afford examples of current, well-defined specialisms.

More recent and currently emergent areas within social anthropology include the relation between cultural diversity and new findings in [[theory of cognitive development|cognitive development]]; social and ethical understandings of novel technologies; emergent forms of 'the family' and other new socialities modeled on [[kinship]]; the ongoing social fall-out of the demise of [[state socialism]]; the politics of resurgent [[religiosity]]; analysis of audit cultures and accountability.

The subject has been enlivened by, and has contributed to, approaches from other disciplines, such as [[philosophy]] ([[ethics]], [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]], [[logic]]), the history of science, [[psychoanalysis]], and [[linguistics]].

===Ethical considerations===
The subject has both ethical and [[Reflexivity (social theory)|reflexive]] dimensions. Practitioners have developed an awareness of the sense in which scholars create their objects of study and the ways in which anthropologists themselves may contribute to processes of change in the societies they study.

==History==
Social anthropology has historical roots in a number of 19th-century disciplines, including [[ethnology]], [[folklore]] studies, and [[Classics]], among others. (See [[History of anthropology]].) Its immediate precursor took shape in the work of [[Edward Burnett Tylor]] and [[James George Frazer]] in the late 19th century and underwent major changes in both method and theory during the period 1890-1920 with a new emphasis on original fieldwork, long-term holistic study of social behavior in natural settings, and the introduction of French and German social theory.

Departments of Social Anthropology exist in universities around the world. The field of social anthropology has expanded in ways not anticipated by the founders of the field, as for example in the subfield of [[Structure and Dynamics|structure and dynamics]].

===1920s-1940===
Modern social anthropology was founded in [[United Kingdom|Britain]] at [[The London School of Economics and Political Science]] following [[World War I]]. Influences include both the methodological revolution pioneered by [[Bronisław Malinowski]]'s process-oriented [[field work|fieldwork]] in the [[Trobriand Islands]] of [[Melanesia]] between 1915 and 1918 and [[Alfred Radcliffe-Brown]]'s theoretical program for systematic comparison that was based on a conception of rigorous fieldwork and the [[Structural functionalism|structure-functionalist]] conception of [[Durkheim]]’s [[sociology]].<ref>[[Fredrik Barth|Barth, Fredrik]], et al. (2005) ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=g1sV8lOlhVsC One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American anthropology]''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref> Other intellectual founders include [[W. H. R. Rivers]] and [[A. C. Haddon]], whose orientation reflected the contemporary Volkerpsychologie of [[Wilhelm Wundt]] and [[Adolf Bastian]], and Sir [[E. B. Tylor]], who defined anthropology as a positivistic science following [[Auguste Comte]]. [[Edmund Leach]] (1962) defined social anthropology as a kind of comparative micro-sociology based on intensive fieldwork studies. There was never a settled theoretical orthodoxy on the nature of science and society but always a tension between several views that were seriously opposed.

===1940s-1980s===
Following [[World War II]], sociocultural anthropology as comprised by the fields of ethnography and ethnology diverged into an American school of [[cultural anthropology]] while social anthropology diversified in Europe by challenging the principles of structure-functionalism, absorbing ideas from [[Claude Levi-Strauss]]’s [[Structuralism#Structuralism in anthropology|structuralism]] and from [[Max Gluckman]]’s [[Manchester school (anthropology)|Manchester school]], and embracing the study of conflict, change, urban anthropology, and networks.{{Facts|subst:DATE|date=July 2008}}}}

===1980s to present===
A European Association of Social Anthropologists ([[EASA]]) was founded in 1989 as a society of scholarship at a meeting of founder members from fourteen European countries, supported by the [http://www.wennergren.org/ Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.] The Association seeks to advance anthropology in Europe by organizing biennial conferences and by editing its academic journal, ''Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale''.

==Anthropologists associated with social anthropology==

* [[Andre Beteille]] <ref>http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/179372 After dinner talk on the history of social anthropology: Beteille speaks of his childhood and natural inclination to anthropology, his training, fieldwork in Delhi and the influence of his supervisor, M.N. Srinivas. His work on equality and inequality in human societies and publications on such, esp the caste system. He reflects on and analyses the work of Dumont, as well as Marxism, Hinduism and Islam. He cites those who have influenced him and his work, and closes with an overview of his current interests in Nationalism and tribal identities in India, as well as his lectures on backward classes.</ref>
* [[Mary Douglas]] <ref>http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/131558 interview by Alan Macfarlane, in which Mary Douglas talks about her life and work in Africa and elsewhere.</ref>
* [[Robert L. Carneiro]]
* [[E. E. Evans-Pritchard]]
* [[Raymond Firth]]
* [[Rosemary Firth]]<ref>http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/447 Rosemary Firth interview by Alan Macfarlane: about her arrival in anthropology and fieldwork in Malaya with Raymond Firth, and about the position of a woman anthropologist.</ref>
* [[Meyer Fortes]]
* [[Clifford Geertz]]
* [[Ernest Gellner]]
* [[Adam Kuper]]
* [[Edmund Leach]]
* [[Murray Leaf]]
* [[Alan Macfarlane]] <ref>http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/131552 Eight lectures for first year Cambridge University students in February 2006. Introducing some of the major approaches to the anthropology of politics and economics.</ref>
* [[Bronisław Malinowski]]
* [[David Maybury-Lewis]]
* [[Siegfried Frederick Nadel]]
* [[Alfred Radcliffe-Brown]]
* Sarah Rahman
* [[Audrey Richards]]
* [[Victor Turner]]
* [[Marilyn Strathern]]
* [[Douglas R. White]]
* [[James Woodburn]]<ref>http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/131557 James Woodburn Interview and film of James Woodburn by Alan Macfarlane: about his life and work in anthropology and visual anthropology in Africa and Britain</ref>


== Bibliography ==
* Bronislaw Malinowski (1915) ''The [[Trobriand Islands]]''
*(1922) ''Argonauts of the Western Pacific''
* (1929) ''The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia''
*(1935) ''Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands''
* Edmund Leach (1954) Political systems of Highland Burma. London: G. Bell.
* (1982) ''Social Anthropology''
* Thomas H. Eriksen (1985) ''Social Anthropology'', pp. 926-929 in ''The Social Science Encyclopedia'' {{cite book|title=|isbn=0710200080|oclc=11623683}}
* Adam Kuper (1996) ''Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School'' {{cite book|title=|isbn=0415118956|oclc=32509209}}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* [http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/anthropology.asp Benchmark Statement Anthropology (UK)]

==External links==
*[http://www.movinganthropology.org - The Moving Anthropology Student Network (MASN)] - website offers tutorials, information on the subject, discussion-forums and a large link-collection for all interested scholars of social anthropology

==See also==
* [[Cultural Anthropology]]
* [[Sociology]]

[[Category:Social anthropology]]

[[co:Antropologia suciale]]
[[da:Socialantropologi]]
[[de:Sozialanthropologie]]
[[es:Antropología social]]
[[it:Antropologia sociale]]
[[no:Sosialantropologi]]
[[pl:Antropologia społeczna]]
[[sv:Socialantropologi]]
[[th:มานุษยวิทยาสังคม]]

{{otheruses|Crime (disambiguation)}}

In the [[sociology| sociological field]], '''crime''' consists of the breach of one or more rules or [[law]]s for which some [[Government|governing authority]] or force may ultimately prescribe a [[punishment]]. The word ''crime'' originates from the [[Latin]] ''crimen'' (genitive ''criminis''), from the Latin [[root (linguistics)|root]] ''cernō'' and Greek κρινω = "I [[judge]]". Originally it meant "[[charge]] (in law), [[guilt]], [[accusation]]".

When society deems informal relationships and sanctions insufficient to create and maintain a desired [[social order]], there may result more formalized systems of [[social control]] imposed by a [[government]], or more broadly, by a [[State]]. With the institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel individuals to conform to behavioural codes and punish those that do not. Various mechanisms are employed to regulate behaviour, including rules codified into laws, [[police|policing]] people to ensure they comply with those laws, and other policies and practices designed to [[crime prevention|prevent crime]]. In addition are [[Legal remedy|remedies]] and [[sanctions (law)|sanctions]], and collectively these constitute a [[criminal justice]] system. Not all breaches of the law, however, are considered crimes, for example, [[breach of contract|breaches of contract]] and other [[Private law|civil law]] offences. The [[Labeling theory|label]] of "crime" and the accompanying [[social stigma]] are normally reserved for those activities that are injurious to the general population or the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. The label is intended to assert an [[hegemony]] of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify a punishment imposed by the State, in the event that an accused person is [[trial (law)|tried]] and [[conviction (law)|convicted]] of a crime. Usually, the perpetrator of the crime is a [[natural person]], but in some jurisdictions and in some moral environments, [[legal person]]s are also considered to have the capability of committing crimes.

== Definition ==

A [[Norm (sociology)|normative]] [[definition]] views crime as [[deviant behavior]] that violates prevailing [[norm (sociology)|norms]] {{ndash}} [[culture|cultural]] standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing [[society|social]], [[politics|political]], [[psychology|psychological]], and [[economics|economic]] conditions may affect the current definitions of crime and the form of the legal, [[Police|law enforcement]], and penal responses made by society. These [[structuralism|structural]] realities remain fluid and often contentious. For example, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, behavior may be [[criminalisation|criminalised]] or [[decriminalisation|decriminalised]], which will directly affect the [[statistics|statistical]] [[crime rate]]s, determine the allocation of resources for the enforcement of such [[laws]], and influence the general public opinion. Similarly, changes in the way that crime data are collected and/or calculated may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to [[crime statistics]], allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which law should be used to enforce any particular social norm. There are many ways in which behaviour can be controlled without having to resort to the criminal justice system. Indeed, in those cases where there is no clear [[consensus]] on the given norm, the use of [[criminal law]] by the group in [[power (sociology)|power]] to prohibit the behaviour of another group may be considered an improper limitation of the second group's [[Freedom (philosophy)|freedom]], and the ordinary members of society may lose some of their respect for the law in general whether the disputed law is actively enforced or not.

[[Legislature]]s pass laws (called ''[[mala prohibita]]'') that define crimes which violate social norms. These laws vary from time to time and from place to place: note variations in [[gambling]] laws, for example. Other crimes, called ''[[mala in se]]'', are nearly universally outlawed, such as [[murder]], [[theft]] and [[rape]]

== Criminalization ==
{{main | Criminalization}}

* One can view criminalization as a procedure intended as a pre-emptive, harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a [[Deterrence (legal)|deterrent]] to those proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm. The State becomes involved because they usually believe costs of not criminalizing (i.e. allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalizing it (i.e. restricting individual [[liberty]] in order to minimize harm to others).
* Criminalization may provide future harm-reduction even after a crime, assuming those incarcerated for committing crimes are more likely to cause harm in the future. {{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}}
* Criminalization might be intended as a way to make potential criminals pay for their crimes. In this case, criminalization is a way to set the price that one must pay (to society) for certain actions that are considered detrimental to society as a whole. In this sense criminalization can be viewed as nothing more than State-sanctioned [[revenge]].

States control the process of criminalization because:

* Even if victims recognize their own role as 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.
* The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while being indifferent to a possible desire for [[deterrence (psychological)|deterrence]] (see Polinsky & Shavell (1997) on the fundamental divergence between the private and the social motivation for using the legal system).
* Fear of retaliation may deter victims or witnesses of crimes from taking any action. Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit reporting or co-operation in a trial.
* Victims alone may lack the economies of scale which might allow them to administer a penal system, let alone collect any fines levied by a court (see Polinsky (1980) on the enforcement of fines). Garoupa & Klerman (2002) warn that a [[rent-seeking]] government has as its primary motivation to maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient wealth, a rent-seeking government will act more aggressively than a [[social welfare function|social-welfare]]-maximizing government in enforcing laws against minor crimes (usually with a fixed penalty such as parking and routine traffic violations), but more laxly in enforcing laws against major crimes.
* As a result of the crime, victims may die or become incapacitated.

== History ==

The earliest known [[civilization]]s had codes of [[law]], containing both [[civil]] and penal rules mixed together, though not always in recorded form. The [[Sumer]]ians produced the earliest surviving written codes,<ref>Oppenheim (1964)</ref> and it is known that [[Urukagina]] had an early code that does not survive. A later king, [[Ur-Nammu]] left the earliest code that has been discovered, creating a formal system of prescribed penalties for specific cases in 57 articles, the ''[[Code of Ur-Nammu]]''. The Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code of [[Lipit-Ishtar]]". This code, from the 20th century BCE, contains some fifty articles, and has been reconstructed by comparison among several sources. {{quote|The Sumerian was deeply conscious of his personal rights and resented any encroachment on them, whether by his King, his superior, or his equal. No wonder that the Sumerians were the first to compile laws and law codes.| Kramer<ref>Kramer (1971: 4)</ref>}}

Successive legal codes in [[Babylon]], including the [[code of Hammurabi]], reflected Mesopotamian society's belief that law derived from the will of the gods (see [[Babylonian law]]).<ref>Driver and Mills (1952-55) and Skaist (1994)</ref> Many states at this time functioned as [[theocracy| theocracies]], with codes of conduct largely religious in origin or reference.

[[Sir Henry Maine]] (1861) studied the ancient codes available in his day, and failed to find any criminal law in the "modern" sense of the word. While modern systems distinguish between offences against the "State" or "Community", and offences against the "Individual", the so-called penal law of ancient communities was not the law of "Crimes" (''crimina''); it was the law of "Wrongs" (''delicta''). Thus, the Hellenic laws<ref>Gagarin: 1986; and Garner: 1987</ref> treated all forms of [[theft]], [[assault]], [[rape]], and murder as private wrongs, and left action for enforcement up to the victims or their survivors. The earliest systems seem to have lacked formal courts.

The [[Ancient Rome | Romans]] systematized law and exported it across their Empire. Again, the initial rules of [[Roman Law]] regarded assaults as a matter of private compensation. The most significant Roman Law concept involved ''dominion''.<ref>Daube: 1969</ref> The ''[[pater familias]]'' owned all the family and its property (including slaves); the ''pater'' enforced matters involving interference with any property. The ''Commentaries'' of [[Gaius (jurist) | Gaius]] on the [[Twelve Tables]] treated ''furtum'' (in modern parlance: theft) as a [[tort]]. Similarly, assault and violent [[robbery]] involved [[trespass]] as to the ''pater's'' property (so, for example, the rape of a slave could become the subject of compensation to the ''pater'' as having trespassed on his "property"), and breach of such laws created a ''vinculum juris'' (an obligation of law) that only the payment of monetary compensation (modern "[[damages]]") could discharge. Similarly, the consolidated Teutonic Laws of the [[Germanic tribes]],<ref>Guterman: 1990</ref> included a complex system of monetary compensations for what courts would {{as of | 2008 | alt = now}} consider the complete range of criminal offences against the person, from murder down.

Even though Rome abandoned its [[Roman Britain |Britannic provinces]] sometime around 400 AD, the Germanic mercenaries {{ndash}} who had largely become instrumental in enforcing Roman rule {{ndash}} acquired ownership of the land there and continued to use a mixture of Roman and Teutonic Law, with much written down under the early [[Anglo-Saxon Kings]].<ref>Attenborough: 1963</ref> But only when a more centralized English monarchy emerged following the [[Norman invasion]], and the kings of England attempted to assert power over the land and its peoples, did the modern concept emerge, namely of a crime not only as an offence against the "individual", but also as a wrong against the "State".<ref>Kern: 1948; Blythe: 1992; and Pennington: 1993</ref> This idea came from [[common law]], and the earliest conception of a criminal act involved events of such major significance that the "State" had to usurp the usual functions of the civil tribunals, and direct a special law or ''privilegium'' against the perpetrator. All the earliest English criminal trials involved wholly extraordinary and arbitrary courts without any settled law to apply, whereas the civil delictual law operated in a highly developed and consistent manner (except where a King wanted to raise money by selling a new form of [[writ]]). The development of the idea that the "State" dispenses [[justice]] in a court only emerges in parallel with or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty.

In continental Europe, Roman Law persisted, but with a stronger influence from the Church.<ref>Vinogradoff (1909); Tierney: 1964, 1979</ref> Coupled with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller State units, various different legal traditions emerged, remaining more strongly rooted in Roman [[jurisprudence]] modified to meet the prevailing political climate. In Scandinavia, the effect of Roman law did not become apparent until the 17th century, and the courts grew out of the ''[[thing (assembly)|thing]]s'' — the assemblies of the people. The cases were decided by the people (usually largest freeholders dominating) which later gradually transformed into a system of a royal judge nominating a number of most esteemed men of the parish as his board, fulfilling the function of "the people" of yore.

From the [[Hellenic world|Hellenic]] system onwards, the policy rationale for requiring the payment of monetary compensation for wrongs committed has involved the avoidance of feuding between [[clan]]s and [[family|families]].<ref>
The concept of the ''pater familias'' acted as a unifying factor in extended kin groups, and the later practice of ''[[wergild]]'' functioned in this context.
</ref>
If families' feelings could be mollified by compensation, this would help to keep the peace. On the other hand, the threat of [[endemic warfare|feudal warfare]] was played down also by the institution of oaths. Both in archaic Greece and in [[Middle Age|medieval]] [[Scandinavia]], the accused was released if he could get a sufficient number of male relatives to swear him unguilty. This may be compared with the [[United Nations Security Council]] where the [[veto]] power of the permanent members ensures that the organization is not drawn into crises where it could not enforce its decisions. These means of restraining private [[feuds]] did not always work or prevented the fulfillment of justice but, in the earliest times, the "States" were not prepared to provide an independent police force. Thus, criminal law grew out of what is now tort and, in real terms, many acts and omissions that are classified as crimes overlap civil law concepts.

The development of [[sociology| sociological]] thought from the 19th century onwards prompted some fresh views on crime and criminality, and fostered the beginnings of [[criminology]] as a study of crime in society. [[Friedrich Nietzsche| Nietzsche]] noted a link between crime and [[creativity]] {{ndash}} in ''[[Birth of Tragedy|The Birth of Tragedy]]'' he asserted: "The best and brightest that man can acquire he must obtain by crime". In the 20th century [[Michel Foucault]] in ''[[Discipline and Punish]]'' made a study of [[criminalization]] as a coercive method of state control.

== Natural-law theory ==

Justifying the State's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws has proven a consistent theoretical problem. One of the earliest justifications involved the theory of [[natural law]]. This posits that the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards of [[morality]] or constructs them. [[Thomas Aquinas]] said: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I), i.e. since people are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. [[William Blackstone]] (1979: 41) describes the thesis:

:"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

But [[John Austin (legal philosophy) |John Austin]], an early [[Legal positivism|positivist]], applied [[utilitarianism]] in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality, but denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. Thus in Austinian terms a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual remains free to choose what he or she will do. Similarly, [[H.L.A. Hart|Hart]] (1961) saw the law as an aspect of sovereignty with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end. Thus, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law were simply that the law was internally logical and consistent, and that State power was being used with responsibility. Dworkin (2005) rejects Hart's theory and argues that fundamental among political rights is the right of each individual to the equal respect and concern of those who govern him. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of [[deference]] (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make.

Indeed, despite everything, the majority of natural-[[law]] theorists have accepted the idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary function of the law. This view entails the problem that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible in that, if conformity with natural law forms a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, be morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice. The solution to this problem is to admit some degree of [[moral relativism]] and to accept that norms may evolve over time and, therefore, the continued enforcement of old laws may be criticized in the light of the current norms. The law may be acceptable but the use of State power to coerce citizens to comply with that law is not morally justified. In more modern conceptions of the theory, crime is characterized as the violation of [[individual rights]]. Since so many rights are considered as natural, hence the term "[[right]]", rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime is also natural, in contrast to laws, which are man-made. [[Adam Smith]] illustrates this view, saying that a [[smuggling|smuggler]] would be an excellent citizen, "''...had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so.''"

Natural-law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" (which derives from human nature) and "illegality" (which originates with the interests of those in [[power (sociology)| power]]). Lawyers sometimes express the two concepts with the phrases ''[[malum in se]]'' and ''[[malum prohibitum]]'' respectively. A crime ''malum in se'' (they argue) is inherently criminal; whereas a crime ''malum prohibitum'' is argued to be criminal only because the law has decreed it so. This view leads to a seeming [[paradox]], that an act can be illegal that is no crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many [[the Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] thinkers such as Adam Smith and the American [[Founding Fathers]] subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called [[liberalism#classical liberalism|classical liberals]]{{Fact|date=August 2008}} and [[libertarian]]s{{Fact|date=August 2008}}.

== Distinctions ==
[[Image:Ahmedabad riots1.jpg|300px|right|thumb|[[Religion|Religious]] sentiment often become a contributory factor of crime. Rioters set fire to many of [[Ahmedabad]]'s buildings during the [[2002 Gujarat violence]].]]

Governments criminalise antisocial behaviour — and treat it within a system of offences against [[society]] — in order to justify the imposition of punishment. Authorities make a series of distinctions depending on the passive subject of the crime (the victim), or on the offended interest(s), in crimes against:

* personality of the State
* [[right]]s of the citizen
* [[public administration]]
* administration of [[justice]]
* [[Religion| religious]] sentiment and [[faith]]
* [[public order]]
* public [[economy]], [[industry]], and [[commerce]]
* public [[morality]].
* person and [[honour]].
* [[patrimony]]

Or one can categorise crimes depending on the related punishment with [[sentence (law)|sentencing]] [[tariff]]s prescribed in line with the perceived seriousness of the offence with [[Fine (penalty)|fine]]s and noncustodial sentences for the least serious, and (in some States) [[capital punishment]] for the most serious.

== Types ==

Researchers and commentators may classify crime into categories, including [[violent crime]], [[property crime]], and [[public order crime]].

=== U.S. classification ===

In the [[United States]] since 1930, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] has tabulated [[Uniform Crime Reports]] (UCR) annually from crime data submitted by [[Law enforcement agency|law enforcement]] agencies across the [[United States]].<ref>
[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm FBI: Uniform Crime Reports]
</ref>
Officials compile this data at the city, county, and [[U.S. state| state]] levels into the [[Uniform crime report]]s (UCR). They classify violations of laws which derive from [[common law]] as Part I (index) crimes in UCR data, 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 are classified as Part II crimes.

Analysts can also group crimes by severity, some common categorical terms including:

* [[felony|felonies]] (US and previously UK)
* [[indictable offence]]s (UK)
* [[misdemeanor]]s (US and previously UK)
* [[summary offence]]s (UK)

For convenience, such lists usually include [[infraction]]s although, in the U.S., they may not be the subject of the criminal law, but rather of the [[Civil law (private law)|civil law]]. Compare [[tort| tortfeasance]].

== Crimes against international law ==

Crimes defined by [[treaty]] as [[Crime against international law| crimes against international law]] include:

* [[crime against peace| crimes against peace]]
* waging a [[war of aggression]]
* [[Crime of apartheid |crimes of apartheid]]
* [[piracy]]
* [[genocide]]
* [[war crime]]s
* the [[slave trade]]

From the point of view of State-centric law, extraordinary procedures (usually [[international court]]s) may prosecute such crimes. Note the role of the [[International Criminal Court]] at [[The Hague]] in the [[Netherlands]].

== Religion and crime ==

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 which punish crimes against the divine will and specific devotional, organizational and other rules under specific codes, such as Islamic [[sharia]] or 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| martial-law]] codes that either supplant or extend civil codes in times of 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. Such undesired activities may include assembly in the streets, violation of [[curfew]], or possession of firearms.

== Employee crime ==

Two common types of employee crime exist: [[embezzlement]] and [[sabotage]].{{Fact|date=October 2008}} The complexity and anonymity of computers may help sinister employees camouflage their crimes. The victims of the most costly scams include banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and other large financial institutions.<ref name="Computing1">
Sara Baase, "A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing and The Internet. Third Ed. 'Employee Crime'" (2008)
</ref>
Most people guilty of embezzlement do not have criminal histories. It is more likely that they have a gripe against their employer, have financial problems, or simply can't resist the temptation of a loop-hole they have found. Screening and [[background checks]] on perspective employees can help; 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'.<ref name="Computing1"/> This sabotage may take the form of a [[Logic bomb]], a [[computer virus]], or creating general havoc.

Some [[employer| 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.{{Fact|date=August 2008}} Although privacy-advocates have questioned such methods, they serve the interests of the companies using them. Not only do these methods help prevent employee crime, but they protect the company from punishment and/or lawsuits for negligent hiring.<ref name=negligenthiring>
{{cite news
|first=Garrett
|last=Therolf
|authorlink=
|coauthors=Jack Leonard
|title=L.A. County failed to act on employee crime checks at King-Harbor: Inaction on medical workers with past offenses could result in discipline
|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/15/local/me-employees15
|work=Los Angeles Times
|publisher=
|location=Los Angeles
|date=2008-07-15
|accessdate=2008-08-09
|quote=
|archiveurl=
|archivedate=
}}
</ref>{{Verify source|date=August 2008}}

== See also ==

* ''[[Actus reus]]''
* [[Case law]]
* [[Civil law (private law)|Civil law]]
* [[Corrections]]
* [[Crime importation]]
* ''[[Crime Library]]''
* [[Crime mapping]]
* [[Crime in Brazil]]
* [[Crime in Mexico]]
* [[Crime in the United States]]
* [[Criminal justice]]
* [[Criminal law]]
* [[Criminal record]]
* [[Fear of crime]]
* [[Gang]]
* [[Insanity defense]]
* [[Juvenile delinquency]]
* [[Law and order (politics)|Law and order]]
* [[Neighborhood watch]]
* [[Organized Crime]]
* [[Outlaw]]
* [[Penal colony]]
* [[Timeline of organized crime]] from 1870
* [[Victimology]]
* [[Victimless crime (political philosophy)]]

=== Statistics ===

* [[Crime rate]]
* [[Murder#Demographics|Murder statistics]]
* [[Rape#Rape statistics|Rape statistics]]
* [[List of countries by murder rate]]
* [[United States cities by crime rate]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist}}
{{Refimprove|date=September 2007}}

== Bibliography ==

* Aquinas, Thomas. (1988). ''On Law, Morality and Politics''. 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. ISBN 0-87220-663-7
* Attenborough, F. L. (ed. and trans.) (1922). [http://www.ilabdatabase.com/member/detail.php3?custnr=&membernr=1661&ordernr=42311 ''The Laws of the Earliest English Kings'']. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprint March 2006. [http://www.lawbookexchange.com/ The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.] ISBN [http://www.ilabdatabase.com/member/detail.php3?custnr=&membernr=1661&ordernr=42311 1-58477-583-1]
* Blackstone, William. (1765-1769). ''Commentaries on the Law of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1769, Vol. 1''. (1979). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-05538-8
* Blythe, James M. (1992). ''Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages''. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03167-3
* Cohen, Stanley (1985). ''Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification''. Polity Press. ISBN 0745600212
* Daube, David. (1969). ''Roman Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects''. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-85224-051-1
* Driver, G. R. & Mills, John C. (1952-55). ''The Babylonian Laws''. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-825110-6
* Dworkin, Ronald. (2005). ''Taking Rights Seriously''. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-86711-4
* [[Michel Foucault|Foucault, Michel]] (1975). ''Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison'', New York: Random House.
* Gagarin, Michael. (1986). ''Early Greek Law''. Reprint edition (1989). Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06602-2
* Garner, Richard. (1987). ''Law and Society in Classical Athens''. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-00856-2
* Garoupa, Nuno & Klerman, Daniel. (2002). "Optimal Law Enforcement with a Rent-Seeking Government". ''American Law and Economics Review'' Vol. 4, No. 1. pp116-140.
* Guterman, Simeon L. (1990). ''The Principle of the Personality of Law in the Germanic Kingdoms of Western Europe from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century''. New York: P. Lang. ISBN 0-8204-0731-3
* Hart, H.L.A. (1961). ''The Concept of Law''. 2nd revised edition (1997). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-876123-6
* Hart, H.L.A. (1972). ''Law, Liberty and Morality''. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-0154-7
* Kern, Fritz. (1948). ''Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages''. Reprint edition (1985), Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
* Kramer, Samuel Noah. (1971). ''The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character''. Chicago: University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-45238-7
* Maine, Henry Sumner. (1861). ''Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society, and Its Relation to Modern Ideas''. Reprint edition (1986). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-1006-7
* Oppenheim, A. Leo (and Reiner, Erica as editor). (1964). ''Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization''. Revised edition ([[September 15]], [[1977]]). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-63187-7
* Pennington, Kenneth. (1993). ''The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition''. Berkeley: University of California Press.
* Polinsky, A. Mitchell. (1980). "Private versus Public Enforcement of Fines". ''The Journal of Legal Studies'', Vol. IX, No. 1, (January), pp105-127.
* Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven. (1997). ''[http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6259.html On the Disutility and Discounting of Imprisonment and the Theory of Deterrence]'', NBER Working Papers 6259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
* Skaist, Aaron Jacob. (1994). ''The Old Babylonian Loan Contract: Its History and Geography''. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press. ISBN 965-226-161-0
* Tierney, Brian. (1979). ''Church Law and Constitutional Thought in the Middle Ages''. London: Variorum Reprints. ISBN 0-86078-036-8
* Tierney, Brian. (1964). ''The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300''. Reprint edition (1988). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-6701-8
* Vinogradoff, Paul. (1909). ''Roman Law in Medieval Europe''. Reprint edition (2004). Kessinger Publishing Co. ISBN 1-4179-4909-0

== External links ==

{{wikiquote}}
{{wiktionary}}
* [http://www.crimemagazine.com/ Crime Magazine]
* [http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal.php Criminal Law Resources] Criminal Law, Law Teacher
* [http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/ Internet Crime Archive]
* [http://crime.alturl.com/ Crime Reporter: Cold Cases]
{{Types of crime}}
[[Category:Crime| ]]
[[Category:Crime by country]]
[[Category:Criminal law]]
[[Category:Criminology]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Crimes]]

[[af:Misdaad]]
[[ar:جريمة]]
[[be-x-old:Злачынства]]
[[bg:Престъпление]]
[[cs:Zločin]]
[[da:Kriminalitet]]
[[de:Kriminalität]]
[[et:Kuritegu]]
[[es:Delito]]
[[eo:Krimo]]
[[fr:Crime]]
[[io:Krimino]]
[[id:Kriminalitas]]
[[is:Glæpur]]
[[he:פושע]]
[[lb:Kriminalitéit]]
[[lt:Nusikalstamumas]]
[[nl:Misdaad]]
[[ja:犯罪]]
[[no:Kriminalitet]]
[[pl:Przestępstwo]]
[[pt:Crime]]
[[qu:Q'uma]]
[[ru:Преступление]]
[[simple:Crime]]
[[fi:Rikos]]
[[sv:Brott]]
[[vi:Tội phạm]]
[[tr:Suç]]
[[uk:Злочин]]
[[yi:פארברעכן]]
[[zh:犯罪]]