it is very difficult to give a correct and precise definition of crime, Glanville Williams, admitted the impossibility of having a workable content based definition of crime, points out that the definition of crime is one of the sharp intellectual problem of law.
Likewise Russell also admitted that – to define crime is a task which so far has not been satisfactorily accomplished by any writer.
Such a difficulty in ultimate analysis arises due to the changing nature of crime, an outcome of equally dynamic criminal and penal policy of a state.
However some sociologists, perceiving crime as a social phenomenon feel that criminal law in a sense, protects certain social interests, and any act which threatens or poses threat to this interests is define as crime.
In general terms crime is defined as an act punishable by law as forbidden by statue or injurious to the public welfare. It is very wide definition, any thing which is injurious to public welfare is crime, in modern complex society there are many things which are injurious or against the public welfare for example selling contaminated food molestation of young children, etc.
Blackstone defines crime:
An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it. But in this definition we have to understand what public law is?
According to Austinian public law is identical with constitutional law. That being so the crime would then mean an act done in violation of constitutional law. The definition thus would cover only the political offence leaving aside a vast area of other criminal behavior.
Blackstone also defines crime as violation of the public rights and duties due to the whole community considered as a community in its social aggregate capacity.
Stephen slightly modifies this definition and presents it in the following form:
A crime is a violation of a right considered in reference to the evil tendency of such violation as regards the community at large.
Blackstone defines crime only the violation of public rights, while Stephen includes the element of violation of public duties as well.
But for example a directors of a company fail to manage its affairs properly the mill is closed, workers are rendered unemployed, production of a commodity essential for the society is stopped. Will it not be an act which is injurious to public or the society?
Can we prosecute the directors for any crimes? The answer certainly not then what is crime?
A crime is those forms of legal wrong which are regarded by the law as being especially injurious to the public at large.`
Stephen further defines crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same time revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.
If we look up to the penal codes of different countries we find that there are certainly some acts which though not immoral are highly criminal and at the same time there may be acts which are highly immoral but not criminal.
Austin: A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives is a civil injury; a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.
Thus according to Austin in case of civil wrong a State does not interfere until the wrong has been committed and proceedings are initiated by the injured party or by some other person acting on his behalf . in case of criminal wrong proceeding can be instituted by the sovereign or his subordinate along. There are many cases of crimes under the Indian Penal Code where prosecution cannot be launched unless a complaint is made by the aggrieved party. It is only in case of serious crimes that the State may on its own initiative take action to punish the wrong doer by initiation of criminal proceedings in its own name. for example in case of adultery under section 497 or criminal elopement under section 498 of the IPC a complaint by the person aggrieved is necessary. No court shall take cognizance of the offence under the section unless a complaint is made by the husband of the victim woman.
Donald also admitted the same thing " Crime is a social injury and an expression of subjective opinion varying in time and place.
Conclusion: A pattern of human behavior prohibited by criminal law at a given time in a given society, thus, depends upon the specific features of its organization.
A human conduct that, according to the policy-makers comes within the ambit of the prescribed sanctioned of a state of the purpose of criminal law can be labeled as Crime. An act or activities prohibited by Law (IPC).
Elements of Crime
The fundamental principal of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act- actus reus, combined with a wrongful intention-mens rea. This principle is embodied in the maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Meaning an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally blameworthy.
Actus Reus: Comprises the following:
- Human Conduct or an Activity.
- The Result of the Act Prohibition by Law.
Illustration: A shoots at B using a rifle intentionally and B dies.
- A physical act that attracts criminal sanctions.
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act". Which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea.,.
Conduct: Result but not prohibition by law (than no crime) i.e. Solders kills the enemy.
Mens Rea: No act per se (itself) is criminal, the act becomes a crime only when it is done with a guilt mind. The jurist determines the Mens Rea.
"guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law based criminal law jurisdiction .
Illustration. A blacksmith is seized by a gang of robbers and he forced to break the doors of a house for robbery to enter, and the robbers committed a robber y.
Q- Whether the Act is voluntary or not.
A- No
Q- Whether the accused have foresight of the consequences.
A-Yes
Conclusion- If there would be two "Yes" in the above citation then only it becomes crimes.
Illustration: A while shooting at a tiger kills B, who was behind the bush , cancelled (hidden) from his view.
Intention to Kill (intention to caused death). Is a basic rule. Intention is to bring about a desired act. Presumption of Intention- Natural and probable consequences should be presumed.
Consent- Intention to have sexual pleasure from a person without her consent.
Knowledge – Direct appeal to your senses. Here the probability is very high (against to commit the act against Law).Exp to purchase a stolen good. Theft-To taking possession without the consent of the owner.
Motives-Intention and motives are two different thing in a crime. Motive may be to get anything, Intention to Kill the person. Motive may be good or bad, but intention is bad than it becomes crime. Motive leads to intention , and ulterior intention is motive. IN FIXING CRIMINAL LIABILITY MOTIVE MAY BE IRRELAVANT, BUT INTENTION IS MAINTAIN OR MAIN ELEMENT.
Recklessness (irresponsibility)- Basic principle of fixing a criminal liability. Is the combination of : Foresight and Indifference. DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE BUT THE FORESIGHT.
Illustration:
A steal food to feed the starving child.
Motive- To save the life of a child- God.
Intention – To steal some food-Bad
No comments:
Post a Comment