What is crime?
At school, two children get into an argument and one hits the other giving them a nose bleed. Is that a crime?
What about this? In a domestic situation, two males are arguing and one of them deliberately smashes the other's prized property. The law would consider it a crime. But what if perpetrator and victim are both 10 years old and the property is a favourite toy?
These questions are considered in the first-ever British Crime Survey (BCS) of 10-15-year-olds [268KB PDF] which, in trying to measure victimhood among children, finds itself examining the nature of crime itself.
Today's research reminds readers that academics wrestled over how to count crime when the first adult BCS was being designed in the early 80s:
So, 20 years ago it was accepted that what is clearly a crime against an adult is not necessarily a crime against a child. One obvious example of this is how a parent is at liberty to smack their son or daughter but might well end up in court if they did the same thing to another adult.
Home Office research into youth offending [256KB PDF] has previously highlighted how children are often involved in "relatively minor transgressions (eg a low value theft from the workplace or a child stealing a small item from school)" which are unlawful but would be unlikely to be considered a matter for the justice system.
Most people would accept that many acts committed by and against children, while technically unlawful, are not really crimes in the way we understand it. The question, though, is which incidents do you include and exclude?
Today's junior edition of the BCS comes up with four ways of looking at children's experience of "crime":
• All in law includes all incidents which are in law a crime, that is where the victim perceived intent on part of the perpetrator to inflict hurt or damage or to steal property
• Norms-based applies to a set of rules to exclude relatively minor incidents which society would not normally be regarded as crimes
• All in law outside school includes all incidents that are in law a crime except those occurring in school
• Victim perceived includes all incidents which are in law a crime and that are thought by victims themselves to be crimes
On the basis of talking to 3,661 youngsters, the survey suggests that 10-15-year-olds in England and Wales are victims of anywhere between 400,000 and more than two million crimes.
Using the different definitions, this is how the figures stack up:
• All in law: 2,153,000 incidents
• Norms-based: 1,055,000 incidents
• All in law outside school: 643,000 incidents
• Victim perceived: 404,000 incidents
Which one you choose to select depends on what you think this new juvenile BCS is attempting to count. Is it a measure of crime or of victimhood? If it is the former, is it assessing crime as defined by the laws of the land or a more subjective understanding of what society regards as right and wrong?
The debate over what defines a crime has raged for hundreds of years. In the mid-18th Century, the judge and jurist Sir William Blackstone defined the concept of "natural law":
The definition works well for acts like murder, rape and theft which are considered crimes pretty much "over all the globe" but it is not always that simple. As the psychologist Philip Feldman wrote in 1993, "the core of criminal law is the same, but the border moves".
One can see this happening: UK law once prohibited adultery and consensual sex between men; a hundred years ago you could buy opium and cocaine over the counter at Harrods. Acts which are perfectly legal here may be serious crimes in other countries and vice versa. One culture's crime is another culture's social norm.
Today's report tries to get closer to a "social norm" definition of crime for British children. It is clear that most "crimes" committed against youngsters are committed by other youngsters or family members that they know. This, it might be suggested, is in contrast to most adults' experience of crime committed against them by strangers.
Here is the basis on which the BCS excludes certain acts which, while technically unlawful, are regarded as acceptable behaviour in normal society.
This gives an adult perspective of crime to the debate, but what about the views of the child? What if a youngster thinks the theft of a low value but much-loved soft toy is a crime? Should that be counted?
This table from today's report offers a range of incidents and how the different definitions apply.
One scenario they could have included is that a child being smacked at home by a parent would be counted as a crime under the "all in law", "all in law outside school" and, potentially, "victim perceived" but not within the "norms-based" definition.
When the Home office was convinced to extend the British Crime Survey down from 16 to 10-year-olds, it was thought the exercise would provide answers to the amount of crime being committed against children in England and Wales. Instead, it appears to have raised many questions about what we actually mean by crime.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"it appears to have raised many questions about what we actually mean by crime. "
And rightly so. Learning, testing, and finding the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, both to one's peers and others, as well as society at large, is a perfectly natural part of growing up, and should not be penalised unless death or serious injury results. Children fighting is not a crime, neither is children stealing from each other. Of course, they should be made to understand why it is wrong, but over-classification and over-the-top punishment is not the answer.
All too often, we seem obsessed with ever-narrowing definitions of what constitutes "normal" behaviour, leaving more and more people labelled as "abnormal". Often, this labelling becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: how many 'rebellious' teenagers (i.e. most of us) went on to become fully-fledged thieves, murderers and rapists, and how many settled down into being decent human beings, according to how their misdemeanours were treated? And those children taught that fighting is wrong in ALL circumstances are usually the ones who end up getting bullied.
We just need some good old-fashioned common sense again, instead of all this hysterical-victim-screaming-for-attention mentality that seems to have over-influenced our justice system.
Complain about this comment
Schools have to be consistent, and make sure that their rules are respected, if they want to maintain their credibility. A theft or an assault IS an offence and we are not teaching children how to abide by the law by tolerating thefts and assaults in schools.
Lenience has proved itself in failure. I am not saying that we should go back to hitting their fingers with rulers, but there must be consequences when children hit each other, kick each other, steal each other's stuff, etc.
Complain about this comment
There's one other category that is missing in both this BCS report and all too frequently in both society and in court - Common Sense.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
To me something obvious is missing from the discussion - the Law
As a convicted 'harasser' all of this got thoroughly sorted by a combination of spell in prison and a barristers review.
Consider malicious letters. Each count being an offenses in its own right but becoming punishable upon repeat. Whereas harassment itself consists four (plead-able) offenses (presumably meaning without repeats).
Punching and stealing occurrences? I don't know really, but in jail they seem to go hand in hand. At a guess I'd say three, but I'm sure it's four really.
Complain about this comment
Again, some people advocating a "common sense" approach (like so often in the BBC forum.
Two issues with this, in this particular case:
1. This actually *is* considered in the article - "norms based" is basically the common sense approach, i.e. what the people doing the study perceive to be (or survey to be) society's current norms in defining crime.
2. "Common sense" is rarely "common" between people in any individual case - You ask three people what their common sense approach would be, chances are good You get three answers. One of the reasons why classification and codification is actually useful.
Complain about this comment
UM Mark you should of all people know that just being alive in the UK is a crime.
Now back to children mugging and terrorising other children for money for sweets, cigars, cannabis, E, cocaine, cream cakes, legal highs, alcohol and what ever else there consumer driven mind likes.
I say Criminalise the lot so we can keep university places open for the better off in society.
is that an agreeable post with the theme? after all these crimes will more often than be associated with the lower socioeconomic groups in the UK were the desire to get ahead at all costs is stronger and more ingrained were every penny of a family's income is taken up just on surviving.
A lot of these children will grow up with black market economies effecting there daily lives in some way tobacco, alcohol, designer clothing and DRUGS. Sell a bit of cannabis £200-£400 per week, training scheme £80 pw, Dole £51 pw. fastest way ahead is ???
Crime what is it..?
Im a Criminal by definition yet to be convicted I use cannabis every day to treat an illness because the NHS can offer me no safe alternative that does not carry debilitating side effects..Is this the sort of Crime you talk about Mark? the house of lords have been talking about it the UN has said STOP making it a CRIME it does not work and is a waste of money resource and damages both the country and the community's, This is the UN's own drug policy one that ours MUST be based upon and not the scare mongering press. 50 years of data was looked at by the UN and FAILED in big red letters was STAMPED on the single treaty of narcotics.
Bet that will never make the news @ 6 though that we choose to pursue a failed policy against the advice of the UN, Canada America many many other countries around the world. in a few weeks the new government will reexamine drug policies Time to make them do the right thing save this country 19 billion a year in enforcement cost and put back in the 16 billion from the sales of just cannabis and its grow/medial equipment. £35 billion!!!
watch for yourselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8735000/8735625.stm
Complain about this comment
Usual stuff - altho ME claims that he writes for the uk he writes for englandshire only as usual (and sometimes for poor old wales which seems to get lumped in with englandshire for just about everything). What about schools in scotland and n ireland which have their own separate education and legal systems; different laws and rules apply; and the so-called 'education sec' is the sec for englandshire only, the local govt assoc covers englandshire only (wales has autonomy) - the other 3 quarters of the uk have their own education and local govt ministers - even wales! No mention of course of the excellent Children's Hearing System in scotland where only the most serious cases go to court. Could someone remind Mark Easton that englandshire doesn't equal britain. Unbelievably, the so-called BRITISH crime survey only covers englandshire (oh, and wales) which at least gives him an excuse for ignoring what happens in the other 2 parts.
Complain about this comment
7. At 8:02pm on 17 Jun 2010, you wrote:
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
hey that's a new one for me :)
Complain about this comment
The conflicting results of this 'Survey' puts the screaming headlines of some sections of the Press in context. Since the institution of the BCS the headline writers have been supplied with a constant stream of 'Data' of doubtful value, the result has been to spread a feeling of panic amongst some members of the public and to fuel a raft of ever intrusive laws.
The discrepancy between Police crime figures and BCS figures has been known for years, at least now the BCS has come clean on how unreliable their figures are also.
My suggestion is to revert to the admittedly flawed Police figures, they do reflect victim feeling quite accurately, and treat the BCS as simply another failed Quango to be culled to save public waste.
Complain about this comment
mivadar@6
Actually, "norms-based" is what everybody else thinks, while "common sense" is usually what only YOU think:)
OK, I'm being flippant, but generally speaking, "common sense" is a figure of speech that refers to a basic "good sense and sound judgement in practical matters", in general interpreted (mostly) to mean a little more moderation/restraint, and a little less zeal. This applies independently of what any society may consider "normal": the daily murder rate in a South African township might be considered "normal" by the residents, for example, while "common sense" might suggest there were some areas one ought not to go to.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I can flavour the discussion a little by asking the basis on which the police accept some of these complaints. Certainly the element of pre-judgement (a home visit) that may occur in certain counties (police forces)can be developmentally damaging. How many of us were told at school that we are not 'victims'. How many of us were told that we made a victim or even who the victim is ?
In my case, I was told (judges summary) that I made a victim of the law.
Complain about this comment
I have to say as an individual who suffered bullying in school that many acts bullies commit would be classed as a crime should an adult commit them, or be victim to.
These included physical attacks, theft, destruction of belongings, and slander.
In fact I'm pretty sure that if a Teenager were to go round taunting and adult, throwing things at them, and even attacking them they'd at least end up with some form of community sentence or ASBO.
Why is it viewed as acceptable for teenagers and children to commit these acts to each other?
It has been some time since those years for me now, but at the time I remember feeling that it was incredibly unfair that the bullies in my school were allowed to get away with these acts, and any punishment which generally consisted of detentions was both pointless and had no effect on the individuals in question.
This society is more than willing to demonise teenagers and young adults who commit crime against fully grown adults... and yet little or nothing is done about the even higher levels of crime committed within the age group.
Why not prosecute bullies for theft and assault?
Admittedly I know that mild cases wouldn't warrant a full prosecution... however for the more extreme cases, full on assault and theft of valuable items which does happen (in my school there were children who had mobile phones stolen, and yet the school did little about it.) should be considered a crime.
Complain about this comment
No matter what anyone else may think, I will know if I commit a crime. And, even if I am acquitted, I will still know I am guilty.
We can contemplate navels all day long, but there truly isn't a hiding place.
Complain about this comment
The government is using our current economic difficulties as justification for re-appraising the sufficiency and efficiency of our public services. In my opinion, now is also an opportune time to re-appraise the very basis of crime-classification; and the fundamental tennet should be " No third party victim, no crime."
This would provide justification for removing all those crimes intended protect people from their own actions; in particular, drug taking.
The economic benefits would be enormous. Anyone would be able to buy their drugs at Horrods again or the local chemist again. Drug-related crime such as mugging and prostitution to feed the habit of the addict would be a thing of the past. Drug-supplying criminal gangs would be out of business. Our prison population would probably be halved. Our police force could be reduced etc. etc.
At the same time there should be a massive campaign to warn people of the dangers related to drug-taking.
I have never taken any drugs in my life, but my wife's nephew died of a heroin overdose. He did not know the strength because the strength and purity varied according the means used by the suppliers to extend the volume of the powder.
It is possible that the public would accept such a review when the country is in such crisis.
Complain about this comment
Er ... is what what Labour politicians do to England and the nation's finances?
Complain about this comment
Presario comment #7 was about this countries failure to keep with UN policy on drugs, for 50 years we follow to the letter of the law and now we turn against the UN because they recommend a new way forward of treatment and decriminalisation, however our Lords see this as a no brainer as it will take a great weight of the criminal justice system and make a lot of prosecution layers redundant..
19 billion in enforcing a policy the UN has said has FAILED while we hand 16 billion in total cannabis product sales to organised crime.
watch a very brave lady point this out in the lords...
Drug debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8735000/8735625.stm
Complain about this comment
Children and teenagers need to learn right from wrong - and for many that requires doing a wrong, and then suffering the consequences for it. That's normal, and I don't believe that learning process needs to go on a criminal record.
However, we do have a problem if the wrongs are going unpunished.
But whose problem is this really? Should the police be involved? Is it all on the school where many of these things happen (not surprising, kids will be kids, esp if you gather them all together in one place)?
Or do we have a problem with parents not backing up the police/schools?
I'm soon to begin a PGCE and am well aware many parents will appeal punishments dished out to unruly children, or phone up to say Jimmy can't stay behind for detention. He's not like that at home, surely he can't have been such a bully at school...
Complain about this comment
There is more to this than you mention.
If I (an adult) went round to a neighbours house, kicked down their garden fence and set light to it - that would be a crime (criminal damage, arson, that's fairly serious).
When children did it in the case of Fiona Pilkington it was 'disorder' and the police did nothing. We have a massive body of crime where the victim is an adult, but it is still downplayed because the perpetrator is a 'child'
As a value judgement, I personally preferred the traditional approach to this. Children were not routinely prosectuted for minor incidents, but other forms of informal control were applied - caning in school, clip round the ear from the copper, dragged by a neighbour to their parents home and summary justice applied. Sorted, no cost, no criminal record to ruin their lives 20-30-40 years later. Probably more effective.
Unfortunately that has gone. Chidren have the same rights to legal redress as an adult if they are 'assaulted' by an adult. Householders who shouted at the 'chidren' in the Pilkington case ended up with a police caution for 'threatening behaviour.'
We can't have a free for all where anyone under 18 behaves as they like and nothing happens.
Unfortunately the only real alternative is to say a crime is a crime, regardless of age, and prosecute them.
Complain about this comment
"9. At 9:27pm on 17 Jun 2010, CommunityCriminal wrote:
7. At 8:02pm on 17 Jun 2010, you wrote:
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
hey that's a new one for me :)"
Usually it is BBCspeak for 'one of the moderators does not like what you said but cannot find anything really wrong with it, so will just bury it for as long as possible'. ^^
Complain about this comment
I think the adult world needs to get it's ideas clear about crime first. Last night I watched Question Time during which most of the learned panel seemed to think that British soldiers (criminally) shooting people was somehow worse than the IRA blowing people up. And as long as these mealy-mouthed notions of differential levels of murder and "proportionality" are in vogue, the adult world has nothing to teach children. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
jon112uk @ 19 makes a very good point. If the law is applied to protect children from theft, threatening behaviour and other so-called "minor" offenses, then it must also hold them accountable when they commit those offenses.
Perhaps if the youths in the Fiona Pilkington case had been properly punished (liberals read "helped" here) for "crimes" against their peers and younger children they would have stopped being abusive and violent prior to the attacks on Fiona Pilkington. Prevention is better than cure and all that.
Complain about this comment
In reply to (13) Bradshaw-101. What you say in your first paragraph is not true. Where such persons are convicted it may be said that the crime is that of the court.
On a lighter note - in my humble opinion the punishment for carrying a mobile phone at school should be destruction of the offending.
In reply to (20) Freeman. Please view my personal blog. The offending should have been titled " Bang goes the Knighthood"
Complain about this comment
Simple Equation.
If a child is under 16 then any crime they commit becomes a crime legally commited by the parent ie: If a child steals somthing form a shop then the parents are prosecuted.
IF a crime is commited against a child then again it is consdiered a crime against the parent by the other childs parents. This can then be resolved in court if required.
Children should not be held legally responsible for anything, their parents should.
Complain about this comment
How about deciding what constitutes being an adult, or a child, under law.
At 16 a 'child' can earn a wage and pay taxes, in certain cases millions of pounds into the exchequer, yet these tax payers can't vote on how their money is used, if they commit crimes they are charged as children and will automatically get a lesser sentence.
At 8 some children are incredibly street-wise, have known the difference between right and wrong for years and can make informed decisions, some children still don't have these capabilities by the time they're 14, yet if an 8 year old commits a serious crime they're likely to get off scott free, at 14 they will get punished.
Complain about this comment
In reply to (18) Sara
In reply to your second paragraph. Sometimes a wrongdoing is best dealt with by means of a caution.
And occasionally there is a victim - the observer that is told there was a wrongdoing (or the recipient of the lie that says someone was punished)
Complain about this comment
19. At 09:55am on 18 Jun 2010, jon112uk wrote:
..."If I (an adult) went round to a neighbours house, kicked down their garden fence and set light to it - that would be a crime"..."When children did it in the case of Fiona Pilkington it was 'disorder'"
Jon, you put it across very well here. To add my bits, it's part of the learning process and education of youngsters. We can tell them what is right and wrong, we can demonstrate it even, but unless they feel the punishment themselves, they're not always going to learn from it.
A child committing small-time offences is, unfortunately, just a part of growing up, but we, the children of the past, learned not to do it when we got told off, caned, strapped or whacked by the copper around the back of the head. The politically correct brigade put paid to all of that back in the late 80s into the 90s (I think).
If a 5 year old, takes a pencil from the kid next to him in class, it is wrong. Effectively, under the law, it is theft, but can we consider a 5 year old a thief if he hasn't been taught the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. He's still learning. Where do we stop, though? If that same 5 year old takes the pencil and stuffs it into the eye of the kid next to him, that is most definitely assault. There is a deeper reason for his actions - bring on the psychologists.
Nowadays, teachers cannot discipline kids in ways we were used to. They use words and suspensions. All adult tools to manage dispute, but no good toward kids. Parents cannot discipline their own kids in their own home, as even a raised voice will have the neighbours calling social services.
In business, we have descended into a world of micro-management. Everything we do is documented, approved, authorised and properly executed. In the adult world, outside of work, but in law, society, our community, we are also being micro-managed. Laws are so intricately defined that it leaves no room to adapt when you throw something unexpected into the mix, like kids.
I don't think we can define law for adults in the same way as we define law for children. We need to re-define the law first. Capital offences are just that, but it needs definition as to what is a crime for a child and what is a crime for an adult. Is it because we feel we need to blame someone for everything? There cannot be unresolved crimes? Children are dependent on the adults around them. Maybe we should be educating those adults first.
We cannot micro-manage our children. Let them be children. But give us adults, those who can still remember what it was like to be a child, the benefit of handing down the discipline that we were subjected to, or better, take the best of that discipline and use it to educate for the better of everyone.
Complain about this comment
William John 'In reply to (20) Freeman. Please view my personal blog. The offending should have been titled " Bang goes the Knighthood"'
were is said blog please?
Freeman seems that way...
Complain about this comment
24. At 1:06pm on 18 Jun 2010, bigsammyb
Yes, I agree with this concept - if the child is too young to be responsible then the parent should be responsible for failing to supervise them.
Combined with #25 from freddawlanen - the age at which they become responsible depends on the individual child - this would make a viable model.
For sure, we can not have a situation where no one is held to account.
Complain about this comment
This is a realy good example of bad interpritaion of law and bad practice.
Edwin Stratton – an appeal for equal treatment under the law.
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=349
Complain about this comment
Nowadays the crime appears to be getting caught
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
There is, in my opinion, a distinction between crime and justice. The law needs to specify crimes precisely so that there's a "final word" and everyone knows where they stand.
However, justice is where common sense should prevail. Just because a crime has technically been committed it does not follow that prosecution always has to result, nor that any punishment must be met out.
Assisted suicide may technically be a crime for example, and maybe it should remain a crime to cover those circumstances where the assistance is for nefarious or less than honourable reasons. However justice can be applied in each individual case depending on the circumstances, which may include either not prosecuting in the first place or an absolute discharge at court.
Justice itself *should* be common sense, which is really the same as saying it should reflect what a 'typical' cross-section of society would want. This sort of consensus moves slowly though and 'justice' often finds itself going too far one way or the other - sometimes finding itself out of step with the common consensus for a while - but, if society works, it should eventually be brought back in line.
Then justice eventually - often over decades or generations - filters down into law. In the long run a law that the majority of the population disapproves of should be changed. It is a necessarily slow process because we can't afford to make snap judgements on such things, although there might be an argument for speeding up the process a bit.
It's easy to say "a crime's a crime" but I don't think we really want the world to work that way. If one child hits another in a schoolyard punch-up do we really want that child charged and brought before a court for assault? Well, we might. If the child has a habit of punching other children it might be time to teach him a lesson - he cannot go on thinking such behaviour is tolerated by society and maybe the law should be involved. But if it's a one-off and the 'assault' is very minor it can probably be handled effectively by the school and the parents.
We don't want to jump too quickly to criminalise children (or adults for that matter). People make mistakes and where the result is fairly harmless I'm all for second chances. Where I would crack down a lot harder though is with repeat offenders and those guilty of serious crime.
Complain about this comment
To know good you must know evil,to regret your actions and better your jugement you must first do wrong.But somehow along the line the UK has yet again failed in every way to do the right thing.Adolesent crime is aslo on the rise here in Germany along with alkohol abuse and as a father i make sure my daughter knows roughly what is right and what is wrong then i explain the laws as they stand throw in a bit of commensense and make damm sure she learns self defense this summer as she's starting Comp after the hols.I have no trust in any system or other parental upbringing of there offspring,I trust no teachter to protect and help my daughter find a way through adolesence.No police are capable of giving her a crime free and safe city,her fellow pupils can be seen as enemys a threat to her wellbeing.And all we adults have time to do is argue when we should jail the little sods who go that touch to far.I myself do not give any system based on our modern social morals a snowball's chance in hell and will endeaver to try and show my daughter the right road to adulthood with its ups and downs and potholes of youth and maybe if more parents took time ( and no excuses wether jobwise or others ) and effort to do the same we would have less agro,not peace and butterflys kids are little buggers and will always be so,but with no one to show them where the line is are you supprised at the state of our youth?
Complain about this comment
Any act deliberately perpetrated to the deprivation or injury of a person or persons of any age,is a crime.Theft is theft,whether it is of an apple or of a motor-car,and societies have struggled to make rational,proportional judgments on what level of perpetration is criminal and what is merely anti-social.Now,of course we have a situation where "causing offence"can be considered a criminal act,where behaving in an "anti-social"manner can be a criminal act.If we make clear that we regard ALL acts of deliberate deprivation and/or injury criminal,then we are saying that there is little or no scope for acts which can be described as misdemeanours.Personally,I support the idea of proportionality for incidents where the perpetrator did not intend to commit an act to the deprivation or injury of another,in these cases,often referred to as victimless crimes,I would recommend a proportional approach,in a case by case manner,reserving the right of adjudicating services to use their own,experience-driven discretion in arriving at judgments.All in all,the law is the law,and we disobey at our own peril,regardless of age,gender or political persuasion.
Complain about this comment
As is so often the case with social research, the purpose is to create opinions and frame a debate. I'm sure the intentions of the authors is good but the categories are nonsense.
We have laws, when you break the laws you commit a crime. Pretty much everyone in the country is a criminal and even very ordinary behaviour can become criminal (ASBOs for noisy sex for example).
While it is true that what is a serious crime in one country is a 'social norm' in another (or the same country a year later) it is also true that social norms can also be serious crimes particularly as social norms vary from street to street, community to community.
Many things that are against social norms are within the law, I remember as a child pushing into a queue so that I could be with my friends: perfectly legal but enough of a social fault that the kid behind me picked up a half brick and threatened to crush my skull. In common law someone could intervene to remove me from the queue (there is case law on this) even though I've done no crime and threatened no crime, they'd be acting to prevent a serious imminent crime. Indeed it is everyone's public duty to act.
The glaring error of this research is that it tries to bridge the gap: crime has nothing to do with social norms. More and more the police are given power over every day behaviour, we are becoming a police state. Communities should be given more leaway to govern themselves.
Complain about this comment
Crime is an artificial construction. There is no absolute morality, so there can be no absolute crime definition.
Crime simply is actions that the majority deem unacceptable. Since it is a jury of peers that judge a persons innocence. It is possible that a jury sees irrefutable evidence that a "criminal act" (as defined by law) was committed, but deem the perpetrator to be innocent.
They can find them innocent if they don't agree with the law, or if it is a special case like murder vs self-defense.
There are tales of extremely questionable laws of the past, being repealed because no jury would pass a conviction on them.
To prevent them now, the Judge will appeal to the Juries cold-hard-logic to find whether someone is innocent or not, and ignore their emotions, instincts and gut-reactions.
If I were placed on a jury, I'd ignore the judge and think for myself.
As for trying to define what a crime is, so you can do stats on how many would-be crimes there are. It is silly. Because you'd also have to quantify how serious each and every incident is, on an arbitrary scale.
If you were to do that on anything but a case-by-case basis, you are simulating an immoral automated justice system.
Complain about this comment
The shop on the estate where I live had a teenage schoolchild come into it and steal two bars of chocolate, before the shopkeeper could get to him the offended had gone from the shop, later checking his CCTV recording this incidence appeared, knowing that the child was from the local school he phoned the school to find out who the child was and ask if a member of staff could come and look at the CCTV recording, the school took no action,the shopkeeper then phoned the police, the value of the chocolate was £3 and because of the small amount involved the police at first were reluctant to take any action
Complain about this comment
Theres a bit stated above where at school one child bloodies the nose of another, yet supposidly the child does not regard this as a crime. In what circumstance was this suggestion made, a spat between friends or a regular violent bully doing their stuff.
I think the answers to the above are basically VERY VERY dependent upon the question and circumstances put to the children to gain their answer, not much different to many opinion polls which are generally very biased and non-conclusive due to the questions put.
Even double glazing salesmen and mobility salesmen are often trained to put questions to potential buyers to get a positive response, hence much of the questions themselve are basically devious.
Complain about this comment
Children and teenagers don't have fully developed brains and lack of quality parenting and honest government leadership has further eroded people's sense of values. Not helping children gain a moral foundation or ability to discriminate between right and wrong like "not touching others without their permission", No, means no. etc. has really hurt children's social development. Teachers have had to take on the role of parenting and attempt to instill these simple manners and values in their students but that is very difficult to do effectively when more than half the class has impulse control issues. Society only works when the majority buy into a set of rules. Once that stops, we're doomed.
Helping children grow into responsible adults is the most important job of any society since they're our future torch bearers. Destroying family structure and values so that citizens would move towards state control has destroyed the thin fabric holding us together. It's difficult to raise moral children in a world of criminals. This is our greatest challenge if we want a happier, more equitable society. Also, it would help if all able bodied men were gainfully employed as a policy otherwise they will turn to alternative ways to provide for their children.
Complain about this comment
Malcolm,
I do feel the school has a responsibility to help this teen but they probably were afraid of being sued. If parents can't instill a sense of morality in their children should the community do it? My answer to this question is an obvious yes, but I'm sure many will disagree.
Complain about this comment
Furthermore, motherhood is so maligned. You'd think that it would be in a country's best interest to put motherhood on an esteemed pedestal. Mothers are the unspoken foot soldiers in the fight to raise good citizens. Every message a stay at home mother receives is that she's not good enough. She should be working, helping to pay for others to raise her own children. It's sad that society takes this extremely important job for granted and makes women feel bad for wanting to raise their own children. This type of stupidity needs to stop.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that a "crime" is what the ruling head monkeys determine it to be. Often some aspects of human behaviour and some material exchanges are considered to be criminal actions for no other reason than the head monkeys not only bow to the demands of corporations in which they often have an interest but also because their personal inhibitions cloud their objective assessment. That is, because they think something is right/wrong for themselves, they arrogantly assume they are right/wrong for everyone else, also.
The only 'crime' is to deliberately cause harm or discomfort to another.
Laws are made to prevent folks doing what the head monkeys do not want us to do, not necessarily because doing these things causes harm or discomfort to anyone, but simply because they, the head monkeys, don't want us doing these things for their own various reasons.
For instance, marijuana is "illegal" yet why? Producing and using this natural herb causes harm to none, yet just because the head monkeys deem it to be illegal, all producers and users are considered to be criminals and a threat to society.
Who gains from this? Well, the pharmaceutical companies for a start, for the undeniable health-giving properties of marijuana, when used appropriately, being denied by law to those who may need it can then only be obtained via the '"legal" drug producers at a high cost.
Also the cotton and fashion industries for if hemp growing was not illegal, their businesses would rapidly deteriorate.
That is just one of many examples of how laws are put in place and enforced through physical force not for the benefit of all, but just to protect the interests of the powerful few.
My answer? Well, resistance is futile and compliance is not an option (at least for those who cherish the freedom to choose) so don't resist, don't comply, just be aware these laws exist and then ignore 'em and live as you choose, not as others seek to force you to live for their own selfish ends.
Complain about this comment
how on earth can a child be equall in the eyes of law to a grown up human being,that is the reason he is called a child,do we deal with the deaf man and the blind same,we cant,should the chidlren be treated like adults no,they are children,a sane person has more responsibility than an in sane
,so children should be treated as children,for the simple reason that they are children,and some times equality is inequality,and this is one of them
Complain about this comment
As a citizen of this countrry I'm ''expected'' to know some things including rights and wrongs.
I don't necessary need to know all the rights and wrongs, but not knowing those, could lead to ''trouble'' for me if the law states I should not behave in such and such a manner.
Of course the ''criminal'' might just 'Totally Ignore(d)''or not realise, what's happening to them.
a monkey has a PG Tips tea party.
a monkey is reared for vivisection.
animal rights activists break into laboratory and release monkey.
a monkey escapes and causes havoc.
a monkey is captured and put back into a cage.
a monkey is captured put back into a zoo.
a monkey is captured and put back into the laboratory.
a monkey is captured and given to an animal sanctuary.
a monkey is captured and put to work in a circus.
a monkey is returned to the wild.
All these and more, there is someone, somewhere who thinks one(or more) is, or should be, a crime.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark, an awful lot of this is dependent upon the phrase "The child considers....."
Exactly how can this be consistent over the age range 10-15 which this study/survey purports to cover.
In some cases 10 year olds can be street savvy and more than aware of the law and their "rights"
Conversely 15 year olds may still consider themselves children and that small incidents between them and their peers to be just "things that happen", even if sometimes wrong.
Being a government report I presume this was commissioned many months (if not years) ago and, I trust, one of the final attempts by that administration to destroy forever the notion of childhood.
Best consigned to the nearest dustbin!
Complain about this comment
By definition a crime is an action contrary to rule of law.
Nothing whatsoever to do with what is morally / ethically proper or improper.
Complain about this comment
Lots of interesting examples.
In the UK and North Korea political discrimination is completely legal.
Complain about this comment
The law as practiced/abused in the UK is a weapon of the establishment. Laws are passed in huge and unnecessary numbers so that almost anybody can fall foul. The establishment then decides whether to exercise the law or not. In this way lots of behaviours can be deemed unlawful and ordinary people going about their daily business can be criminalised. This is how the British people are bullied and cowed into conformity. The draconian 5 year prison sentence passed on 53 year old grandmother Gail Cochrane for possession of a World War ll pistol for which she had no bullets is a case in point. The pistol was a family heirloom she had inherited from her father. Judge Lady Smith sitting at Dundee determined that it was dangerously and sinisterly kept under a mattress. Her Ladyship was of course reacting to the 12 murders carried out by Derrick Bird in Cumbria the previous week. The establishment needed to noisily look tough on gun control and Gail was the hapless victim. Gail was victimised simply for having to appear in court on a firearms charge at the wrong time. One wonders why she had to appear at all. The only beneficiaries of our modern draconian take on 'criminality' are the newly privatised and rapidly expanding prison business and fat cat lawyers. The latter are always at the trough of other people's misery.
Complain about this comment
Oh my goodness, we are nearing the bottom of the barrel. There is FAR too much effort expended in the UK on relating criminality to the general public. It seems just because something is perpetrated by a significant body of people, there is a burning need to formalize the criminal aspect of it. The experiences children have while growing up, which sometimes touch on what adults class as criminality, are an essential part of growing up. If you bring this process within the criminal sphere, you do two very bad things, firstly you may saddle children with a criminal record for life and secondly, you deny children the whole process of being a child and becoming an adult. We define children as such and not able to vote, have consenting sexual relations, hold credit cards, etc, precisely because by definition children are still going through a process where they may sometimes stray from the path and need to be reined in. Historically we have entrusted the oversight of this to parents and schools, but in recent years, we have progressively removed the tools they need to do the job. So, what happens? surprise surprise, kids are still kids! People run around wringing their hands and play the blame game, which ultimately reverts to the blamee of last resort, HMG. For God's sake stop all this rubbish! Children have always been and always will be children, not adults. The government should have nothing to do with the minutiae of their upbringing. The government should keep their bureaucratic fingers out of it and let parents and schools do their job effectively!
Complain about this comment
Whether offences committed by children against each other are dealt with by the criminal justice system, the school, or "informally" with a clip around the ear, it is important that they are dealt with some way and not ignored as just "kids being kids". Children should not be encouraged to think that stealing and bullying "just happen" when like any crime they happen when people aren't interested or able to do anything about it. There is nothing normal or acceptable about bullying, as anyone who has been bullied will tell you.
Most importantly, schools should try and remove the stigma of reporting being the target of bullying, in the same way as the "rat on a rat" campaign during the 1990s encouraged people to report drug dealers to the police as a civic duty.
Complain about this comment
Statistics are only a way of proving or disproving a fact, normally against the common sense perception of the item to be proved or disproved. These statistics are used by people to prove a fact or opinion which is unpopular or popular to them personally but not to the public at large who tend to use common sense. The main culprits are persons who for their own personal reasons state that crime levels are falling, when it obvious we are living in a more crime ridden society. There are a lot more bodies lying aroud than there used to be, this is one statistic that cannot be fiddled. If crime is down why is there a call for more Police, when if in fact the crime rate is down we should need less. No matter how they are gathered statistics will never replace common sense.
Complain about this comment
48. At 12:18pm on 22 Jun 2010, Reclaim_the_country wrote:
By definition a crime is an action contrary to rule of law.
Nothing whatsoever to do with what is morally / ethically proper or improper.
--------------------------
I find this a fascinating comment;
I have long supposed that some view the law as an unquestionable, omniscient power above our criticism and understanding. in some ways it has replaced God in the almost religious fervour thate responds to a questioning in the same way that we once placed towards heretics that we cruxifide or burnt at the stake. The fact that fat greedy men in suits, sipping their aged Cognac and smoking their fat cigars debated over these laws before passing them, for others to follow while they picked and chose which ones to follow themselves, seems to be either violently repressed or denied in some minds that prefer the world wrapped up in a simple, dichotomised world of Good versus Evil, the battle which rages in their own minds, projected out as their view of their ideal world of simple polarities.
every single law that exists was, at some point, conceived by a man, somewhere upon this planet, and not by some unchallengeable omniscient power from above and beyond this world of fallable, flawed and imperfect men (and women). As such, every single law and ever single concept of law, should be challengeable by men, because this fear of challenge, is exactly what allows people to hide behind the law and oppress and dominate their fellow man.
We should not ever fear questioning what a crime is and where the lines are because doing so subjugates us to men who would will turning us in to slaves.
Complain about this comment
40 years ago I had a good idea of what a crime was. But how things have changed.
A man slaps his wife, it's a crime. A woman pours boiling fat over her husband's face while he's asleep, then she needs councelling.
Something sucks.
Feminists are successfully spreading their hate propaganda against men. Men are now monsters and women angels. This sums up UK crime.
This is not through any genius on feminists' part though, but because it works well for the media: it creates sensational news that sells papers and gets ratings. It's good for control freak governments particularly. It puts the public into a constant state of fear, enabling the democratic endorsement for passing more and more ludicrous laws, and expanding police departments and powers along with useless social services departments, giving politicians ever more control.
People no longer trust their friends. They no longer even trust their family, in case there's a "wrongun" among them. So let's put a policeperson into every living room and bedroom. It's for your safety, see.
Crime used to be crime. But crime has now become the biggest joint government/media/feminist scam in history.
Complain about this comment
Crime is one of those things very closely linked to paper sales and has been pointed out, is actually in the interests of many vested interests that it is exaggerated, fear has always been used to control populations. I remember when the G-20 (or something like that) demonstrations took place in London how the police were happy to allow mystery participants in disguises to break the bank's windows as long as the photographers got a good shot of it. Well done to "Have I got News for You" for drawing attention to it on their show.
If you were to read tabloids every day from the 1960s to now you'd be under the impression that crime has gone up every year which is impossible. I'm sure the official statistics aren't perfect but each person's take on this depends on their own experience and I'd suggest that people recently affected by crime are more likely to put their views out.
One other thing, what is "the PC Brigade"? Is it some sinister paramilitary thought-control organisation run by the "leftist" BBC, or is it just a name coined by the tabloids for people that put good manners and equality before bigotry?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think breaking the law is offensive. Breaking normbased rules and the law causes many conflicts I think. If normbased rules are breaking values that many people live by it can be very provoking.
Complain about this comment
At 5:57pm on 24 Jun 2010, krismarsig wrote:
I think breaking the law is offensive.
Who sets the norms, though? At one time, males set rules which put females at a severe disadvantage. Understandably, THEY did not see any problem with this! It is still true that teenagers are subjected to a lot of restrictions which serve no identifiable purpose in a modern society, and which probably only serve to encourage rebelliousness and bad behaviour, not unlike the suffragettes of the early 20thC.
In any event I reckon the main problem today is that law-enforcement has become a completely bureaucratic procedure, in which the 'letter of the law' is ALL that counts, and human morals have been entirely stripped-out of the process. Thus we see judges handing-out sentences that seem to to us be completely immoral (in terms of either severity or leniency) yet they evidently do not see it that way.
Laws should be there to be used when the situation demands that legal action be taken against someone who is self-evidently causing a problem for society. Instead, the bureaucrat with his obsessive-compulsive approach takes the view that because a law exists, it MUST ALWAYS be enforced even when there is nothing to be gained in doing so. What is needed is to put a measure of commonsense back into the process.
Complain about this comment
I half agree with Anteaus except that if the law becomes too lax it then becomes open to abuse. A teenage thug for example can claim he struck his victim because he "feared for his safety" and it would potentially be very very difficult for anyone to prove either way.
The law states that a person can strike another even before an actual psychical attack if he or she feared for his safety, of course the feared part is often opened to interpretation and many people could claim fear when actually they did it for kicks.
I agree though that many perfectly well intentioned people are excessively brought up on charges for trivial matters. The son of my local newsagent for example who walked out of their shop with a broom to confront a gang of youths who were bricking the shop windows and the windows of cars parked near-by. He was brought before the courts for welding an offensive weapon and yet the youths got off with something very light (don't remember the specifics).
Half the reason for the public frustration is that more often then not the law just doesn't seem to get it right, and actually it often doesn't.
Complain about this comment
I'll also add that I’m totally in agreement with post #13 by Bradshaw-101
Bullying is often all too readily dismissed as childish antics when criminal charges should be brought up, assault and intimidation for example.
Complain about this comment
"One scenario they could have included is that a child being smacked at home by a parent would be counted as a crime under the "all in law", "all in law outside school" and, potentially, "victim perceived" but not within the "norms-based" definition."
Smacking your child at home is not a crime unless it constitutes unreasonable punishment.
Complain about this comment
Seems very simple to me but then most solutions - like the safety pin - are simple. Unfortunately, there is an ever increasing trend toward complication. By which I mean, collecting all the little 'mole hills' and reproducing Everest! After all, without 'complication' - there's not much point in debate and without debate, a very large number of people would be out of a job. I'm not a religious person but surely 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself' fits exactly in this case? After all who, in their right senses would knowingly commit a crime against themselves? The bottom line is this: it will be discovered that basically, individuals act individually for individual reasons. Once we've untangled the individual 'reasons helix' what then? Another 'tangled web?
Complain about this comment
As it stands, a Crime is anything that the Ruling Party or Cabinet has at some point officially recorded it does not like.
Sadly assessments of harm, ethics, and purposes don't come into it (except the odd charade).
I'm intrigued by the "All in law" definition of crime ("that is where the victim perceived intent on part of the perpetrator to inflict hurt or damage or to steal property). Where is this sourced from?, as it would thankfully classify the Criminalisations (which have no ethical or harm-related basis) of various ethically-sound activites, such as kinky porn, or fantastical erotic drawings, /as/ Crimes! (Yay)
Complain about this comment
Although I am sadly depressed to yet again see apathy towards emerging unethical behaviours in under 18s, and the propagation of the message that it's ok to be abusive if you can get away with it / victims should get used to it.
The school's call it "bullying", "boys/girls being boys/girls" and "a fight" - but for the victim it's physical/psychological/sexual abuse, and the causal mechanism of potentially lifelong mental illhealth.
Allowing a crime / harm-against-others to go unaddressed because the perpetrator is of a young age only breeds future abusers / criminals. (Obviously the full force of the statutory punishment is will often be counter-productive in some cases, but inaction is just worse!)
Complain about this comment
#65. At 12:42pm on 27 Jun 2010, JessikatTheLongtail wrote:
“Although I am sadly depressed to yet again see apathy towards emerging unethical behaviours in under 18s, and the propagation of the message that it's ok to be abusive if you can get away with it / victims should get used to it.
The school's call it "bullying", "boys/girls being boys/girls" and "a fight" - but for the victim it's physical/psychological/sexual abuse, and the causal mechanism of potentially lifelong mental illhealth.
Allowing a crime / harm-against-others to go unaddressed because the perpetrator is of a young age only breeds future abusers / criminals. (Obviously the full force of the statutory punishment is will often be counter-productive in some cases, but inaction is just worse!)”
Totally agree.
It’s interesting isn’t it how so many of these things are labelled as “high jinks” or childhood “bickering” and yet if we were talking about adults these things would be considered a crime. The local disabled person for example who’s harassment by local youths is dismissed as “anti social behaviour” when it’s very clearly bullying is an example that springs to mind. Although saying that even among adults these things often get labelled as “just having a laugh”. Bullying is just as dismissed among adults then among children, and funny enough in my experience those who quickly dismiss often turn out to be, or have been, bullies themselves.
When we assess how to define these things as a crime we should be looking at the impact it’s having on the victim and not the age/intent of the perpetrator. Bullying is always too easily dismissed or ignored, particularly among certain social groups and I suspect half of the reason for it is that bullying is such a pleasurable activity for those who take part that they don’t want to take it seriously.
Complain about this comment
For a legal positivist, the answer to the question 'What is crime?' is blindingly, almost tautologically, simple: it is whatever the law states to be a crime. According to this approach, if the law states that wearing pink trousers is a crime, it is a crime. This self-contained, independent approach to law tends to be challenged by certain externalities, such as treaty obligations, which may affect the legality of certain laws passed in a jurisdiction, and concepts of natural justice. Natural justice applies external standards to laws in an attempt to establish whether such laws should be accepted, and tends to restrict the legislator's ambit by reference to ideals of morality and equity. The problem with the natural justice approach is, however, how to determine what, and whose, moral values should become the arbiters of 'good' law. The natural law approach tends to feed back into a positivist approach as the moral standards effectively become the 'laws' by which other laws are judged. So we end up with a positivist position again, in which crime is whatever the law states it to be. It might offend 'common sense' (whatever that is) and notions of morality or fairness for the actions of the two 10-year olds in the example to be regarded as crimes, but if the law declares them to be crimes (and there are no treaty obligations 'outlawing' such laws), then they are crimes.
Complain about this comment
Crime occurs when a statute of law is contravened. However, that does not mean all laws are sensible or that things ourside the law are not criminal.
It simply means the process of law in the UK needs to be revised and reviewed on a "root and branch" basis. For example it makes no sense that a driver without insurance is fined less than the insurance would have cost in the first place - it make not paying for insurance worth the risk.Nor does it make sense fining someone an amount less than the cost of the court process.
Perhaps the least effective law is drink driving. Someone who is found guilty, yet has not caused an accident or injury is banned for 1year. Is this sensible when that will create pressure on family and may cause a job to be lost? No it is madness we just create a problem. Better that the person keeps their job and is heavily fined as is the case in Belgium where 10%+ of salary is the fine and the ban is for 6 weeks, taken when the offender chooses, allied to 4 months of compulsory weekend "drink awareness" training.
As maybe expected neither is really effective at stopping drink driving but the Belgian case results in more revenue to the government and less economic and social damage to the family of the guilty.
Complain about this comment
The issue surrounding crime is very disturbing, but not because there is so much of it, but because there is so LITTLE.
Let me explain.
Crime levels have changed little since 1960. They have been rising very slowly up until the 1990s, after which time they have been steadily decreasing.
These are the findings of the CEPR (Center for Economic and Policy Research).
Although this study is American, Britain has followed similar patterns in crime as America. So much of what has been found by the CEPR will apply to Britain as well.
Here is the startling fact. Although crime has changed little in 50 years, the level of incarceration has shot up from 1980 onwards. This is now a staggering FIVE times it was in 1960.
What are we to conclude from this?
New crimes invented by governments.
The crimes discussed in the CEPR report fall into the categories of property crime and violent crime. But now there are a host of other new crimes. And these evidently take up all the extra slack making up that crazy factor of five.
And these new crimes are aimed uniquely at men.
To show you what I mean, here is a report from the Independent discussing the great virtues of women travelling abroad for sex.
Yet what are men who seek prostitutes? Criminals! A new crime -- and, evidently, according to governments and media, a male-only crime.
Here is a survey by Psychology Online on domestic violence.
The findings? Women are just as violent as men in domestic squabbles.
Yet DV is reported as a uniquely male instigated -- as "violence against women". And governments are actually acting on that myth.
Another new crime. And it need only apply to men.
Governments don't like men. Men love freedom and want to change things. Women seek scare more easily and seek security, so are happy to live with more laws and restrictions. Governments like women.
Goverments want to build more prisons for men and demolish women's ones (or fill them with men instead).
And the media want to boost sales and ratings. The public is less sympathetic to men than women. So men are under constant atttack from the media.
THIS is the state of crime around you. These is very little of it.
I'm afraid that public enemy number one is the government -- pushing terrorists to second place. Terrorists who want to blow you up only act once in a while. But governments -- who are much more powerful than terrorists -- are constantly on the look out for new ways to imprison YOU.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS