AMU
Study Material
Diploma in Criminology & Criminal Administration Criminology
Unit 1
NATURE, DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF CRIMINOLOGY.
Mainly the Criminology is ordinarily,
the science of crime and seeks to study the phenomenon of criminality in its entirety. Criminology as a branch of knowledge is concerned with those particular conducts of individual behaviour which is prohibited by society. It is, therefore, a societal study which seeks to discover the causes of criminality and suggest remedies to reduce crimes.
Criminology consists of two main branches;
1. Criminal biology, which investigates causes of criminality found in the mental and physical constitution of the deviant, and:
2. Criminal sociology which deals with enquiries into the effect of environment as a cause of criminality.
Criminology, penology and criminal law are inter-related fields. Penology deals with the custody, treatment, prevention and control of crimes. Criminal
law seeks to implement policies envisaged by criminology and penology (the formulation of
criminal policy essentially depends on
crime causations and factors correlated therewith). The object of criminology is to study the s equence of law making, law-breaking and reaction to law breaking from the point of view of the efficiency of law as a method of control.
The science of criminology aims at taking up case to case study of different crimes and suggest measures to ‘reform’ the offenders. Liberalisation of punishment for affording greater opportunities for rehabilitation of offenders has been accepted as the ultimate object of penal justice.
It presupposes the study of the criminal with basic assumption that no one is born criminal. It treats reformation as the ultimate object of punishment while individualization (treatment accorded to each individual according to his personality) the method of it.
The ultimate object is to render a crimeless society so far as possible with a view to achieving social harmony.
Definition of Criminology
Criminology can be simply defined as the study of the crime.
Webster defines the criminology that "the scientific study of crime and criminals.”
However, we must also acknowledge that this definition is as inadequate as it is succinct.
Edwin Sutherland has offered what remains a more or less acceptable definition of criminology, one that is quoted with approval by Wolfgang and Ferracuti:
“Criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. It includes within its scope the process of making laws, of breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws. The objective of criminology is the development of a body of general and
AMU
verified principles and other types of knowledge regarding this process of law, crime, and treatment”.
To this definition, Wolfgang and Ferracuti append a note that "the term criminology should be used at designate a body of scientific knowledge about crime (emphasis in original).
Some might raise the question whether criminology is the body of knowledge on the phenomenon of crime or the study of it. Thorsten Sellin suggests that the term be used to designate both "the body of scientific knowledge and the deliberate pursuit of such knowledge." However, criminology is a science which is widely studied for its' own sake, just like other sciences; crime and criminals are not a bit less interesting than stars or microbes.
But this point of view is secondary as compared with the practical aspect, just as in the case of medical science. Indeed, comparison with the latter repeatedly suggests itself.
Criminology is an academic discipline that makes use of scientific methods to study the nature, extent cause and control of criminal behaviour.
Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey define criminology as the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. It includes within its scope the processes of making laws, of breaking laws and or reacting toward the breaking of laws. The objective of criminology is the development of a body of general and verified principles and of other types of knowledge regarding this process of law, crime and treatment.
From the definition given by Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, the most important areas of criminology include:
1. The development of criminal law and its use to define crime 2. The cause of law violation and
3. The methods used to control criminal behaviour.
Criminologists use objectives research methods to pose research questions (hypotheses), gather data, create theories and test their validity. Criminology is essentially an interdisciplinary science. Criminologists have been trained in diverse field’s most commonly sociology, but also criminal justice, political science, psychology, economics and the natural sciences.
Criminology is also sometimes confused with the study of deviant behaviour. While Deviant behaviour is behaviour that departs from social norms, criminal behaviour has to do with violation of law. To understand the nature and purpose law, criminologist study both the process by which deviant acts are criminalized and become crimes.
Criminology ought before anything to show humanity the way to combat, and especially, prevent, crime. What is required more than anything is sound knowledge, whereas up to the present we have had far too much of dogma and dilettantism. Whoever is in close touch with what is called socio-pathological phenomena should make a note of these especially criminal jurists, whose knowledge of the law imperatively needs to be supplemented with that of the subject-matter with which it has to deal.
Criminology is an academic discipline that makes use of scientific methods to study the nature, extent cause and control of criminal behaviour. Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey define criminology as the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. It includes within its scope the processes of making laws, of breaking laws and or reacting toward the breaking of laws. The objective of criminology is the development of a body of general and
AMU
verified principles and of other types of knowledge regarding this process of law, crime and treatment. From the definition given by Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, the most important areas of criminology include:
1. The development of criminal law and its use to define crime 2. The cause of law violation and
3. The methods used to control criminal behaviour.
Criminologists use objectives research methods to pose research questions (hypotheses), gather data, create theories and test their validity. Criminology is essentially an interdisciplinary science. Criminologists have been trained in diverse fields most commonly sociology, but also criminal justice, political science, psychology, economics and the natural sciences. Criminology is also sometimes confused with the study of deviant behaviour. While Deviant behaviour is behaviour that departs from social norms, criminal behaviour has to do with violation of law. To understand the nature and purpose law, criminologist study both the process by which deviant acts are criminalized and become crimes.
Nature and Scope of Criminology
The term “criminology” is used both in a general and special sense. In its broadest sense criminology is the study (not yet the complete science) which includes all the subject matter necessary to the understanding and prevention of crime and to the development of law, together with the punishment or treatment of delinquents and criminals. In its narrower sense criminology is simply the study which attempts to explain crime, to find our “how they get that away.” If this latter narrower definition is adopted, one must recognize related fields, including penology, concerned with the treatment of adult criminals, crime detection, the treatment of juvenile delinquents, and the prevention of crime. The treatment of delinquency and crime cannot be wholly separated from their explanation, since one of the reasons for crime and for its continuance into adult life is the damage done by ineffective treatment both of juveniles and adults. Ultimately, we shall hope to show that both crime and the treatment of crime are parts of dynamic processes of social relations, crime evoking punishment and other reactions and these reactions in turn cooking reactions of criminals as they are deterred, “reformed,” or stimulated to further crime.
If any science is to explain any kind of phenomena consistently, these phenomena must be reasonably homogenous. Criminology as a behavioural science or study faces an almost unsolvable difficultly because of the extreme diversity of types of behaviour our legislators have seen fit to make punishable as crimes. To mention but a few of these types, does it seem logical that we should be able to explain in terms of a common theory behaviour as diverse as the running of stop lights, the raping of women, robbery, huge racketeering syndicates, treason, murder, and the white-collar crimes of some businessmen? Not all of these crimes express the same attitudes of mind, not even a universal consciously antisocial attitude.
Not all are conflict behaviour, or exploitative behaviour, or either wholly rational or wholly emotional behaviour. Facing this dilemma, criminologists have attempted various solutions. Valuable research has concentrated its attention on particular kinds of crime, such as professional thieving, embezzlement, murder, sex crime and white-collar crime. Cressey has gone further and believes he has arrived at sociologically meaningful subdivisions by isolating types of embezzlement.
AMU
Cressery’s plan would seem to lead us to theories as to the causes of specific crimes, rather than to any general theory of crime. Other criminologists, such as E. H. Sutherland, have tried to discover processes or relationships which will explain all crime, in spite of its great variety.
Thus, we have theories of social disorganization and differential association, theories of delayed maturation, theories of economic exploitation, theories of anomie or normlessness, theories of subgroup influence, and so forth. But we shall find that it seems that not all crime can be explained in terms of any given social process or relationship. Very many criminologists have given much of the effort to find a single theory explaining crime without having abandoned the effort to discover why men commit crime. Starting with evidence derived from case studies and many other sources, they list factors found in the life processes of criminals. They are able to determine fairly well the interrelationship of these factors in individual cases. They then find particular factors which often repeat themselves in many cases, such, for example, as gang membership, lack of status in constructive groups, tensions in homes, and sense of failure in competition.
Discovery of such single repeating factors does not prove them causes of crime, since the meaning of any life experience may be different for one criminal than for another. This is because one factor or experience is, in different cases, combined with different accompanying factors which give the total gestalt and meaning which express themselves in criminal behaviour. However, it is very significant when we find clusters of factors repeating themselves in many cases. The multifactor approach does seem to meet the dilemma of the criminologist in considerable measure. A large proportion of children in our type of society whose fathers have deserted the home, who have lived in city slums, who have experienced a sense of failure in competitive relations, who have lost status in constructive groups and joined juvenile gangs, who have come to believe that everyone has a racket, and whose early misbehaviour has not been dealt with effectively either in the home or by schools and other social agencies- a large proportion of such children seem to appear continually in our juvenile courts, and many of them later in our adult courts. The discovery of repeated incidents of such combinations of experiences enables us to develop approximations to theories of crime. Such specific life experiences may often be shown to be by-products of the culture of our society.
Nature and extent of criminology
Criminology draws on the range of human and social science disciplines. The subject is evolving in its theoretical and methodological development, reflecting the rapid social changes it tries to capture and the increasing cross-fertilization of ideas and methods between the human sciences. In its modern forms, it is characterised by robust debates over how to:
• conceptualize and explain its subject matter
• operationalize its theories in conducting research
• inform debates over crime control policy, the scope of human rights, the links between criminal and social justice, and the expanding knowledge bases of the crime prevention, security, policing and justice-related professions
• develop and enhance its methodological and technical expertise
• Manage the sensitive ethical issues arising from empirical research.
AMU
Criminology is both a theoretical and an empirical discipline. At the heart of criminology are theoretical debates about a wide range of perspectives. Criminology emphasises the importance both of theoretical work and of a firm evidence base for its theories. It also engages in formal and critical evaluation of crime prevention, security and crime control policies, as well as of other responses to crime and deviance. However, in furthering these values, it needs to nurture a lively debate and dialogue between a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives, employing both quantitative and qualitative data. It must guard against attempts to foreclose this dialogue with the premature creation of theoretical or methodological protocols favouring particular sub-discipline fields, whether endorsed by state officials, by the mass media, or by fashions of academic thought.
Empirically, criminology is concerned with:
• processes of criminalization and victimization
• the causes and organization of crime and deviance
• processes of preventing and managing crime and victimization
• official and unofficial responses to crime, deviance and social harm
• Representations of crime, offenders, victims and agents and agencies of control.
Given its strong policy orientation and close relationship with the criminal justice professions, many of criminology's most significant theoretical advances have been made through empirical studies. Criminology also contributes to and benefits from continuous theoretical debates within the social sciences. The vitality of the discipline also requires a continuous interchange between theory and analytic and evaluative research, and attention to increasingly salient ethical debates about crime, security, and human rights at international, national, regional and local levels.
Criminology is intrinsically a reflexive discipline, involving an understanding of contested values in the constitution and application of criminological knowledge.
• Criminology is the scientific study of crime and criminals. It is an interdisciplinary/
multidisciplinary study, although criminology has yet to integrate these disciplines in any comprehensive way.
• The definition of crime is problematic because acts that are defined as criminal vary across time and culture. Many criminologists believe that because crimes are defined into existence, we cannot determine what real crimes are and criminals are. However, there is a stationary core of crimes that are universally condemned and always have been. These crimes are predatory crimes that cause serious harm and are defined a mala in se, or ‘inherently bad’ crimes, as opposed to mala prohibita “bad because they are forbidden” crimes.
• The history of criminology shows that the cultural and intellectual climate of the time strongly influences how scholars think about and study crime and criminality. The Renaissance brought more secular thinking, the Enlightenment more humane and rational thinking, the Industrial Revolution brought with it more scientific thinking, and the Progressive Era saw a reform-oriented criminology reminiscent of the classical school.
• Advances in any science are also constrained by the tools available to test theories. The ever- improving concepts, methods, and techniques available from modern genetics, neuroscience, and other biological sciences should add immeasurably to criminology’s knowledge base in the near future.
AMU
CONCEPT OF CRIME.
Legal and Social Definition of Crime.
A crime is an act, omission or event, the commission of which is prohibited by law, and which if committed leads to prosecution by and in the name of the state rather than an individual person and, upon conviction, to punishment of some form administered by agents of the state rather than the payment of compensation.
Therefore, from the above definitions, we can define crime to mean any wrong morally or socially committed by one or group of persons against another person or state that are prohibited by the state and when convicted punishment if inflicted by the state rather than the individual wrong person. There are different types of crime such as; crimes against person, crimes against property, organized crimes, occupational crimes, and political crimes as well as corporate crimes.
Crime has three main elements:
Crimes are acts prohibited by law. A hidden assumption is the definition of law.
Crimes so defined are prosecuted by agents of the state/government, not by private individuals.
The result of conviction is a punishment, not compensation to the injured party (if there is one).
Criminology is a discipline that focuses on:
The study of crime
The study of those who commit crime
The study of the criminal justice and penal (punishment) system
The term criminal can and has been applied to many types of behaviour, some of which nearly all of us have been guilty of at some time in our lives. We can all think of acts that we feel ought to be criminal but are not, or acts that should not be criminal but are. The list of acts that someone or another at different times and at different places may consider to be crimes is very large, and only a few are defined as criminal by the United States law at this time. Despite these difficulties, we need a definition of crime in order to proceed. The most often-quoted definition is that of Paul Tappan (1947), who defined crime as “an intentional act in violation of the criminal law committed without defence or excuse, and penalized by the state”.
A crime is thus an act in violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification. Tappan’s definition is strictly a legal one that reminds us that the state, and only the state, has the power to define crime. Hypothetically, a society could eradicate crime tomorrow simply by rescinding all of its criminal statutes. Of course, this would not eliminate the behaviour specified by the laws; in fact, the behaviour would doubtless increase because the behaviour could no longer be officially punished. While it is absurd to think that any society would try to solve its crime problem by eliminating its criminal statutes, legislative bodies are continually revising, adding to, and deleting from their criminal statutes.
Crime is from the Latin word “crimen” meaning accusation or fault. Crime has become a terrible social problem in the world. It has become almost a household word in many parts in Africa. Despite this, groups and individuals within society differ in their definition of crime.
Some would equate crime with all ant-social behaviour. Others would argue that crimes are
AMU
such acts as racism, sexism and imperialism that violate basic human rights. Similarly, some use moral rather than legal criteria to define what is or is not a crime. There are religious people, who regard certain behaviour as a crime, if it meets their criteria for sin.
Sociologically, crime is a form of deviance and therefore a social problem in any society. Fuller and Myers (1973) categorized social problem as: “a condition which is defined by a considerable number of persons as a deviation from social norm (rules of conduct) which they cherish”. Sheila Balkan further observes that “The designation of behaviour as a crime, (a special case of the more comprehensive category of deviance) indicates that the behaviour is formally defined as illegal through the codification of laws which are assumed to embody the societal consensus” Giddens ( 1994) defines crime as non-conformist conduct that breaks a law. The emphasis is on the inter connections between conformity and deviance in different social context. The content of crime is culturally determined.
Durkheim (1993) defined crime within a social context. He saw crime as a social product, determine by social conditions, capable of being controlled only in social terms. Crime is therefore normal in all societies and a society exempt from crime would necessitate a standardization of moral concepts of all individuals, which is neither possible nor desirable.
Durkheim was of the opinion that crime is a normal phenomenon in the society, a natural and inevitable product of collective life and social evolution. He held that the collective conscience of a people defines what crime is. He believed that crime plays a definite role in social life. He therefore defined crime as “an act which offends strong and defined state of collective conscience” (Okeshola 2008).
Sellin (1938) argues that crime “is a violation of culture norms, which is something beyond mere violation of law per se. He maintains that mere violation of the criminal law is an artificial criterion of criminality. According to Mc Connell (2004), sociological approach to crime will enable us to understand the economics, gender, education, race, religion, family life and all other social phenomena that are directly involved in crime.
No matter which definition of crime we embrace, criminal law is tied to criminal law. Hence crime is a violation of societal rules of behaviour as interpreted and expressed by a criminal legal code created by people holding social and political power. Individuals who violate these rules are subject to sanctions by state authority, social stigma and loss of status.
According to Stephen and Peter (2001), crime depends on law and on particular instances of action being identified and interpreted as crime. Crime also depends on crime-processing agencies; conventionally the police and the courts.
Therefore, the concept of crime implies:
1. Existing norms or rules of conducts established through societal consensus.
2. Codification of such rules in the form of Criminal Law 3. A deviation from the rules or violation of the laws.
4. Prescription of sanctions or punishment.
5. Establishment of agencies of formal controls like the police force to perform regulatory functions.
Despite the fact that the concept of crime defies a precise definition as already pointed out, yet some consensus now exists among criminologists that a crime must have the following features. (Clifford, 1974):
AMU
1. It must be legally forbidden.
2. Such a crime must have some harm done to some people or external consequence.
3. It must be an intentional act or a reckless action or inaction.
4. There must be a criminal intent,
5. The criminal intent must coincide with the criminal action.
6. There must be a causal relationship between the legally forbidden act and the voluntary reaction.
In order to answer this question, we must know first, what is law because the two questions are closely interrelated? Traditionally, we know a law to be a command enjoining a course of conduct. The command may be of a sovereign or of political superiors to the political inferiors; or it may be the command of a legally constituted body or a legislation emanating from a duly constituted legislature to all the members of the society. A crime may, therefore, be an act of disobedience to such a law forbidding or commanding it. But then disobedience of all laws may not be a crime, for instance, disobedience of civil laws or laws of inheritance or contracts. Therefore, a crime would mean something more than a mere disobedience to a law, "it means an act which is both forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of the society." Thus, robbery or murder would be a crime, because they are revolting to the moral sentiments of the society, but a disobedience of the revenue laws or the laws of contract would not constitute a crime. Then again, "the moral sentiments of a society” is a flexible term, because they may change, and they do change from time to time with the growth of the public opinion and the social necessities of the times.
So also, the moral values of one country may be and often are quite contrary to the moral values of another country. To cite a few instances, heresy was a crime at one time in most of the countries of the world, because in those days it offended the moral sentiments of the society. It was punished with burning. But nobody is punished nowadays for his religious beliefs, not even in a theocratic state. The reason is obvious.
Now it does not offend the moral sentiments of the society. Adultery is another such instance.
It is a crime punishable under our Penal Code, but it is not so in some of the countries of the West. Then again suttee, i.e., burning of a married woman on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband, was for a long time considered to be a virtue in our own country, but now it is a crime.
Similarly, polygamy was not a crime in our country until it was made so by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This Act, it may be stated, does not apply to Mohammedans or Christians.
But Christians are forbidden to practice polygamy under their law of marriage, while Mohammedans are yet immune from punishment for polygamy. All these instances go to show that the content of crime changes from time to time in the same country and from country to country at the same time because it is conditioned by the moral value approved of by a particular society in a particular age in a particular country. A crime of yesterday may become a virtue tomorrow and so also a virtue of yesterday may become a crime tomorrow.
Such being the content of crime, all attempts made from time to time beginning with Blackstone down to Kenny in modern times to define it have proved abortive.
Therefore, the present writer agrees with Russell when he observes that "to define crime is a task which so far has not been satisfactorily accomplished by any writer. In fact, criminal offences are basically the creation of the criminal policy adopted from time to time by those
AMU
sections of the community who are powerful or astute enough to safeguard their own security and comfort by causing the sovereign power in the state to repress conduct which they feel may endanger their position". But a student embarking on study of principles of criminal law must understand the chief characteristics and the true attributes of a crime. Though a crime, as we have seen, is difficult of a definition in the true sense of the term, a definition of a crime must give us "the whole thing and the sole thing," telling us something that shall be true of every crime and yet not be true of any other conceivable non-criminal breach of law.
We cannot produce such a definition of crime as might be flexible enough to be true in all countries, in all ages and in all times. Nevertheless, a crime may be described and its attributes and characteristics be clearly understood. In order to achieve this object, we propose to adopt two ways, namely, first, we shall distinguish crime from civil and moral wrongs, and secondly, we shall critically examine all the definitions constructed by the eminent criminal jurists from time to time.
Human conduct in violation of the criminal laws of a jurisdiction that has the power to make such laws, and for which there is some form of authorized sanction.
Definitions of crime
Many prominent jurists have made attempts to define Crime.
Sir William Blackstone in his classical work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume IV, which is devoted to “Public Wrongs or Crimes,” attempted to define crime at two different places in his work. We shall examine both these definitions given by him. At one place, he states that crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Here in defining crime Blackstone uses "public law." Now what is meant by public law? It has several accepted meanings. For instance, Austin takes public law as identical with constitutional law. In that sense, the definition given by him would cover only political offences which are only a very small portion of the whole field of crime.
If we were to follow Austin and interpret the definition given by Blackstone as violation of our constitutional law, namely, Articles 21 and 31, which guarantee protection of one's life, liberty and property, even then the definition of crime would remain too narrow. The Germans, on the other hand, interpret "public law" to mean both constitutional law and criminal law. In this sense, the definition given by Blackstone ceases to define because we shall be using criminal law in defining a crime. Then again, some take "public law" to mean positive law or municipal law, which would mean all laws made by the state. In that sense, the definition given by Blackstone obviously become too wide, for the crime will include every legal wrong or violation of law. Therefore, this definition given by Blackstone is not satisfactory.
Now we pass on to the second definition given by the same jurist, Blackstone. He defines crime as “a violation of the public rights and duties due to the whole community considered as a community.” This definition has been slightly altered by the learned editor of Blackstone, Serjeant Stephen, who expresses it thus:
A crime is a violation of a right considered in reference to the evil tendency of such violation as regards the community at large.
As regards the reconstructed definition, it might be observed that it introduces a new error, namely, it limits crimes to violations of rights only, whereas Blackstone applied it to a violation of both a right and a duty. Instances of a violation of a duty amounting to crimes are
AMU
numerous, for example, being in possession of house-breaking tools by night or possession of counterfeit coins. Undoubtedly the idea incorporated in the definition given by Blackstone as well as by his learned editor Stephen is very important, namely, that crimes are breaches of those laws which injure the community. The same was the idea which was noted by the Roman jurists as well. Therefore, they called crimes delicta publica and the criminal trials judicia publica. Indeed, if only a rough, general description of crime were to be given then public mischief could be made the salient feature of the crime, but this alone would not suffice for a definition. It would be a vague fact for a definition of a crime. There are many things which are only breaches of contract and are injurious to the community but they are not crimes, for example, the negligent management of the affairs of a company, which may bring about a calamity to the community greater than that produced by a thief stealing an article. The latter is a crime, while the former is only a wrong and not a crime. On the other hand, a conduct may amount to a crime, though instead of bringing an evil to the community it may bring some good to the community. For instance, constructing a sloping causeway, though it might facilitate the landing of passengers and goods, is an offence of common nuisance. Therefore, the definition of crime that it is a legal wrong, if it tends to cause evil to the community, is not correct. It is, of course, an instructive general description of it.
Deviance is defined as the Behaviour that departs from the social norm but is not always criminal.
Crime as a social construction and legal definition of crime.
‘Our nation, from the start, has been divided by class, race, national origin and has endured class conflicts throughout history’ (Zinn as cited in Welch, 2009). The purpose of this essay is to show that crime is constructed socially rather than individually. In order to do so, I will focus on describing how crime can be viewed as a product of social construction, explaining different factors contributing to the way people perceive particular behaviour as criminal as well as contrasting concept of crime being socially constructed with its legal definition. After discussing theories created by Howard Becker and Karl Marx, it will conclude that criminal behaviour and its consequences are indeed socially constructed.
Reaching consensus over an appropriate term defining crime has undoubtedly been challenging for criminologists as “there are no purely objective definitions; all definitions are value laden and biased to some degree” (Barak, 1998, p.21). Hence, it is not an easy way to give an exact definition to something so diverse. However, the legal definition of crime suggested by Tappan (1947) is agreed by many to be the most precise and clear so far. It states that “Crime is an intentional act in violation of the criminal law (statutory and case law), committed without defence or excuse, and penalized by the state as a felony or demeanour.” Although, it has also met with criticism from others who believe that it is too narrow definition (Milovanovic, D.).
Only harms defined as such by state are considered in Tappan’s theory which is also limited to those crimes “legally” guilty (Milovanovic, D.). It is also vital to mark that legal definition of crime not only excludes white collar crime but also fails to acknowledge cultural and historical context of law, such as on gambling and prostitution that may be different depending on state or nation (Henry, S. 200). Essentially an act becomes a crime when it breaks the law established by the government of particular society. Of course, what accounts as crime varies depending on different cultures, laws and religions, although there are three main elements determining
AMU
crime which remain consistent: harm, social agreement and their reaction. The way society responses to the particular harmful behaviour may differ depending upon the society. For example, theft conducted in UK may result in getting a warning or minor sentence, whereas in Muslim societies the same person would have his hand cut off for such an offence. Looking also from historical perspective, attitudes towards certain acts considered then as criminal have also changed as many of those are no longer viewed as crimes. Therefore, it is clear that the definition of crime has undoubtedly gone through changes and most probably will continue to change.
The main aspect which legal definition of crime seems failing to consider is that some behaviours are considered as crimes whilst others not. This brings us to the social construction of crime, an idea created and essentially developed by society in terms of held perceptions, morals, beliefs and values of individuals living within it. These shape the way we are such as personality, character and our roles within the society. As people are ‘measure’ beings, they often judge themselves and people around them. The concept of social construction sees criminal behaviour as a mutual interpersonal activity involving actors and audiences (Henry.
S.2009). Therefore, the way someone is identified and located within a scope of the society has significant consequences for the way we act towards others (Becker, 1963). Societies define crime by their own norms, believes and rules. Whereas rules, which govern everywhere, determine as well correct and incorrect behaviours within the society. Criminal law often mirrors a fairly extensive point that particular behaviour violates some social standards and values (murder, robbery, etc.). However, actions considered as criminal may vary depending on different cultures, laws or religions. In short, crime is what particular society chooses it to be.
Furthermore, crime is a fundamental part of deviance, theory suggested by Howard Becker.
Deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather the consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender'(Becker, 1963). It is not only a result of humans’ actions but also depends on the audience judging particular behaviour as negative or positive. Becker argued that deviance can be defined as a kind of behaviour which differs from the normal, rule-breaking behaviour that is unacceptable in society and depends on what people see as unacceptable. In such situation where society labelled particular person as a deviant, it often results in isolation of this person who eventually finds the only way to survive through involving in criminal activity. Most importantly, crime often arises where the obvious segregation of the rich and poor occurs. Karl Marx, on the other hand, suggested that ‘class struggles’ are underlying problems in societies where the basis of power is wealth and which as a result leads to injustice and inequality. Sheptycki (2006) says that “the roots of crime lie in the social structural inequalities of wealth and power.” This viewpoint perceives capitalist societies as ones which choose individual interest over social welfare. Therefore, from the social constructionist point of view, crime is a behaviour defined by powerful and privileged people with authority to make laws that recognise some acts as offensive. Once more, regarding Becker, powerless people, no matter how bad the damage they done could be, they are likely to be arrested and judged. People who hold more power create then some kinds of illusions that people at the lower levels of social hierarchy (measured on the basis of their income, education degree or even race)- are seen as dangerous to the society. It not only creates place where
AMU
people are dependent on state but also discriminates people one way or another. Government, could also be an example here. It defines what crime is by choosing to outlaw some particular act. For instance, the issue with drugs which government made illegal. Money tracking laws or tax evasion fall into different category, which relates to government who creates crime for their own interests. This suggests that crimes are created by lawmakers who limit citizen’s freedom on the ground of their own moral standards.
Taking into account all of the aforementioned factors, we can conclude that crime has inevitably been a product of social construction. Notwithstanding the fact that crime is a complex and diverse concept without one, accepted definition, what accounts as criminal varies depending on cultures, laws and religions which proves that crime is a product of social construction. Definitions of crime are constructed by both cultural norms and values as well as power relations. In addition to that we socially shape the meanings of behaviours and their consequences.
Society’s role in defining crime
Crime is basically defined through the eyes of society. An act is not a crime until society doomed it to be and if society considers some act not opposed to their group sentiments than that act is not a crime at all. Crime is an act which offends and threatens the society, and thus such acts need to be punished. The basic reasons behind the making of law are to penalize those who commit a crime and these laws are the result of society’s need to stop happening of such acts. An example can be taken to understand it better- much earlier witchcraft was considered as a crime and was punishable. At that time, people were very religious and believed in black magic or witchcraft and thought that witches were helping devil in his evil work. So, witchcraft became a crime and also ground to prosecute someone believed to be practicing witchcraft.
Society plays an important role in defining crime as this leads to making of law which will prevent it from happening. Society’s outlook on the particular act is important in defining crime because, for example, if society doesn’t consider giving bribe as a crime then it will not be counted as crime and no law will be made on that although it morally incorrect.
Role of popular media images of crime
The media have a significant influence on the general portrayal of crime in society. The images that permeate the popular consciousness of crime are mainly generated by, and reflected in, the electronic and print media. Obviously, the media have a tremendous impact in terms of how crime is generally defined in society.
According to the media, in both fictional and factual types of programs and reportage, crimes tend to be defined primarily as ‘street crime’. Such crime is thus associated with personal terror and fear, and violence is seen as central. Crime is sensationalized, with important implications for the fear of crime among certain sections of the population. This fear is heightened by the way in which crime is seen to be random in nature, with anyone and everyone a possible target for victimization.
As well, there is often the idea that crime is related to morality, and specifically to the decline of that morality. What is ‘wrong’ is plain for all to see? Furthermore, the ‘criminal’ is distinctive and identifiably different from everyone else in society. Overall, the idea is that there is a continuing “law-and-order’ problem in society, and that thing is constantly getting worse.
AMU
The media is important not only in shaping our definitions of crime and crime control but introducing legal changes and reinforcing particular types of policies strategies. It has been demonstrated that the interests of the police and the media are entwined; they have a symbiotic relationship in that the media relies upon the police for much of their information, and the police uses the media to portray certain images relating to their work.
The media thus conveys a sensationalized image of crime, and a protective view of police and policing practices- and they make unusual events usual events in our life.
Changes in crime
Over a period of time with the change in society many changes in crime have also emerged owing to the technology and innovations. Earlier it was the thinking of people that crimes are mostly committed by the person of deprived class to attain materialistic things and to attain that there were not much legitimate means, so they opt to do it in illegitimate ways. But not only crimes are done by poor people but also by rich people, however, they most of the time manage to cover their traces of the crime. Crime can be committed by anyone regardless of their economic, political or social positions. It is suggested that crime does not disappear it simply changes. So, criminals learn newer and better ways to commit a crime. So, here are some crimes that emerged over the time with changes occurred in society and technology:
Cybercrime, also called computer crime, has become popular these days. The crime is committed using the computer as a means to commit illegal acts such as cyber pornography, committing fraud, infringing the intellectual property, stealing identities, or violating privacy. Cybercrime, especially through the Internet, has become prominent with the advancement of technology.
New criminal opportunities are created with the innovation in technology. Cybercrime is generally an attack on information about individuals, corporations, or governments. Although such attacks lack physical element, they do happen on the personal or corporate virtual body as in the digital age our virtual identities are essential elements of everyday life.
White collar crime– Prof. Edwin Sutherland in 1941 introduced for the first time the concept of White-collar crime. He defined white collar crime as “crime which is committed by individuals of respectability and belonging to high-class
Examples of such type of crimes include false advertisements, copyright or trademark infringement, etc. generally committed by entrepreneurs, businessman, industrialists and other persons of repute in the course of their business in order to earn huge profits.
Negative impacts of crime
In most cases crime led to negative effect to the society economically, socially as well as politically. The following are the negative impacts of crime in the society today:
Hinders development in the society
Crime often hampers the development of the society. For instance, the increase in crime rate compels the government to invest money in reducing the crimes instead of investing such money into productive sectors. Huge sums of money are spent on building prisons, purchasing instruments to combat crime as well as making payment to people involved in Criminal Justice System. In this way, preventing crimes increases expenses of the government thereby hindering the development of society.
Led to death of people
AMU
The number of people dying yearly increases with the increase in crime rate in a country.
Crimes lead to the death of people either directly or indirectly. Directly crime causes death through violence like the one which took place on September 11 in 2001 in the USA where a terrorist attack at Pentagon and World Centre killed approximately 2996 people, and more than 6000 people were injured.
Destruction of property
Property worth crores are destroyed due to crimes being committed. Destruction of properties is one of the serious impacts of crimes in the societies. The crimes which result in damage to the property includes vandalism, juvenile offenses, and other violent crimes.
It increases the cost of living within the society.
The commission of crimes in the society, also results in an increase in the cost of living in the society. This comes about in several ways such as the cost is taken by the society to prevent crimes, cost incurred to investigate and prosecute criminal as well as the cost incurred by the society in keeping those imprisoned for criminal doings. For example, once the lawbreaker is prosecuted, he/she has to be incarcerated. Housing, clothing and feeding criminals is expensive.
DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES 1. The Classical School
The Classical School in criminology is usually a reference to the eighteenth-century work during the Enlightenment by the utilitarian and social contract philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. Their interests lay in the system of criminal justice and penology and, indirectly through the proposition that "man is a calculating animal", in the causes of criminal behaviour. The Classical school of thought was premised on the idea that people have free will in making decisions, and that punishment can be a deterrent for crime, so long as the punishment is proportional, fits the crime, and is carried out promptly.
Beccaria, the pioneer of modern criminology expounded his naturalistic theory of criminality by rejecting the omnipotence of evil spirit. He laid greater emphasis on mental phenomenon of the individual and attributed crime to ‘free will’ of the individual. Thus he was much influenced by the utilitarian philosophy of his time which placed reliance on hedonism, namely, the “pain and pleasure theory”. As Donald Taft rightly put it, this doctrine implied the notion of causation in terms of free choice to commit crime by rational man seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
Main Reforms Advocated by the Classical School
The system of law, its mechanisms of enforcement and the forms of punishment used in the eighteenth century were primitive and inconsistent. Judges were not professionally trained so many of their decisions were unsatisfactory being the product of incompetence, capriciousness, corruption or political manipulation. The use of torture to extract confessions and a wide range of cruel punishments such as whipping, mutilation and public executions were commonplace.
A need for legal rationality and fairness was identified and found an audience among the emerging middle classes whose economic interests lay in providing better systems for supporting national and international trade.
AMU
John Locke
John Locke considered the mechanism that had allowed monarchies to become the primary form of government. He concluded that monarchs had asserted the right to rule and enforced it either through an exercise in raw power, or through a form of contract, e.g. the feudal system had depended on the grants of estates in land as a return for services provided to the sovereign.
Locke proposed that all citizens are equal, and that there is an unwritten but voluntary contract between the state and its citizens, giving power to those in government and defining a framework of mutual rights and duties. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes wrote, "the right of all sovereigns is derived from the consent of every one of those who are to be governed." This is a shift from authoritarianism to an early model of European and North American democracy where police powers and the system of punishment are means to a more just end.
Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)
In 1764, Beccaria published Dei Deliti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments") arguing for the need to reform the criminal justice system by referring not to the harm caused to the victim, but to the harm caused to society. In this, he posited that the greatest deterrent was the certainty of detection: the swifter and more certain the punishment, the more effective it would be. It would also allow a less serious punishment to be effective if shame and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing was a guaranteed response to society's judgment. Thus, the prevention of crime was achieved through a proportional system that was clear and simple to understand, and if the entire nation united in their own defence. His approach influenced the codification movement which set sentencing tariffs to ensure equality of treatment among offenders. Later, it was acknowledged that not all offenders are alike and greater sentencing discretion was allowed to judges. Thus, punishment works at two levels. Because it punishes individuals, it operates as a specific deterrence to those convicted not to reoffend. But the publicity surrounding the trial and the judgment of society represented by the decision of a jury of peers, offers a general example to the public of the consequences of committing a crime. If they are afraid of similarly swift justice, they will not offend.
In his book "On Crimes and Punishments" Beccaria presented a coherent, comprehensive design for an enlightened criminal justice system that was to serve the people rather than the monarchy. According to Beccaria, the crime problem could be traced not to bad people but to bad laws. A modern criminal justice system should guarantee all people equal treatment before the law. Beccaria’s book supplied the blue print. That blue print was based on the assumption that people freely choose what they do and are responsible for the consequences of their behaviour. Beccaria proposed the following principles:
Laws Should Be Used to Maintain Social Contract: “Laws are the conditions under which men, naturally independent, united themselves in society. Weary of living in a continual state of war, and of enjoying a liberty, which became a little value, from the uncertainty of its duration, they sacrificed one part of it, to enjoy the rest in peace and security.”
Only Legislators Should Create Laws: “The authority of making penal laws can only reside with the legislator, who represents the whole society united by the social compact.”
AMU
Judges Should Impose Punishment only in Accordance with the Law: “No magistrate then, (as he is one of the societies), can, with justice inflict on any other member of the same society punishment that is not ordained by the laws.”
Judges Should not Interpret the Laws: “Judges, in criminal cases, have no right to interpret the penal laws, because they are not legislators…. Everyman has his own particular point of view and, at different times, sees the same objects in very different lights. The spirit of the laws will then be the result of the good or bad logic of the judge; and this will depend on his good or bad digestion.”
Punishment Should be Based on the Pleasure/Pain Principle: “Pleasure and pain are the only springs of actions in beings endowed with sensibility….If an equal punishment be ordained for two crimes that injure society in different degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing the greater as often as it is attended with greater advantage.”
Punishment Should be Based on the Act, not on the Actor: “Crimes are only to be measured by the injuries done to the society they err, therefore, who imagine that a crime is greater or less according to the intention of the person by whom it is committed.”
The Punishment Should be Determined by the Crime: “If mathematical calculation could be applied to the obscure and infinite combinations of human actions, there might be a corresponding scale of punishment descending from the greatest to the least.”
Punishment Should be Prompt and Effective: “The more immediate after the commission of a crime a punishment is inflicted the more just and useful it will be….An immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the interval of time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be the association of the two ideas of crime and punishment.”
All People Should be Treated Equally: “I assert that the punishment of a noble man should in no wise differ from that of the lowest member of the society.”
Capital Punishment Should be Abolished: “The punishment of death is not authorized by any right; for….no such right exists…. The terrors of death make so slight an impression, that it has not force enough to withstand forgetfulness natural to mankind.”
The Use of Torture to Gain Confessions Should be Abolished: “It is confounding all relations to expect…that pain should be the test of truth, as if truth resided in the muscles and fibres a wretch in torture. By this method the robust will escape, and the feeble be condemned.”
It is Better to Prevent Crime than to Punish Them: “Would you prevent crimes? Let the laws be clear and simple, let the entire force of the nation be united in their defence, let them be intended rather to favour every individual than any particular classes…. Finally, the most certain method of preventing crimes to perfect the system of education.”
Perhaps no other book in the history in the history of criminology has had so great an impact.
After the French Revolution, Beccaria’s basic tenets served as a guide for the drafting of the French Penal Code, which was adopted in 1791.
AMU
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Legal scholars and reformers throughout Europe proclaimed their indebtedness to Beccaria, but none owed more to him than the English legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Bentham had long and productive career. He inspired many of his contemporaries, as well as criminologists of future generations, with his approach to rational crime control.
Bentham devoted his life to developing a scientific approach to the making and breaking of laws. Like Beccaria he was concerned with achieving “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” His work was governed by utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism assumes that all human actions are calculated in accordance with their likelihood of bringing happiness (pleasure) or unhappiness (pain). People weigh the probabilities of present future pleasures against those of present and future pain.
Bentham proposed a precise pseudo-mathematical formula for this process, which he called
“felicific calculus.” According to his reasoning individuals are “human calculators” who out all the factors into an equation in order to decide whether or not a particular crime is worth committing. This notion may seem rather whimsical today, but at a time when there were over 200 capital offences, it provided a rationale for reform of the legal system. Bentham reasoned that if prevention was the purpose of punishment, and if punishment became too costly by creating more harm than good, then penalties need to be set just a bit an excess of the pleasure one might derive from committing a crime, and no higher. The law exists in order to create happiness for the community. Since punishment creates unhappiness, it can be justified only if it prevents a greater evil than it produces. Thus, Bentham suggested if a hanging a man’s effigy produced the same preventive effect as hanging the man himself there would be no reason to hang the man.
In this context, the most relevant idea was known as the "felicitation principle", i.e. that whatever is done should aim to give the greatest happiness to the largest possible number of people in society. Bentham argued that there had been "punishment creep", i.e. that the severity of punishments had slowly increased so that the death penalty was then imposed for more than two hundred offences in England (Landau, Norma, 2002). For example, if rape and homicide were both punished by death, then a rapist would be more likely to kill the victim (as a witness) to reduce the risk of arrest.
Bentham posited that man is a calculating animal who will weigh potential gains against the pain likely to be imposed. If the pain outweighs the gains, he will be deterred and this produces maximal social utility. Therefore, in a rational system, the punishment system must be graduated so that the punishment more closely matches the crime. Punishment is not retribution or revenge because that is morally deficient: the hangman is paying the murder the compliment of imitation.
But the concept is problematic because it depends on two critical assumptions:
if deterrence is going to work, the potential offender must always act rationally whereas much crime is a spontaneous reaction to a situation or opportunity; and
AMU
if the system graduates a scale of punishment according to the seriousness of the offence, it is assuming that the more serious the harm likely to be caused, the more the criminal has to gain.
In this context, note Bentham's proposal for a prison design called the "panopticon" which, apart from its surveillance system included the right of the prison manager to use the prisoners as contract labour.
Spiritualistic understandings of crime stem from an understanding of life in general, that finds most things in life are destiny and cannot be controlled, we are born male or female, good or bad and all our actions are decided by a higher being. People have held such beliefs for all of recorded history, “primitive people regarded natural disasters such as famines, floods and plagues as punishments for wrongs they had done to the spiritual powers” (Vold, G. Bernard, T. and Snipes, J. 1998). These spiritual powers gained strength during the middle ages as they bonded with the feudal powers to create the criminal justice systems. Under a spiritualistic criminal justice system, crime was a private affair that was conducted between the offender and the victim’s family. However, this method proved to be too revengeful, as the state took control of punishment. Spiritual explanations provided an understanding of crime when there was no other way of explaining crime. However, the problem with this understanding is it cannot be proven true, and so it was never accepted.
The main tenets of classical school of criminology why noted below
1. Man’s emergence from the State’s religious fanaticism involved the application of his reason as a responsible individual.
1. It is the ‘act’ of an individual and ‘not his intent’ which forms the basis for determining criminality within him. In other words, criminologists are concerned with the ‘act’ of the criminal rather than his ‘intent’. Still, they could never think that there could be something like crime causation.
2. The classical writers accepted punishment as a principal method of infliction of pain, humiliation and disgrace to create ‘fear’ in man to control his behaviour.
3. The profounder of this school, however, considered prevention of crime more important than the punishment for it. They therefore, stressed on the need for a Criminal Code in France, Germany and Italy to systematize punishment for forbidden acts. Thus, the real contribution of classical school of criminology lies in the fact that it underlined the need for a well-defined criminal justice system.
4. The advocates of classical school supported the right of the State to punish the offenders in the interest of public security. Relying on the hedonistic principle of pain and pleasure, they pointed out that individualization was to be awarded keeping in view the pleasure derived by the criminal from the crime and the pain caused to the victim from it. They, however, pleaded for equalization of justice which meant equal punishment for the same offence.
5. The exponents of classical school further believed that the criminal law primarily rests on positive sanctions. They were against the use of arbitrary powers of Judges. In their opinion
AMU
the Judges should limit their verdicts strictly within the confines of law. They also abhorred torturous punishments.
Thus, classical school propounded by Beccaria came into existence as a result of the influence of writings of Montesquieu, Hume, Bacon and Rousseau. His famous work ‘Essays on Crime and Punishment’ received wide acclamation all over Europe and gave a fillip to a new criminological thinking in the contemporary west. He sought to humanize the criminal law by insisting on natural rights of human beings. He raised his voice against severe punishment, torture and death penalty. Beccaria’s views on crime and punishment were also supported by Voltaire as a result of which a number of European countries redrafted their penal codes mitigating the rigorous barbaric punishments and some of them even went to the extent of abolishing capital punishment from their Penal Codes.
Major Shortcomings of the Classical School
The contribution of classical school to the development of rationalized criminological thinking was by no means less important, but it had its own pitfalls.
1. The classical school proceeded on an abstract presumption of free will and relied solely on the act (i.e., the crime) without devoting any attention to the state of mind of the criminal.
2. It erred in prescribing equal punishment for same offence thus making no distinction between first offenders and habitual criminals and varying degrees of gravity of the offence.
However, the greatest achievement of this school of criminology lies in the fact that it suggested a substantial criminal policy which was easy to administer without resort to the imposition of arbitrary punishment. It goes to the credit of Beccaria who denounced the earlier concepts of crime and criminals which were based on religious fallacies and myths and shifted emphasis on the need for concentrating on the personality of an offender in order to determine his guilt and punishment. Beccaria’s views provided a background for the subsequent criminologists to come out with a rationalized theory of crime causation which eventually led the foundation of the modern criminology and penology.
2. Positivist School of Criminology. In the late 1800s, the Classical School of Criminology came under attack, thus leaving room for a new wave of thought to come about. (Cullen &
Agnew, 2003) There were three causations for the attack of the Classical School. These causations were crimes appeared to be increasing even though changes in the legal system had taken place, punished offenders were recidivation, and the theory of an offender being a rational, self-interested person who chose to engage in crime was challenged by the biological sciences. (Cullen & Agnew, 2003) Each of these events brought on a new school of criminology that came to be known as the Positivist School of Criminology.
Cesare Lombroso. Cesare Lombroso was born in 1835 and died seventy-four years later in 1909. (Seiter, 2011) Lombroso was an Italian physician who founded the Positivist School of Criminology in the nineteenth century. (Seiter, 2011) Lombroso researched the links between
AMU
criminality and physical attributes. (Seiter, 2011) Lombroso came up with the “Criminal Man,”
which outlined what he studied and deemed to be the traits of a criminal. (Vold, Bernard, &
Snipes, 2002) These traits of the “Criminal Man” were: not being developed sufficiently mentally, having long arms, large amounts of body hair, prominent cheekbones, and large foreheads. (Seiter, 2011) In his book, The Criminal Man, Lombroso suggested that criminals were biologically in a different stage in the evolution process than the counterpart non- criminals. (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002)
Later on, Lombroso added that it may not be just a physical division on whether or not a person would be a criminal. He believed that there are three major classes of criminals: born criminals, insane criminals, and criminaloids. (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002) Born criminals were thought to be one-third of the criminals which were a more primitive evolutionary form of development. (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002) Insane criminals were the idiots, paranoiacs, and those affected with dementia, alcoholism, hysteria and other types of mental complications.
(Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002) Lastly, criminalists are considered a large general class without specificities on physical characteristics or mental disorders, but sometimes tend to be involved in rancorous and criminal behaviour. (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002)
Out Comes the Positivist School of Criminology. Lombroso did not come up with the Positivist School of Criminology on his own. With the help of Ferri and Goring, the Positivist School of Criminology was created. Lombroso started with the idea that criminals are born, but later recognized other factors are important. (Jeffery C. R., 1959) Ferri is credited with emphasizing the importance of anthropological and social factors along with the physical factors. (Jeffery C. R., 1959) Goring is acknowledged as recognizing that a criminal is physically and mentally deficient to the non-criminal. (Jeffery C. R., 1959)
What the Positivist School did for Criminology. The Positivist School of Criminology linked biological, psychological, and sociological theories to criminal behaviour. It brought to light that there are several factors involved in criminality. The Positivist School of Criminology held that crime is caused or determined by the individual. The Positivist School of Criminology used science to determine factors that were associated with crime and criminality.
Specific Theories within the Positivists School. As with the Classical School, the Positivist School of Criminology have several important theories that the scholars of that time and today used to explain the behaviour of criminals. The three categories of the theories used in the Positivist School are biological theories, psychological theories, and sociological theories.
Biological Theories. Biological theories are based on a person’s biological and hereditary identity. These theories imply that it is not entirely the criminal’s fault, but their biological make up that makes them identify with criminality. Lombroso suggests what he feels is a typical criminal in his book the Criminal Man, in which he describes traits and characteristics of prisoners that he identifies with criminality.
Psychological Theories. Psychological theories deal with a person’s mental being. In psychological theories the individual is the unit of analysis. (Seiken, 2014) It is believed that crimes are the result of abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the
