If you could just allow me to finish.
Im sorry, but
Could I just finish?
Just a moment, please.
This wont take more than a few seconds.
One moment please.
. Getting to the point.
What Im trying to say is that
What Im getting at is that
The point Im trying to make is that
. Emphasizing a point.
Lets get this straight.
I want to make it quite clear that
I must emphasize that
I want to underline the fact that
Theres no doubt that
I dont have to spell it out.
1 think the figures / facts speak for themselves.
You dont need me to tell you that
Everyone should know by now that
I thought Id made myself clear when I said that
I cant make this point strongly enough.
I dont want to leave anyone in any doubt about the fact that
I hope Ive made myself clear.
. Referring to a previous point.
If I could just pick up on point you mentioned earlier.
Id like to say something about a point John mentioned earlier.
If we could just cast our minds back to something which was said earlier.
Id like to talk about something that was mentioned in passing earlier.
If I could get back to something that came up earlier in our discussion.
I think we should look closer at issue that we only touched on earlier.
Id like to return to the previous point.
Id like to return to the point made a few minutes ago.
. Expressing incredibility.
Is there any proof that?
Do you really mean to say that?
I find that very hard to believe.
You dont honestly believe that
You dont really expect me to believe that?
Youre not seriously trying to tell me that?
Thats incredible!
Oh, come on!;
Oh, come off it!;
You must be joking!
. Getting back to the point.
Discussions on the matter are still in progress.
If we could just get back to the subject under discussion.
If I could just bring you back to my original point / question.
I think weve strayed a little from our point.
I think were moving away from the main problem.
Lets get back to your original point.
To get back to your original question.
Could you stick to the point?
We seem to be getting off the point here.
Perhaps we could return to that later.
. Deferring.
I think thats something we could look at in details later.
Perhaps we could consider that matter a little later in our further discussions.
Yes, I think thats something that we could bear in mind when we come to discuss the contract.
I see your point, but perhaps we could leave that matter until later on.
Id rather not go into those details here, if you dont mind.
Perhaps you could leave those point until a later stage?
I dont think theres any point in going into detail at this moment.
Perhaps we can pick up on that point later. It might be
better to return to that point later.
.
Checking a point.
Sorry, but can we just go back to what you said earlier?
Am I right in thinking that youre proposing?
Correct me if Im wrong, but what youre proposing is
So, what you seem to be suggesting is
So, if Ive got this right, what youre saying is
|
|
|
. Digressing.
If I might digress for a moment here and say that
Let me digress for a moment.
I know it isnt strictly what were here to discuss, but I think it might be worthwhile to
spend a little time looking at
. Background information.
I think it would help if I give you a little background information on this matter.
Perhaps you would just allow me to fill you in on some background to this situation.
, . Recapping / Summarizing.
So, lets just recap for a moment.
Maybe we could just run over the main point again.
Can we just stop here a moment and summarize the point so far?
Let me just summarize our main demands again.
Perhaps, it would be useful if we just summarized what weve said so far.
. Making an initial offer.
Would you be prepared to consider our offer of..
Are you prepared to accept?
We are in position to offer you
Could I suggest a figure of
Would you be happy with a figure of around?
Would your company consider?
Would an offer of something in the region of interest you?
Weve examined the situation in detail, and are prepared to make an offer
. Making subsequent / final offers.
Weve considered all the points youve put forward, and our final offer is
Our original offer still stands.
We cant do better than that, Im afraid.
Were prepared to offer
After taking all the points into consideration, and weve come up with an offer of
Weve come up with what seems to us be a very attractive offer.
. Asking for offers.
What would be your position on ?
What can you offer us with regard to ?
Whats your policy on ?
I was wondering what you had in mind as far as is concerned?
What figure did you have in mind?
Could we talk about the youre prepared to offer?
What can you offer us on ?
. Accepting an offer.
I cant see any reason why we shouldnt agree to that.
That seems like a reasonable offer to us.
Yes, I think we can do business on that basis.
Yes, I think that would be satisfactory to us.
That sounds most satisfactory. O.K., its a deal.
Are there any comments on the draft?
These sentences are listed in order, starting with the most guarded and ending with the most direct.
. Refusing an offer.
We appreciate your position but we simply cant afford accepting an offer like that.
We have taken all the factors into account, but find your offer just isnt good enough.
Im afraid that wouldnt be acceptable to our company.
Im afraid I must reject that offer.
Im afraid we cant see eye-to-eye on that.
Im sorry, but we cant agree to that.
Im sorry, but thats completely out of question.
No, I really cant accept that.
. Asking for reconsideration of an offer.
In the light of whats been said, perhaps youd reconsider your offer.
I was wondering if youd look again at the offer weve made. Would you like to think
again about the original offer?Would it be worth looking at the offer again? Theres
still time to reconsider the offer again. Theres still time to reconsider the offer. Id like
you to reconsider the proposals.
|
|
|
. Considering an offer / Hedging.
I think that your proposal is attractive.
There are certain points Id like to clarify befofe I give my final word.
Ill have to consider that very carefully.
That point needs careful consideration.
I agree in principle, but there are certain points Im not happy about
I cant give you my final decision until
Ill have to get back to you on that one.
I really dont think I can give you a firm decision on that.
. Making conditions.
We could do it, as long as
We cant do it unless
Its not worth Ving unless
I wont do it unless all else fails
Even then Ill only do it on condition that
We did it on the understanding that
The only proviso is that
Theyve agreed on conditions that
If you could only
Provided you can we can
We can do it provided
We can agree as long as
We can agree provided
. Agreeing.
I absolutely agree.
I completely agree.
I agree with you most strongly.
You are right (of course).
Yes, indeed!
I quite agree with you.
Couldnt have put it better myself.
Hear, hear.
Exactly. Thats a wonderful idea.
That would be marvellous.
. Tentative agreement.
You may well be right, but
To a large extent youre right, but
I agree with you to a certain extent, but
Up to a point Id agree with you, but
I see what you mean, but
I take your point, but
I appreciate your point of view, but
You would be right, but
Thats an interesting idea, but
. Disagreeing.
Are you sure?
Im not sure I entirely agree
I cant quite go along with you there
I dont think I really like the idea.
No, I think youre mistaken here.
No, Im sorry, I have to disagree there.
No, I disagree.
I disagree entirely; I cant agree at all.
I dont agree with you at all on that point.
Thats not right Im afraid; thats quite wrong.
I really must object to that comment, you know.
Crime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Crime (disambiguation).
"Criminal" redirects here. For other uses, see Criminal (disambiguation).
"Offender" redirects here. For the film, see Offender (film).
| The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Europe and the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate. (November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
| Criminal law | |
| Elements | |
| Actus reus Mens rea Causation Concurrence | |
| Scope of criminal liability | |
| Complicity Corporate Vicarious | |
| Severity of offense | |
| Felony Infraction (also called Violation) Misdemeanor | |
| Inchoate offenses | |
| Attempt Conspiracy Incitement Solicitation | |
| Offence against the person | |
| |
| Crimes against property | |
| Arson Blackmail Bribery Burglary Embezzlement Extortion False pretenses Fraud Larceny Payola Pickpocketing Possessing stolen property Robbery Smuggling Tax evasion Theft | |
| Crimes against justice | |
| Compounding Malfeasance in office Miscarriage of justice Misprision Obstruction Perjury Perverting the course of justice | |
| Victimless crimes | |
| Adultery Apostasy Blasphemy Buggery Providing Contraception information(Comstock law) Dueling Fornication Gambling Adult incest Lewd and lasciviousbehavior Masturbation Creation ofObscenity Prostitution Recreational drug use (including alcohol, when prohibited) Sale of sex toys Sodomy Suicide | |
| Crimes against animals | |
| Cruelty to animals Wildlife smuggling Bestiality | |
| Defences to liability | |
| Automatism Consent Defence of property Diminished responsibility Duress Entrapment Ignorantia juris non excusat Infancy Insanity Justification Mistake (of law) Necessity Provocation Self-defence | |
| Other common-law areas | |
| Contracts Evidence Property Torts Wills, trusts and estates | |
| Portals | |
| Criminal justice Law | |
| v t e |
|
|
|
| Criminology and penology |
|
| Theory[show] |
| Types of crime[hide] Against humanity Blue-collar Corporate Juvenile Organized Political Public-order State State-corporate Victimless White-collar War |
| Penology[show] |
| Schools[show] |
| v t e |
In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority.[1] The term "crime" does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,[2] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.[3] The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law.[2] One proposed definition is that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual or individuals but also to a community, society or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.[1][4]
The notion that acts such as murder, rape and theft are to be prohibited exists worldwide.[5] What precisely is a criminal offence is defined by criminal law of each country. While many have a catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, in some common law countries no such comprehensive statute exists.
The state (government) has the power to severely restrict one's liberty for committing a crime. In modern societies, there are procedures to which investigations and trials must adhere. If found guilty, an offender may be sentenced to a form of reparation such as a community sentence, or, depending on the nature of their offence, to undergoimprisonment, life imprisonment or, in some jurisdictions, execution.
Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must with certain exceptions be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4]
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime. Breaches of private law (torts andbreaches of contract) are not automatically punished by the state, but can be enforced through civil procedure.
Contents
[hide]
1Overview
2Etymology
3Definition
o 3.1England and Wales
o 3.2Scotland
o 3.3Sociology
o 3.4Other definitions
4Criminalization
5Labelling theory
6Natural-law theory
7History
8Classification and categorisation
o 8.1Categorisation by type
o 8.2Categorisation by penalty
o 8.3Common law
o 8.4Classification by mode of trial
o 8.5Classification by origin
o 8.6Other classifications
o 8.7U.S. classification
9Offence in common law jurisdictions
10Causes and correlates of crime
11Crimes in international law
12Religion and crime
13Military jurisdictions and states of emergency
|
|
|
14Employee crime
15See also
16Notes
17References
18External links
Overview
When informal relationships and sanctions prove insufficient to establish and maintain a desired social order, a government or a state may impose more formalized or stricter systems of social control. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel populations to conform to codes and can opt to punish or attempt to reform those who do not conform.
Authorities employ various mechanisms to regulate (encouraging or discouraging) certain behaviors in general. Governing or administering agencies may for example codify rules into laws, police citizens and visitors to ensure that they comply with those laws, and implement other policies and practices that legislators or administrators have prescribed with the aim of discouraging or preventing crime. In addition, authorities provide remedies and sanctions, and collectively these constitute a criminal justice system. Legal sanctions vary widely in their severity; they may include (for example) incarceration of temporary character aimed at reforming the convict. Some jurisdictions have penal codes written to inflict permanent harsh punishments: legal mutilation, capital punishment or life without parole.
Usually a natural person perpetrates a crime, but legal persons may also commit crimes. Conversely, at least under U.S. law, nonpersons such as animals cannot commit crimes.[6]
The sociologist Richard Quinney has written about the relationship between society and crime. When Quinney states "crime is a social phenomenon" he envisages both how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on societal norms.[7]
Etymology
The word crime is derived from the Latin root cernō, meaning "I decide, I give judgment". Originally the Latin word crīmen meant "charge" or "cry of distress."[8] TheAncient Greek word krima (κρίμα), from which the Latin cognate derives, typically referred to an intellectual mistake or an offense against the community, rather than a private or moral wrong.[9]
In 13th century English crime meant "sinfulness", according to etymonline.com. It was probably brought to England as Old French crimne (12th century form ofModern French crime), from Latin crimen (in the genitive case: criminis). In Latin, crimen could have signified any one of the following: "charge, indictment,accusation; crime, fault, offense".
The word may derive from the Latin cernere "to decide, to sift" (see crisis, mapped on Kairos and Chronos). But Ernest Klein (citing Karl Brugmann) rejects this and suggests *cri-men, which originally would have meant "cry of distress". Thomas G. Tucker suggests a root in "cry" words and refers to English plaint, plaintiff, and so on. The meaning "offense punishable by law" dates from the late 14th century. The Latin word is glossed in Old English by facen, also "deceit, fraud, treachery", [cf. fake]. Crime wave is first attested in 1893 in American English.
Definition
England and Wales
Whether a given act or omission constitutes a crime does not depend on the nature of that act or omission. It depends on the nature of the legal consequences that may follow it.[10] An act or omission is a crime if it is capable of being followed by what are called criminal proceedings.[11][12]
History
The following definition of "crime" was provided by the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871, and applied[13] for the purposes of section 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908:
The expression "crime" means, in England and Ireland, any felony or the offence of uttering false or counterfeit coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or the offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences, or the offence of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under the fifty-eighth section of the Larceny Act, 1861.
Scotland
For the purpose of section 243 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a crime means an offence punishable on indictment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is liable under the statute making the offence punishable to be imprisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other punishment.[14]
Sociology
A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economicconditions may affect changing definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law-enforcement, and penal responses made by society.
|
|
|
These structural realities remain fluid and often contentious. For example: as cultures change and the political environment shifts, societies may criminalise ordecriminalise certain behaviours, which directly affects the statistical crime rates, influence the allocation of resources for the enforcement of laws, and (re-)influence the general public opinion.
Similarly, changes in the collection and/or calculation of data on crime may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to crime statistics, allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which the State should use law or social engineering to enforce or encourage any particular social norm. Behaviour can be controlled and influenced by a society in many ways without having to resort to the criminal justice system.
Indeed, in those cases where no clear consensus exists on a given norm, the drafting of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may seem to some observers an improper limitation of the second group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society have less respect for the law or laws in general whether the authorities actually enforce the disputed law or not.
Other definitions
Legislatures can pass laws (called mala prohibita) that define crimes against social norms. These laws vary from time to time and from place to place: note variations in gambling laws, for example, and the prohibition or encouragement of duelling in history. Other crimes, called mala in se, count as outlawed in almost all societies, (murder, theft and rape, for example).
English criminal law and the related criminal law of Commonwealth countries can define offences that the courts alone have developed over the years, without any actual legislation: common law offences. The courts used the concept of malum in se to develop various common law offences.[15]
Criminalization
Main article: Criminalization
The spiked heads of executed criminals once adorned the gatehouse of the medieval London Bridge.
One can view criminalization as a procedure deployed by society as a preemptive harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to anyone proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm. The State becomes involved because governing entities can become convinced that the costs of not criminalizing (through allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalizing it (restricting individual liberty, for example, to minimize harm to others).
Criminalization may provide future harm reduction at least to the outside population, assuming those shamed or incarcerated or otherwise restrained for committing crimes start out more prone to criminal behaviour. Likewise, one might assume[ original research? ] that criminalizing acts that in themselves do not harm other people ("victimless crimes") may prevent subsequent harmful acts (assuming that people "prone" to commit these acts may tend to commit harmful actions in general). Some[ who? ] see the criminalization of "victimless crimes" as a pretext for imposing personal, religious or moral convictions on otherwise productive citizens or taxpayers.
Some commentators[ who? ] may[ original research? ] see criminalization as a way to make potential criminals pay or suffer for their prospective crimes. In this case, criminalization becomes a way to set the price that one must pay to society for certain actions considered detrimental to society as a whole. An extreme view might see criminalization as State-sanctioned revenge.
States control the process of criminalization because:
Even if victims recognize their own role as victims, they may not have the resources to investigate and seek legal redress for the injuries suffered: the enforcers formally appointed by the State often have better access to expertise and resources.
The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while remaining indifferent to a possible desire for deterrence.[16]
Fear of retaliation may deter victims or witnesses of crimes from taking any action. Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit from reporting incidents or from co-operating in a trial.
Victims, on their own, may lack the economies of scale that could allow them to administer a penal system, let alone to collect any fines levied by a court.[17]Garoupa & Klerman (2002) warn that a rent-seeking government has as its primary motivation to maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient wealth, a rent-seeking government will act more aggressively than a social-welfare-maximizing government in enforcing laws against minor crimes (usually with a fixed penalty such as parking and routine traffic violations), but more laxly in enforcing laws against major crimes.
As a result of the crime, victims may die or become incapacitated.
Labelling theory
Further information: Labeling theory The "criminal"
The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply the labels of "crime" or "criminal" intend to assert the hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify any punishments prescribed by the State (in the event that standard processing tries and convicts an accused person of a crime).
Natural-law theory
Justifying the State's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws has proven a consistent theoretical problem. One of the earliest justifications involved the theory of natural law. This posits that the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards of morality or constructs them. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). He regarded people as by naturerational beings, concluding that it becomes morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. In the 1760s William Blackstone (1979: 41) described the thesis:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
But John Austin (17901859), an early positivist, applied utilitarianism in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality. He denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. Thus in Austinian terms a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual remains free to choose what to do. Similarly, Hart (1961) saw the law as an aspect of sovereignty, with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end.
Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law simply involved internal logic and consistency, and that the state's agents used state power with responsibility. Ronald Dworkin (2005) rejects Hart's theory and proposes that all individuals should expect the equal respect and concern of those who govern them as a fundamental political right. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of deference (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make.
Indeed, despite everything, the majority[ citation needed ] of natural-law theorists have accepted the idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary function of the law. This view entails the problem that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible: if conformity with natural law forms a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, count as morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice.[ clarification needed ]
One can solve this problem by granting some degree of moral relativism and accepting that norms may evolve over time and, therefore, one can criticize the continued enforcement of old laws in the light of the current norms. People may find such law acceptable, but the use of State power to coerce citizens to comply with that law lacks moral justification. More recent conceptions of the theory characterise crime as the violation of individual rights.
Since society considers so many rights as natural (hence the term "right") rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime also counts as natural, in contrast to laws (seen as man-made). Adam Smith illustrates this view, saying that a smuggler would be an excellent citizen, "...had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so."
Natural-law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" (which derives from human nature) and "illegality" (which originates with the interests of those inpower). Lawyers sometimes express the two concepts with the phrases malum in se and malum prohibitum respectively. They regard a "crime malum in se " as inherently criminal; whereas a "crime malum prohibitum " (the argument goes) counts as criminal only because the law has decreed it so.
It follows from this view that one can perform an illegal act without committing a crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many Enlightenment thinkers (such as Adam Smith and the American Founding Fathers) subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called classical liberals[ citation needed ] and libertarians.[ citation needed ]
History
Some religious communities regard sin as a crime; some may even highlight the crime of sin very early in legendary or mythological accounts of origins note the tale of Adam and Eve and the theory of original sin. What one group considers a crime may cause or ignite war or conflict. However, the earliest known civilizationshad codes of law, containing both civil and penal rules mixed together, though not always in recorded form.
The Sumerians produced the earliest surviving written codes.[18] Urukagina (reigned c. 2380 BC2360 BC, short chronology) had an early code that has not survived; a later king, Ur-Nammu, left the earliest extant written law system, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BC), which prescribed a formal system of penalties for specific cases in 57 articles. The Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code of Lipit-Ishtar". This code, from the 20th century BCE, contains some fifty articles, and scholars have reconstructed it by comparing several sources.
The Sumerian was deeply conscious of his personal rights and resented any encroachment on them, whether by his King, his superior, or his equal. No wonder that the Sumerians were the first to compile laws and law codes.
Kramer[19]
Successive legal codes in Babylon, including the code of Hammurabi (c. 1790 BC), reflected Mesopotamian society's belief that law derived from the will of the gods(see Babylonian law).[20] Many states at this time functioned as theocracies, with codes of conduct largely religious in origin or reference. In the Sanskrit texts ofDharmaśāstra (c. 1250 B.C.), issues such as legal and religious duties, code of conduct, penalties and remedies, etc. have been discussed and forms one of the elaborate and earliest source of legal code.[21][22]
Sir Henry Maine (1861) studied the ancient codes available in his day, and failed to find any criminal law in the "modern" sense of the word. While modern systems distinguish between offences against the "State" or "community", and offences against the "individual", the so-called penal law of ancient communities did not deal with "crimes" (Latin: crimina), but with "wrongs" (Latin: delicta). Thus the Hellenic laws[23] treated all forms of theft, assault, rape, and murder as private wrongs, and left action for enforcement up to the victims or their survivors. The earliest systems seem to have lacked formal courts.
The Romans systematized law and applied their system across the Roman Empire. Again, the initial rules of Roman law regarded assaults as a matter of private compensation. The most significant Roman law concept involved dominion. [24] The pater familias owned all the family and its property (including slaves); the pater enforced matters involving interference with any property. The Commentaries of Gaius (written between 130 and 180 AD) on the Twelve Tables treated furtum (in modern parlance: "theft") as a tort.
Similarly, assault and violent robbery involved trespass as to the pater's property (so, for example, the rape of a slave could become the subject of compensation to the pater as having trespassed on his "property"), and breach of such laws created a vinculum juris (an obligation of law) that only the payment of monetary compensation (modern "damages") could discharge. Similarly, the consolidated Teutonic laws of the Germanic tribes,[25] included a complex system of monetary compensations for what courts would now consider the complete[ citation needed ] range of criminal offences against the person, from murder down.
Even though Rome abandoned its Britannic provinces around 400 AD, the Germanic mercenaries who had largely become instrumental in enforcing Roman rule in Britannia acquired ownership of land there and continued to use a mixture of Roman and Teutonic Law, with much written down under the early Anglo-Saxon kings.[26] But only when a more centralized English monarchy emerged following the Norman invasion, and when the kings of England attempted to assert power over the land and its peoples, did the modern concept emerge, namely of a crime not only as an offence against the "individual", but also as a wrong against the "State".[27]
This idea came from common law, and the earliest conception of a criminal act involved events of such major significance that the "State" had to usurp the usual functions of the civil tribunals, and direct a special law or privilegium against the perpetrator. All the earliest English criminal trials involved wholly extraordinary and arbitrary courts without any settled law to apply, whereas the civil (delictual) law operated in a highly developed and consistent manner (except where a king wanted to raise money by selling a new form of writ). The development of the idea that the "State" dispenses justice in a court only emerges in parallel with or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty.
In continental Europe, Roman law persisted, but with a stronger influence from the Christian Church.[28] Coupled with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller feudal units, various legal traditions emerged, remaining more strongly rooted in Roman jurisprudence, but modified to meet the prevailing political climate.
In Scandinavia the effect of Roman law did not become apparent until the 17th century, and the courts grew out of the things the assemblies of the people. The people decided the cases (usually with largest freeholders dominating). This system later gradually developed into a system with a royal judge nominating a number of the most esteemed men of the parish as his board, fulfilling the function of "the people" of yore.
From the Hellenic system onwards, the policy rationale for requiring the payment of monetary compensation for wrongs committed has involved the avoidance offeuding between clans and families.[29] If compensation could mollify families' feelings, this would help to keep the peace. On the other hand, the institution of oaths also played down the threat of feudal warfare. Both in archaic Greece and in medieval Scandinavia, an accused person walked free if he could get a sufficient number of male relatives to swear him not guilty. (Compare the United Nations Security Council, in which the veto power of the permanent members ensures that the organization does not become involved in crises where it could not enforce its decisions.)
These means of restraining private feuds did not always work, and sometimes prevented the fulfillment of justice. But in the earliest times the "state" did not always provide an independent policing force. Thus criminal law grew out of what 21st-century lawyers would call torts; and, in real terms, many acts and omissions classified as crimes actually overlap with civil-law concepts.
The development of sociological thought from the 19th century onwards prompted some fresh views on crime and criminality, and fostered the beginnings ofcriminology as a study of crime in society. Nietzsche noted a link between crime and creativity in The Birth of Tragedy he asserted: "The best and brightest that man can acquire he must obtain by crime". In the 20th century Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish made a study of criminalization as a coercive method of state control.
