II.

INTRODUCTION

Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
(Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third Revision, 729). Crime is also generic name that refers to
offense, felony, and delinquency or misdemeanor. There are two types of crime the Felonies and
Delinquency/Misdemeanor. Felonies are acts and omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code. A
Felony is a serious crime punishable by at least one year in prison. Some family law felonies include
kidnapping and custodial interference (in some states). People convicted of felonies lose certain
rights, such as the right to vote or hold public office. During the term of sentence, the convicted
person may also be prohibited from making contracts, marrying, suing or keeping certain professional
licenses. Upon release from prison, the convict may also be required to register with the police.

Delinquency/Misdemeanor a misdemeanor is a crime for which the punishment is usually a fine

and/or up to one year in a county jail. Often a crime which is a misdemeanor for the first offense
becomes a felony for repeated offenses. All crimes that are not felonies are misdemeanors.
Delinquency/Misdemeanor is a violation of simple rules and regulations usually referring to acts
committed by minor offenders.

The general types of crime are the following. Blue-collar Crime, crime committed by an individual
from lower social class, Corporate Crime refers to crime committed either by a corporation or by
individuals that may be identified with a corporation or other business entity. Organize Crime or
Criminal Organizations this is committed and run by criminals, most commonly for the purpose of
generating a monetary profit. Political Crime is one involving overt acts or omission which prejudice
the interests of the state it’s also refers to any behavior perceived as a threat, real or imagined, to
the state’s survival including both violent and non-violent oppositional crimes.

Public Order Crime involves acts that interfere with the operations of society and the ability of people
to function efficiently it’s includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime. It asserts
the need to use the law to maintain order both in the legal and moral sense, State Crime is the
activity or failure to act that breaks the state’s own criminal law or public international law. State-
Corporate Crime refers to crimes that result from the relationship between the policies of the state
and the policies and practices of commercial corporations. White-collar Crime or Incorporated
Governance which associated with crime committed by individuals of a higher social class. The
Elements of crime exist through the presence of Motive, Opportunity, and Instrumentality or
Capability
III. OBJECTIVES

Criminal law is distinctive for the uniquely serious, potential consequences or sanctions for failure to
abide by its rules.[8] Every crime is composed of criminal elements. Capital punishment may be
imposed in some jurisdictions for the most serious crimes. Physical or corporal punishment may be
imposed such as whipping or caning, although these punishments are prohibited in much of the
world. Individuals may be incarcerated in prison or jail in a variety of conditions depending on the
jurisdiction. Confinement may be solitary. Length of incarceration may vary from a day to life.
Government supervision may be imposed, including house arrest, and convicts may be required to
conform to particularized guidelines as part of a parole or probation regimen. Fines also may be
imposed, seizing money or property from a person convicted of a crime.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law
by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Jurisdictions
differ on the value to be placed on each.

 Retribution – Criminals ought to Be Punished in some way. This is the most widely seen goal.
Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and
consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the
scales." People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people
contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who
murders may be executed himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."
 Deterrence – Individual deterrence is aimed toward the specific offender. The aim is to impose
a sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. General deterrence aims at
society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are
discouraged from committing those offenses.
 Incapacitation – Designed simply to keep criminals away from society so that the public is
protected from their misconduct. This is often achieved through prison sentences today.
The death penalty or banishment have served the same purpose.
 Rehabilitation – Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its
primary goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was
wrong.
 Restoration – This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through
state authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one
who embezzles will be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is
commonly combined with other main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in
the civil law, i.e., returning the victim to his or her original position before the injury.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The physical and emotional impact of crime can be devastating both for those who are harmed
and for their families and friends.  No matter what the crime or circumstances in which it was
committed, it may diminish the victims' sense of control and self-worth. Crime however, affects
different people in different ways. The way you feel will also vary over time and may even differ from
day to day. A common initial reaction is feeling numb, and not believing what has happened to you. 
You may feel helpless and that no-one understands what you are going through. You may feel
shocked, fearful or angry. It may help you to know that what you are feeling and experiencing are
normal reactions to an abnormal and distressing event. Depending on your situation, you may
experience a combination of reactions, feelings and symptoms.

The treatment of intimate partner violence by criminal justice actors has been a controversial
social issue. When feminist and grassroot organizations drew attention to the prevalence of intimate
violence and, in particular, violence against women by male intimate partners. Since that time, the
criminal justice system and its representatives have been criticized for their treatment of this type of
violence and, as a result, numerous changes have taken place both within the community and in the
criminal justice system with respect to how social and legal institutions respond to intimate violence.
Despite the increased attention, little empirical research in Canada or any other country has sought
to examine how the criminal justice processing of violent crime and, in particular, responses to
violence between intimates has changed over time as a result. As a first step toward this goal, this
study focused on two research questions: (1) Do those accused of killing intimate partners receive
different treatment in the criminal justice system compared to those accused of killing victims with
whom they shared more distant relationships? (2) Has the role of intimacy in criminal law changed
over time?
The findings in this study demonstrate that changes in the way intimate violence is treated have
occurred in the criminal justice system during the past three decades, paralleling increasing public
concern about intimate violence as a serious social issue. More specifically, the results presented here
showed that those accused of killing intimate partners were treated differently at some stages of the
criminal process compared to those who killed other types of victims. However, this differential
treatment appears to have abated somewhat over time (see also Dawson, 2004). That is, what many
have interpreted as more lenient treatment of intimate lethal violence by the courts was evident in
the earlier period of the study, but not in the more recent period. One might tentatively conclude,
then, that the role of intimacy in criminal law has changed over time, at least within this large urban
jurisdiction. More definitive conclusions, however, await future research because of several limitations
that have been outlined above. Moreover, the results presented here raise at least as many questions
as they answer and future research that addresses these research and data limitations is required
before we can achieve an adequate understanding of the role played by intimacy in criminal law.
Several important questions for future research are discussed briefly below.
V. CONCLUSIONS

Crime has existed in all societies, and that efforts to legislate, enforce, punish, or otherwise
correct criminal behavior have not succeeded in eliminating crime. While some have concluded that
crime is a necessary evil in human society, and have sought to justify its existence by pointing to its
role in social change, an alternative view is that the cause of crime is to be found in the problems of
human nature and human relationships that have plagued us since the origins of human history.
Correcting these problems would effectively remove the source of crime, and bring about a peaceful
world in which all people could realize their potential as individuals, and develop satisfying,
harmonious relationships with others. There are constant pressures on the criminal justice system to
take on roles for which it has traditionally not been equipped. Given the widespread belief that the
world is under siege by criminal organizations, those pressures are likely to increase. The popular
view is that the world is facing a new criminal threat - new crimes and enormous increases in the
number and technological sophistication of old crimes to which it must respond. Yet a criminal justice
should always be conservative, hesitating to follow fad and fashion. And, arguably, the degree to
which there is a new, greatly expanded criminal challenge has been exaggerated, perhaps grossly.
Probably the most important lesson to be drawn is that the real criminal justice challenge lies in
understanding the twilight zone where crime and business interact, often to their mutual benefit.
That is a zone where regulatory and alternative instruments may be better suited than traditional
criminal justice approaches that were created largely to deal with crimes involving involuntary
redistribution of wealth.