UNIT- I: INTRODUCTION

There can be no defined discussion of ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’ without the

investigation of the meaning of the words. Crime in strict sense is an act which is forbidden
by the law and authority and which is regarded as serious enough to warrant punished issuing
penalties for its execution. The punishment follows for violating the rules and norms of the
law. In the year 1940, criminologists studied and related crime only with the criminals and
their correlation in social context. By the year 1960, criminologists began to understand the
need to relate with the victims and their social context. The traditional view treated the
motivation of the offender as an essential component to the understanding as to why some
individuals commit crimes and others do not.

A. What is the definition of a crime?

The word ‘crime’ is of origin viz; ‘Crimean’ which means ‘charge’ or ‘offence’ Crime
is a social fact. The concise Encyclopedia of crime and criminals, has defined ‘crime’ thus:
“A crime is an act or default which prejudices the interests of the community and is forbidden
by law under pain of punishment. It is an offence against the State, as contrasted with loot or
a civil wrong, which is a violation of a right of an individual and which does not lead to
punishment.(Edited by Sir Harold Scott, Pub. Andre Deutsch Ltd. 105, Great Russel Street,
London, 1961, pp. 84 – 85.) (Meaning and nature of crime-) Law, as stated by Comack and
Brickley, is said to have a distinct social basis, which acts in manner of both, shaping and
getting shaped by the society in which they operates.
Crime is any act of violating social norms or societal rules of behaviour, which are
subjected to punishment by the law, in proportion to the severity of the act .Such Individuals
subject are deemed to lose their social status, face social stigma by the society.
This definition combines the consensus position of political power that the criminal
law defines crimes with the conflict perspective’s emphasis on criminal power and control
and the interactionist concept of labelling and stigma. Thus crime, as defined here, is a
political, social and economic function of modern life. (Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and
Typologies- By Larry Siegel)
A crime is also called as deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm,
damage to or loss of property, and is against the law. There are lots of different types of crime
and nearly everyone will experience a crime at some point in their lives.
 B. Concept of Crime

To understand the meaning and concept of crime in its correct perspective, it is important to
examine some of the definition in a simple English:
1. Public Wrong : Public wrongs are offenses against the state or society as a whole,
and they are typically prosecuted by the government. These wrongs are often
categorized as crimes and are subject to criminal law.
Example 1: Wilful omission to provide food, clothes, shelter or medical aid to a child
by father or to a wife by husband is a crime.
Example 2: A police officer, who silently watch another police officer torturing a
person for the purpose of extorting confession is liable for abetting the said offence as
he is under legal duty to prevent torture.
2. Moral Wrong: A moral wrong refers to an action or behaviour that is considered
ethically or morally unacceptable within a particular cultural, religious, or
philosophical framework. Unlike legal wrongs, which are defined by laws and
regulations, moral wrongs are based on broader notions of right and wrong, often
influenced by societal norms, personal beliefs, and ethical principles.
Example: Immoral act such as murder,, or causing harm without any reasonable
excuse, stealing, destroying other property, kidnapping a child, raping a women etc,
have been traditionally considered as a crime.
3. Conventional Wrong: Conventional wrong is not a widely recognized or established
term in legal or ethical discourse. However, the term may be interpreted in different
ways depending on the context in which it is used.
4. Social Wrong: Social wrong generally refers to actions or behaviours that are
considered harmful or unjust within the context of a society or community. These
wrongs are often defined by societal norms, values, and expectations rather than legal
statutes. Social wrongs may encompass a range of behaviours that are deemed
unacceptable or morally objectionable by a particular community.
5. Procedural Wrong: Procedural wrong refers to a violation or error in the process or
procedures followed in legal or administrative matters. It involves deviations from
established rules and protocols that are designed to ensure fairness, due process, and
justice in various proceedings. Procedural wrongs can occur in legal, administrative,
or organizational contexts.
 Example: failure to follow legal procedures, breach of administrative regulation,
violation of contractual procedure and failure to follow organizational policies etc

C. SUB- PHILOSOPHY OF CRIMINALOGY

1. Criminal Anthropology: It is a field of study where they linked the study of human
being to criminality. This discipline is influenced by the evolution theory pf Charles
Darwin.
The main proponent of criminal anthropology is Cesare Lombroso. He believes that
criminals have specific appearance, criminals have specific symptoms that can be link to
criminal behaviour.
Lombroso and his colleague believes that criminals can be physically predicted or
identify who have potential criminal tendency such as:
a) Usually short or tall in height;
b) Small head, but large face;
c) Fleshy lips, but thin upper lip;
d) Bumps on head, whether in the back of the head and around the ear;
e) Wrinkle on forehead and face.
f) Large sinus cavities or bumpy face;
g) Tattoos on body;
h) Receding hairlines;
i) Large incisors;
j) Bushy eyebrows, tending to meet across nose
k) Large eye sockets but deep-set eyes;
l) Beaked or flat nose;
m) Strong jaw lines;
n) Small and slopy forehead;
o) Small or weak chin
p) Thin neck
q) Long arms, and many more.
Lombroso believes that this physical appearance have criminal tendency. The reason
for conceptualization (purpose) of criminal anthropology is to detect and isolate and cure. He
also believe that if criminal can be detected at the earliest possible time, the more likely an
intervention and diversion activity will be made to affect the behaviour of the person
positively.
Example Mr. Mohan possess all the features mentioned by the Lombroso, he will be
perceive as potential criminal. This means Mr. Mohan will take away from the society to
relocated into an area free from any social factors.(Which mean they isolate him and cure or
prevent him from committing a crime).
# The method of anthropology might be good but the method of identifying the person is a bit
ridiculous. The 21st century method no longer agree with this method.
The theory of anthropological criminology was influenced heavily by the ideas of
Charles Darwin (1809–1882). However, the influences came mainly from philosophy derived
from Darwin’s theory of evolution, specifically that some species were morally superior to
others. This idea was in fact spawned by Social Darwinism, but nevertheless formed a critical
part of anthropological criminology. The work of Cesare Lombroso was continued by Social
Darwinists in the United States between 1881 and 1911.
Modern criminology emphasizes the multifaceted nature of criminal behaviour,
recognizing the influence of social, economic, psychological, and environmental factors.
2. Criminal Sociology:
Criminal sociology examines how social structures and processes contribute to
criminal behaviour. Émile Durkheim emphasized the importance of societal integration and
the collective conscience in understanding deviance.
Significance: This perspective recognizes the impact of social factors on crime. It
underscores that criminal behaviour is not solely an individual phenomenon but is influenced
by broader societal dynamics. This approach goes beyond individual attributes and looks at
how broader social dynamics shape criminality.
Criminal Sociology recognizes that criminal behaviour is not solely determined by
individual characteristics but is deeply intertwined with social structures, norms, and
processes. It acknowledges that societal factors, such as poverty, inequality, and cultural
influences, play a crucial role in shaping criminal conduct.
Criminal Sociology emphasizes that understanding crime requires examining societal
influences. Factors like social inequality, marginalization, and cultural norms contribute to
criminal behaviour. Recognizing these broader dynamics is essential for developing effective
strategies to prevent and address crime.
 ● According to Hall Jerome has defined crime as “legally forbidden and intentional
action which has a harmful impact on social interests, which has a criminal intent,
and which has legally-prescribed punishment for it.”
● According to Elliot and Merrill, “Crime may be defined as anti-social behaviour
which the group rejects and to which it attaches penalties.” Therefore crime is
believed that anti-social elements are responsible for increase in crime rate.

● According to Mowrer (1959) has defined as “an anti-social act”.

3. Criminal Psychology: Criminal psychology explores the individual psychological

factors influencing criminal behaviour. Criminal Psychology is concerned with
understanding the psychological aspects of criminal behaviour. It delves into the internal
mental processes of individuals to uncover the motivations, thought patterns, and
personality traits that contribute to criminal acts.

Influential figures in this field include Sigmund Freud, who developed psychoanalytic
theory, and Alfred Adler, known for his work on individual psychology. This perspective
delves into the mental processes of individuals to understand their motives for engaging in
criminal acts. It provides insights into the role of cognitive and emotional factors, helping in
the development of intervention and rehabilitation strategies. By examining unconscious
motivations, personality dynamics, and cognitive processes, this perspective provides
valuable insights into why individuals engage in criminal acts.
Understanding these psychological factors is crucial for developing effective
intervention, rehabilitation, and treatment strategies.

Sigmund Freud: Freud psychoanalytic theory posited that unconscious desires,

conflicts, and early childhood experiences influence behaviour. In the context of criminal
psychology, this could involve exploring how unresolved psychological issues contribute to
criminal acts.
Alfred Adler: individual psychology focused on feelings of inferiority and the
pursuit of superiority. Criminal acts, according to Adler, might be linked to an individual’s
attempts to compensate for perceived

4. Criminal Psycho-neuropathology: Criminal psycho-neuropathology

investigates the link between neurological disorders and criminal behaviour. Lombroso
 suggested that certain neurobiological factors could contribute to criminal tendencies. It
explores the potential connection between abnormalities in the brain’s structure or function
and criminal behaviour. Lombroso identified specific physical characteristics, such as the
shape of the skull, facial asymmetry, abnormal cranial size, and other anatomical anomalies,
as potential indicators of criminal tendencies. Deterministic View: Lombroso’s theory was
deterministic in nature, implying that individuals with these identified physical traits were
biologically destined to engage in criminal acts. He argued that criminality could be
predicted and explained through a focus on these biological factors.

Differences Between Psychologists and Neuropsychologists

Arguably, the main difference between psychology and neuropsychology is in their

approaches to how they address psychological conditions. Psychologists focus more on
emotions, while neuropsychologists focus on neurobehavioral disorders, cognitive processes,
and brain disorders. Neuropsychology is driven more by research, and psychology hones in
on the individual.

Anyone can seek the services of, and benefit from, a clinical psychologist. However, you
would generally only seek the services of a neuropsychologist if you or a loved one currently
has, or is developing, a brain-altering condition. The neuropsychologist helps people maintain
autonomy, while the clinical psychologist helps people improve their general mental
well-being.

However, despite their differences, both psychologists and neuropsychologists have the same
goal: to better understand the mental problems their patients face and get those patients the
assistance they need to manage any problems they’re experiencing.

5. Penology: The study of penology involves the correction and control of

known criminal offenders; it is the segment of criminology that overlaps criminal justice.
Criminologists conduct research that is designed to evaluate justice initiatives in order to
determine their efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. For example, should capital punishment
continue to be employed or is its use simply too risky? To explore this issue, Samuel Gross
and his colleagues looked at death row inmates who were later found to be innocent. His
sample of 340 death row inmates (327 men and 13 women), acquitted(pardoned) after having
served years in prison, indicated that about half (144 people) were cleared by DNA evidence.
Collectively, they had spent more than 3,400 years in prison for crimes they did not
commit—an average of more than ten years each. Gross and his colleagues found that
exonerations from death row are more than 25 times more frequent than exonerations
(pardons) for other prisoners convicted of murder, and more than 100 times more frequent
than for all imprisoned felons. How many wrongful convictions might be uncovered if all
criminal convictions were given the same degree of scrutiny as death penalty cases? The
Gross research illustrates how important it is to evaluate penal measures in order to determine
their effectiveness and reliability.
The principal aims of penal science are: to bring to light the ethical bases of
punishment, along with the motives and purposes of society in inflicting it; to make a
comparative study of penal laws and procedures through history and between nations; and,
finally, to evaluate the social consequences of the policies in force at a given time. Thus
conceived, penology represents a grouping of studies, some of which, dealing with the aims
and the moral or social justifications of punishment, while others, having to do with the wider
social implications of the system, have scarcely yet made a beginning.
Cesare Beccaria, an Enlightenment thinker, is a notable figure in penology. In his
influential work “On Crimes and Punishments”; (1764), Beccaria argued for the necessity of
proportionate and humane punishment to deter crime. His primary objectives were to
promote the principles of proportionality, deterrence, and the protection of individual rights
within the legal system.
It addresses questions of justice, punishment, and rehabilitation. Understanding
effective penal strategies is crucial for maintaining social order and protecting individual
rights. Penology’s significance lies in its examination of how societies respond to crime. By
addressing questions of justice, punishment, and rehabilitation, it contributes to the
development of effective penal strategies that aim to maintain social order while respecting
individual rights. This perspective is foundational to the design and evaluation of criminal
justice systems.

Beccaria and other utilitarian philosophers suggest that (a) people choose all behaviour,
including criminal behaviour; (b) their choices are designed to bring them pleasure and
reduce pain; (c) criminal choices can be controlled by fear of punishment; and (d) the more
severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the greater its ability to control criminal behaviour.
In keeping with his utilitarian views, Beccaria called for fair and certain punishment to deter
crime. He believed people are egotistical and self-centred, and there- fore they must be
motivated by the fear of punishment, which provides a tangible motive for them to obey the
law and suppress the “despotic spirit” that resides in every person.

Beccaria also believed that, to deter people from committing more serious offenses,
crime and punishment must be proportional; if not, people would be encouraged to commit
more serious offenses. For example, if robbery, rape, and murder were all punished by death,
robbers or rapists would have little reason to refrain from killing their victims to eliminate
them as witnesses to the crime.

Beccaria’s Theory:
1. Proportionality: Beccaria emphasized the need for punishments to be
proportionate to the severity of the crime committed. He argued that punishments
should be neither too lenient nor excessively cruel but should be calibrated to the
harm caused by the offense.
2. Deterrence: Beccaria believed in the deterrent effect of punishment. He argued that
individuals would weigh the potential benefits and costs of committing a crime, and
rational actors would be dissuaded from criminal acts if the punishment was swift,
certain, and proportionate. ( Deterrence is the prevention of something, especially
war or crime, by having something such as weapons or punishment to use as a
threat.)
3. Humanitarian Principles: Beccaria opposed inhumane and barbaric forms of
punishment. He argued for the abolition of torture and advocated for more humane
methods of punishment that respected the dignity and rights of the individual.
4. Equality before the Law: Beccaria emphasized the importance of equality before
the law. He argued that the legal system should treat all individuals equally,
irrespective of social status or wealth.
D. Crime and Society
• 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.
• Practising of untouchability had been following continuously in India, same we can
talk about “Sati system” which was considered as offence from societal point of view.
Thus, society play an important part to give shape to the particular act as an
offence if it goes against the sentimental of society.
• These are values which are likely to be changed with the passage of time.
• For Example: Bangalore in 1977 around 10000 third gender people gathered outside
State assembly and they were demanding that sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code-1860
should be abolished.
• As nature has played against them and they are not at par the human being.
• But neither the State of Karnataka nor Govt of India even thought to amend section
377 of the Indian Penal Code-1860.
• And around 40 years later in 2018 the Supreme Court of the country declared half of
the part of sec 377 as unconstitutional.
• All the wings of the state reflects the societal value.
Example: India Code: Section Details. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse
against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished
with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In 2009, Section 377 was held to be unconstitutional by the High Court of

Delhi in the Naz Foundation case, which was overruled by the Supreme Court in
Suresh Kumar Koushal.

E. Definition of Crime
▪ The word crime is of origin “Crimean” which means ‘Charge’ or ‘Offence’ is a
social fact.
▪ There is no universally agreed definition of what crime is;
▪ But in terms of legalistic perspective – A crime is an act which is illegal.
▪ In simple words, crime is an action committed or omitted, which constitutes an
offence and is punishable by law. Crime is an unlawful act that is forbidden and
punished by the state or the law.
▪ In Board of Trade v Owen (1957), Lord Tucker defined crime as “ an unlawful act
or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of
the act or default liable to legal punishment
Definition of Crime According to Renowned Jurists:
• Bentham: Offences are whatever the legislature has prohibited for good or for bad
reason.
• Austin: A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his
representatives is a civil injury; a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his
subordinates is a crime.
• Blackstone: An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either
forbidden or commanding it. He also defined crime as “violation of the public rights
and duties due to the whole community, considered as a community, in its social
aggregate capacity”.
• Keeton: A crime would seem to be any undesirable act which the State finds it most
convenient to correct by the institution of proceedings for the infliction of a penalty,
instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of some injured person.
• Stephen: Crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same time revolting to
the moral sentiments of the society.
• Kenny: Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is in no way remissible by
any private person; but is remissible by crown alone, if remissible at law.” (Here, the
word ‘sanction’ means punishment, and the word ‘remissible’ means to pardon by a
crown.)
• Miller: Crime is “to be the commission or omission of an act which the law forbids or
commands under pain of a punishment to be imposed by the State by a proceeding in
its own name.
• Paton: The normal marks of a crime are that the State has the power to control the
procedure, to remit the penalty or to inflict the punishment.
• Paul W. Tappen: An intentional act or omission in the violation of criminal law,
without justification and sanctioned by law as felony or misdemeanor
• Sutherland: He defines criminal behaviour as behaviour which is in violation of
criminal law. No matter what the degree of immorality, reprehensibility, or indecency
of an act, it is not a crime unless it is prohibited by criminal law.
Professor Sutherland further mentions seven attributes of a crime:
1)Before a behaviour can be called a crime there must be certain external
consequences or harm. A crime has a harmful impact on social interest;
2) The external consequences or harm shall be strictly forbidden. Anti-social
behaviour is not a crime unless forbidden by law;
3) There must be intention;
4) Mens rea (a guilty mind) must be present;
 5) There must be fusion or concurrence of mens rea and intention;
6) There must be a causal relationship between the legally forbidden harm and the
misconduct;
7) There must a legally prescribed punishment.

F. Elements of Crime
1) Human being: The first element of a crime is a human being. Any wrongful act to be
called a crime must be done by a human being;
2) Mens Rea: The second essential element of a crime is mens rea or guilty mind or
evil intent. Mens rea refers to the mental element that is necessary for a particular
crime. Any wrongful act committed by a human being cannot be called a crime if
committed without evil intent. There must be an evil intent while doing an act.
#A well-known maxim – Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. It means “the act
itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.”. From this maxim, there
comes another maxim- ‘actus me invito non est mens actus,’ which means ‘an act done
by me against my will is not my act at all.’
3) Actus Reus: The third element of the crime is actus reus. The criminal intent to be
punishable must be obvious in some voluntary act or omission. As per Kenny, ‘actus
rues’ is such a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. The act committed
must be one that is forbidden or punished by the law.
#An act also includes omissions. A man is also held liable if some duty is imposed upon
him by law, and he omits to discharge that duty. An omission must be a breach of legal
duty.
4) Injury is the last important, or we can say the essential element of crime. It must be
caused illegally to another human being or a body of individuals or society at large.
#Injury has been defined in section 44 of the IPC as ‘any harm whatever illegally
caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property’.
However, there can be some crimes that may not cause any injury to anybody
Example: if you drive a vehicle without a driving license, it is a crime, even if it does not
cause any injury to someone.

WHEN AN ACT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME

There are seven interrelated but over lapping criteria to call an act as a crime. Ideally
behaviour would not be a crime unless all the seven conditions are present.
 1. Harm: Before a behaviour can be called crime there must be certain external
consequences or ‘harm’. A crime has a harmful impact on social interests.
2. Illegal: The harm must be legally forbidden, must have been prescribed in penal law.
Anti-social behaviour is not crime unless it is prohibited by law.
3. Malafide Intention: There must be the criminal conduct i.e.: there must be an
intentional or reckless action or inaction which brings about the harmful consequences e.g.:
Doctor‘s negligence.
4. Criminal Intention: Criminal intent must be present. Hall suggests that legal
scholars have confused between intention and motive. The motives for a crime may be good
but the intention is criminal. Thus if a man kills his starving children his motive is good but
killing is legally forbidden and so his intention is criminal.
5. Concurrence of Intention and Conduct: There must be a concurrence of criminal
intention and conduct: Example: if a policeman, who goes into a house to make an arrest
goes into a house to make an arrest is not a trespasser from the beginning.
6. Casual Relationship: There must be a casual relationship between the legally
forbidden harm and the voluntary misconduct: Example: if a man dies of suffocation after
being shot at, the relationship between conduct and the harm is not clear cut.
7. Prescription of Punishment: There must be legally prescribed punishment. The
voluntary misconduct must be punishable by law
Difference Between Civil Wrong and Crime

1) The basic object in case of civil wrong is to enforce of the rights of the person whose
right is violated whereas in crime to punish the wrong doer.
2) In case of civil wrong it is private wrong whereas in crime it is public wrong.
3) In civil wrong the person whose right is infringed has to initiate the action where as
in crime the State will initiate the action on its own.
4) Civil wrongs are compoundable at the instance of the parties whereas crime is not
compoundable at the instances of the parties with certain exception given in section
320 of the CrPc.
5) The outcome in civil wrong is remedial in nature whereas in crime it is punitive.
6) Then purpose of civil wrong is to compensate the individual or to recognize his right,
in criminal law to protect the society by preventing and deterring the offender from
committing further offences.
 7) In civil wrong the burden of the proof is on individual whereas in criminal law it is
on state.
8) Most of the civil wrongs are based upon moral turpitude and that is not the case in
criminal law with certain exceptions.
Civil vs. Criminal Law
• Civil and criminal law are both types of law where someone (or an entity like a
business) has been harmed, injured, killed, or violated. Civil law focuses explicitly on
disputes between individuals, and court cases are about fixing the wrong one person
has committed against another. Usually, these are remedied by one person paying the
person they’ve wronged to compensate for the damages they’ve caused.
• In criminal law, the government files the case (rather than a person). The court either
finds the person accused guilty or not guilty, or the person accused pleads guilty. If
they’re found guilty, they’re punished for the specific crimes they’re found guilty of
and usually go to jail or pay a fine as punishment.

G. What is Criminal Law?

Criminal law is the foundation of the criminal justice system. The law defines the acts
that may lead to arrest, trial, and incarceration. We typically think about crime as
involving violent conduct, but in fact a broad variety of acts are defined as crimes.
• Criminal law is an area of the law that concerns crimes and laws applied to those who
commit them.
• There are two main types of criminal law offenses: felonies and misdemeanours. The
most serious crimes are felonies, which include offenses like murder, robbery, and
arson. Misdemeanours are more minor offenses, like traffic violations or petty thefts.
• The object of criminal law is mainly to protect the society and the interest associated
with life, liberty and the property.
H. Nature & Functions of Criminal Law
Criminal law serves several purposes and benefits society in the following ways:
● Maintaining order. Criminal law provides predictability, letting people know what to

expect from others. Without criminal law, there would be chaos and uncertainty.
● Resolving disputes. The law makes it possible to resolve conflicts and disputes
between quarrelling citizens. It provides a peaceful, orderly way to handle grievances.
● Protecting individuals and property. Criminal law protects citizens from criminals
who would inflict physical harm on others or take their worldly goods. Because of the
importance of property in capitalist America, many criminal laws are intended to
punish those who steal.
● Providing for smooth functioning of society. Criminal law enables the government
to collect taxes, control pollution, and accomplish other socially beneficial tasks.
● Safeguarding civil liberties. Criminal law protects individual rights.

I. Sources of Criminal Law

1. The Constitution of India: The Constitution of India provides for a federal

system wherein powers are divided between the central, state, and local
governments. The demarcation of powers is provided in Schedule VII read with
Article 246 of the Constitution. Powers are divided into three lists:
(a) The Union List: the Union Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with
respect to the matters enumerated within this list.
(b) The State List: State Legislatures have the exclusive power to make laws
with respect to the matters enumerated within this list.
(c) Concurrent List: both the Parliament and State Legislatures have the
power to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated within this list.
In the event of contradiction between Central and State laws, the Central law will
prevail.
Example: Criminal law and criminal procedure fall under the Concurrent List
while matters relating to Police and Prisons fall under the State List. The laws that
govern criminal law in India are the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1974 (CrPC). The IPC provides for the substantive law to be
followed in case a crime has been committed. The CrPC provides for the procedures
to be followed during investigation and trial by the police and courts.
2. The English Statutes
3. The Statutes passed by the Government of India and the concerned state
Government
4. The judicial decisions.
5. The societal approach.
 J. Place of Criminal Law in Criminal Science
▪ Science is systematic study of any particular thing.
▪ The basic aim of Criminal Science is to study the causes of crime, the study to
prevent it and finally the mechanism to deal with the criminals.
▪ So Criminal science deals with Criminology, that is systematic study of
criminal and their behaviour, causes and so on, Penology which talks not only
about the punishment but the reformative measures and Criminal law which is
the mechanism to implement the policies of Criminology and Penology.
▪ The recent development in this field is “Victimology” which talks about the
welfare of victims and related schemes.
▪ Criminal Law talks about offences like Indian penal Code-1860 which is
considered as substantive law and the criminal Procedure Code-1973 which
talks about the procedural part.
▪ Hence the Criminal Law forms an important part of the Criminal Science. It
sets the policies and the law in motion.
▪ If the criminal law is effective in terms of contents and its implementation,
then only the Criminal law will achieve its object.
▪ An effective mechanism is very important in criminal law for the research in
criminal science as it provides practical input to the theoretical aspects.
▪ Example:- Domestic violence cases increased during the time of lock down,
after every economic depression probability of increasing crime against
property is more.
▪ Thus, Criminal Law acquires an important part in Criminal science.

K. Theories of Crime
I. Traditional and Modern Theories of Crime
Historically crime is general rather than exception. Crime is a very
complex social issue to be dealt with. However, the insights from sociological theories
offer some hope to minimize crime in any society whether they are traditional or modern.
In addition, affluence alone will not minimize crime because crime occurs in modern
affluent societies due to many complex factors.
 In any society the benefits or affluence is not equally distributed and there are
individual differences in personality profile and different groups are able to cope with
strain and therefore psychological, social environmental factors, official crime control
methods, values and beliefs, as well psychological factors, biological factors and social
factors interact in different degrees on individuals and groups and therefore give birth to
the commitment of crime.
Social Structure Theories:
This theory is applied to a variety of approaches within criminology in particular and in
sociology more generally as a conflict theory or structural conflict perspective in
sociology and sociology of crime. This perspective is itself broad enough and has within
it a diversity of positions.
Social structure theories suggest people's places in the socioeconomic structure
influence their chances of becoming a criminal. Poor people are more likely to commit
crimes because they are unable to achieve monetary or social success in any other way.
Social structure theory has three schools of thought--social disorganization, strain, and
cultural deviance theories.
A. Social disorganization theory (neighbourhoods plagued with poverty + less
fortunate)
This theory suggests that slum dwellers violate the law because they live in areas
where social control has broken down. The origin of social disorganization theory can be
traced to the work of Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw of the Chicago School, who
concluded that disorganized areas marked by divergent values and transitional
populations produce criminality. Social disorganisation theory postulates that
neighbourhoods plagued with poverty and economic deprivation tend to experience high
rates of population turnover. These neighbourhoods also tend to have high population
heterogeneity. With high turnover, informal social structure often fails to develop, which
in turn makes it difficult to maintain social order in a community. Thus crime flourishes.
B. Strain theories
This theories view crime as resulting from the anger people experience over their
inability to achieve legitimate social and economic success. These theories hold that most
people share common values and beliefs but the ability to achieve them is differentiated
throughout the social structure. The best known strain theory is Merton's, which
describes what happens when people have inadequate means to satisfy their needs.
 Strain theory, (also known as Mertonian Anomie), advanced by American
sociologist Robert Merton, suggests that mainstream culture, especially in the United
States, is saturated with dreams of opportunity, freedom and prosperity. Most people buy
into this dream and it becomes a powerful cultural and psychological motivation. Merton
also used the term anomie, but it meant something slightly different for him than it did
for Durkheim. Merton saw the term as meaning a dichotomy between what society
expected of its citizens, and what those citizens could actually achieve. Therefore, if the
social structure of opportunities is unequal and prevents the majority from realising the
dream, some of them will turn to illegitimate means (crime) in order to realise it. Others
will retreat into or become part of deviant subcultures (gang members, “hobos”: urban
homeless drunks and drug abusers).
C. Cultural deviance(behaviour that violate social rules and norms) theories
This theories hold that a unique value system develops in lower class areas. Lower-class
values approve of behaviours such as being tough, never showing fear, and defying
authority. Cloward and Ohlin argue that crime results from lower-class people's
perceptions that their opportunities for success are limited.
Social Ecology Theory:
Since the 1950s, social ecology studies have built on the social disorganisation theories.
Many studies have found that crime rates are associated with poverty, disorder, high
numbers of abandoned buildings, and other signs of community deterioration. As
working and middle class people leave deteriorating neighbourhoods, the most
disadvantaged portions of the population may remain. William Julius Wilson suggested a
poverty “concentration effect”, which may cause neighbourhoods to be isolated from the
mainstream of society and become prone to violence.
Sub Cultural Theory: (Group or sub culture develop their own norms, values that
differ from those of dominant culture; Chicago school + strain theory; The Chicago
School of criminology refers to a sociological + ecological approach to
understanding crime + deviance, developed by scholars at the University of
Chicago in the early 20th century.)
Following on from the Chicago school and Strain Theory, and also drawing on Edwin
Sutherland’s idea of differential association, sub cultural theorists focused on small
cultural groups fragmenting away from the mainstream to form their own values and
meanings about life.
 Albert K. Cohen tied anomie theory with Freud’s reaction formation idea,
suggesting that delinquency among lower class youths is a reaction against the social
norms of the middle class. Some youths, especially from poorer areas where
opportunities are scarce, might adopt social norms specific to those places which may
include “toughness” and disrespect for authority. Criminal acts may result when youths
conform to norms of the deviant subculture.
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin suggested that delinquency can result from
differential opportunity for lower class youth. Such youths may be tempted to take up
criminal activities, choosing an illegitimate path that provides them more lucrative
economic benefits than conventional, over legal options such as minimum wage paying
jobs available to them.
British sub cultural theorists focused more heavily on the issue of class, where
some criminal activities were seen as ‘imaginary solutions’ to the problem of belonging
to a subordinate class. A further study by the Chicago school looked at gangs and the
influence of the interaction of gang leaders under the observation of adults.
Sociologists such as Raymond D. Gastil, have explored the impact of a Southern
culture of honour on violent crime rates.
Labelling Theory: (Giving someone label can make someone become criminal)
Labelling Theory argues that deviant behaviour is often a consequence of having a
deviant-like label applied to a person. For example, a teacher labelling a student as a
troublemaker. That label can then be mentally adopted by the person it’s been assigned
to, leading them to exhibit the actions, attitudes, and behaviours associated with it.

In short, this theory tends to focus on how people become deviant as a result of others
forcing that identity upon them. It allows us to develop a better understanding of how a
person’s previous behaviours can be reinterpreted in relation to the symbolic labelling
they encountered over the course of their lives.
(a) Social Reaction and Deviance: Labelling theory focuses on the social reaction to
individuals who are labelled as deviant or criminal. It suggests that societal
reactions play a crucial role in shaping an individual's identity and behaviour.
(b) Stigmatization and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: The theory proposes that the
application of stigmatizing(defaming) labels can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When individuals are labelled as criminals, they may internalize this identity,
 leading to continued criminal behaviour. The label becomes a significant aspect of
their self-concept.
(c) Primary and Secondary Deviance: Howard S. Becker introduced the concepts of
primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance refers to the initial act of
rule-breaking, while secondary deviance is the result of societal reactions and
labelling. Secondary deviance often leads to the adoption of a deviant identity.
(d) Labelling Processes: Labelling theory explores the processes through which
individuals are officially labelled as criminals by the criminal justice system or
informally labelled by social groups. These labels can influence the individual's
interactions with others and their own perceptions of themselves.
Example: Imagine a teenager engages in shoplifting for the first time, an act of primary
deviance. If caught and labelled as a "shoplifter" by law enforcement or others, the
teenager might start to see themselves in that light. As a result, they may adopt the
deviant (irregular/unusual/abnormal) label, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where
they continue shoplifting and engage in other deviant behaviours, reinforcing the label
attached to them.

II. Individual Theories

Trait Theories: (having childhood problem/grow up with abusive parents or poor
childhood etc.)
At the other side of the spectrum, criminologist Lonnie Athens developed a theory about
how a process of brutalisation by parents or peers that usually occurs in childhood results
in violent crimes in adulthood. Richard Rhodes’ Why They Kill describes Athens’
observations about domestic and societal violence in the criminals’ backgrounds. Both
Athens and Rhodes reject the genetic inheritance theories.
Rational Choice Theory: (Considering pros and cons before making choices)
(The theory suggests that individuals make decisions by carefully considering the pros
and cons of various options and choosing the one that is most likely to benefit them)
Rational choice theory has its roots in the classical school of criminology developed by
the Italian social thinker Cesare Beccaria.

Rational choice theory is based on the utilitarian, classical school philosophies of

Cesare Beccaria, which were popularised by Jeremy Bentham. They argued that
punishment, if certain, swift, and proportionate to the crime, was a deterrent for crime,
with risks outweighing possible benefits to the offender. Beccaria advocated a rational
penology and conceived of punishment as the necessary application of the law for a
crime. Thus the judge was simply to conform his sentence to the law. Beccaria also
distinguished between crime and sin, and advocated against the death penalty, as well as
torture and inhumane treatments, as he did not consider them as rational deterrents.

This philosophy was replaced by the Positivist and Chicago Schools, and not
revived until the 1970s with the writings of James Q. Wilson. The argument here is that
criminals, like other people, weigh costs/risks and benefits when deciding whether or not
to commit crime and think in economic terms. They will also try to minimize risks of
crime by considering the time, place, and other situational factors.
Gary Becker, for example, acknowledged that many people operate under a
high moral and ethical constraint, but considered that criminals rationally see that the
benefits of their crime outweigh the cost such as the probability of apprehension,
conviction, punishment, as well as their current set of opportunities. From the public
policy perspective, since the cost of increasing the fine is marginal to that of the cost of
increasing surveillance, one can conclude that the best policy is to maximize the fine and
minimize surveillance.
With this perspective, crime prevention or reduction measures can be devised
that increase effort required committing the crime, as for example, added surveillance,
police or security guard presence, added street lighting, and other measures, are effective
in reducing crime.
One of the main differences between this theory and Jeremy Bentham’s rational
choice theory, which had been abandoned in criminology, is that if Bentham considered it
possible to completely annihilate crime (through the panopticon), Becker’s theory
acknowledged that a society could not eradicate crime beneath a certain level.
For example, if 25% of a supermarket’s products were stolen, it would be very easy to
reduce this rate to 15%, quite easy to reduce it until 5%, difficult to reduce it under 3%
and nearly impossible to reduce it to zero (a feat which would cost the supermarket so
much in surveillance, etc., that it would out weight the benefits).
Such rational choice theories, linked to neoliberalism, have been at the basics of
crime prevention through environmental design.
Routine Activity Theory: (rational choice + human ecology, daily activity, also known
as crime opportunity)
 Routine activity theory, developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen, draws upon
control theories and explains crime in terms of crime opportunities that occur in everyday
life, which would become a seminal contribution to both theoretical criminology and
crime prevention practice. A crime opportunity requires that elements converge in time
and place including
1) a motivated offender
2) suitable target or victim
3) lack of a capable guardian.
A guardian at a place, such as a street, could include security guards or even
ordinary pedestrians who would witness the criminal act and possibly intervene or report
it to police. Routine activity theory was expanded by John Eck, who added a fourth
element of “place manager” such as rental property managers who can take nuisance
abatement measures.

RAT combines insights from rational choice theory and human ecology to focus on how
contexts and mundane daily activity can either fuel or forestall offending. It draws upon
control theories and explains crime in terms of crime opportunities that occur in everyday
life. A crime opportunity requires that elements converge in time and place including

1) A motivated offender - A motivated offender is simply someone with the desire and
ability to carry out a crime. Routine activity theory itself is not concerned with why one
person is motivated and others are not; rather, the theory begins with the assumption that
people are rational and will be attracted by any opportunities for gain and deterred from
seizing these opportunities by any immediate difficulties or risks.

2) Suitable target or victim- The simple desire to commit a crime is not sufficient for it
to occur. For crime to take place, there must be an attractive target within reach of 68 C.J.
Schreck the motivated offender. Marcus Felson (1998) described four elements that
shape target suitability (or attractiveness) in given situations, using the acronym VIVA
(for Value, Inertia, Visibility, and Accessibility). Although these elements are often
widely varying across social groups, the visible presence of a high value, portable, or
concealable target that is easily accessible to a motivated offender, will rate very high in
overall target suitability
3) Lack of a capable guardian- Guardianship in RAT can refer to the ability of a
person or object to oppose or detect an offender, but in most situations will refer to
anyone in the setting who the offender knows might be looking at them. Offenders
seeking to maximize gain and avoid risk will tend to prefer to be alone with their target;
well-protected targets will deter crime unless there are exploitable weaknesses that are
readily apparent to the offender. Guardianship can include the police, is far more
frequently something as simple and unobtrusive as a lock, a closed window, a trimmed
bush in the yard, a watchful neighbour or friend, or a fence. The immediate physical
environment where the target is located can also facilitate or impair guardianship, which
in turn affects the chances that an offender will be successfully noticed, resisted, and
captured.
Examples of physical environment guardianship (in the context of a house that is
attractive and accessible to a burglar) include locked doors and windows, alarm systems,
security cameras, and terrain or architectural design that allows for east.

Cohen and Felson thus define crime as an opportunistic act that only benefits the
offender and has a parasitic relationship with the legitimate activities and technologies
used within the community.

Social Control Theory:

( The Social Control Theory was developed by Travis Hirschi, an American
Sociologist and Criminologist in 1969 in his book “Causes of Juvenile Delinquency”.
It states that an individual’s behaviour is bonded by society, and the extent to which
an individual feels the bond or commitment to society determines their
deviance(abnormality) from conventional societal norms.) The Social Control Theory
proposes that the process of socialisation and Social Learning Theory builds self-control
and reduces the inclination to indulge in behaviour recognised as antisocial.

Social control theory in sociology and criminology posits that people’s relationships,
commitments, values, norms, and beliefs encourage them not to break the law. Thus, if
moral codes are internalized and individuals have a stake in conformity, they voluntarily
limit deviant behaviour.

Hirschi (1969) argues that human beings are similar to animals in that we
sometimes fight and steal, while at other times we are pleasant and cooperative. He
identified four types of bonds: (i) attachment to others (ii) belief in moral validity of
rules (iii) commitment to achievement and (iv) involvement in conventional
activities. If those factors are not present in a person, it is more likely that he or she
might become criminal. Hirschi expanded on this theory, with the idea that a person
with low self-control is more likely to become a criminal.

Attachment refers to the emotional ties a person has with other people. To the extent that
we like, love, or respect others, we are sensitive to their opinions of us. Hirschi assumed
that social order is based on consensus. Thus, he assumed that parents, teachers, and
others uniformly disapprove of behaviours that are disruptive, dishonest, and hurtful.
Therefore, engaging in those behaviours will result in negative consequences for the
individual. This brings in the concept of sensitivity. Psychologists argue that some people
are more sensitive to the opinion of others, and the extent to which one is sensitive to
others’ views will predict rates of criminal activity. Attachment is used to capture the
emotions associated with committing a crime. If a person feels no attachment or emotion
to anyone in society, then theoretically, he or she would be free to conduct crimes, and
there is no reason for him or her to stop.

Commitment- Hirschi noted that people are less likely to commit crimes when they know
that they have something to lose. A potential offender would calculate the benefits and
costs of crime. Commitment is the time and energy a person spends in the pursuit of
goals, such as getting an education or building a business. If a person engages in reckless
and anti-social activity, they may place these projects in jeopardy. If a person has
invested a lot of time and energy into achieving certain accomplishments and goals, then
he or she has a lot to lose if they commit a crime; the crimes are thus less likely to be
committed. For example, a person could lose property, life, liberty, and money if they
commit a crime.

Involvement- The third type of social bond is known as involvement, which relates to the
opportunity costs associated with how a person spends their time. Involvement in
conventional activities includes things such as reading, playing sports, doing homework,
listening to music, watching TV, and doing housework. If a person is heavily involved in
these activities, then they have less time and energy to think about committing delinquent
acts. They would also be heavily involved in social networks and hesitate to engage in
criminal activity. Involvement is the degree to which a person is active in conventional
activities. For example, if someone is busy at school and is involved with sports, they
will have much less time to plan and commit delinquent acts.

Belief: The fourth and last type of social bond identified by Hirschi is belief, which
refers to the degree to which one adheres to the values associated with behaviours that
conform to the law; the assumption being that the more important such values are to a
person, the less likely he or she is to engage in criminal/deviant behaviour. Belief refers
to the acceptance of a common value system shared by people in a given society. This is
not the same as religious beliefs, though religion may play a role. Rather, it is the belief
in the validity of the law and norms of their society. Hirschi again found that the boys
who had stronger social bonds in other respects were likely to have greater belief in the
moral validity of the law. Both stronger bonds and greater belief were associated with
lower levels of delinquency.

Conflict Theory (inequality)

(Marxism: the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later
developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism)

Conflict Theory views deviant behaviour as a consequence of material

inequality between various socio-political groups. Those groups might be drawn along
the lines of gender, religion, race, class, and so on. Each socio-political group has a
tendency to perceive its own interests in completion with others. In other words, the
members of various groups tend to perceive rights and other social privileges as a
zero-sum game, where gains for outsiders mean losses for your own group.

Groups that find themselves in an unequal social position in society will be inclined to
deviant(rebelliousness) behaviour to change those circumstances, including the structures
which helped create them. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “A riot is the
language of the unheard.” From the perspective of Conflict Theory, people often act in
defiance from social norms to express a grievance.
 L. Schools of Criminology

1. Pre- Classical or Demonological School (17th to 18th Century, Evil Power influence +
torture) (Founder -Jeremy Bentham)
The pre-classical school is also known as demonological school. During the 17th
Century, the demonological theory flourished in Europe with the dominance of the
Church and religion. During this time there were not much of scientific explanations
for the causation of crime and the concept of crime was vague and based on
superstitions and myths.
Hence, the explanations for criminal behaviour were sought through spirits,
demons and unknown power. The principle behind such a concept was that a man
commits a crime due to the stimulus(motivation) of some external force or an evil
spirit which is beyond the control and understanding of man and that he was
possessed by such a spirit. The wrath of God and the natural agencies were considered to
give punishment to the offenders. The offenders were subjected and had to go through
battles, pelting(throwing stones) of stones and was believed that no harm would be
caused if the offender was innocent which was termed as the Ordeal(trails) test and
was a method of torturing or subjecting the offender to severe torture to determine
whether or not such an offender was guilty of the offence which he was charged with.
The justification advanced for these rituals was the familiar belief that "when the human
agency fails, recourse to divine means of proof becomes most! inevitable". However, such
practices were the most irrational according to the modern mind, they were universally
accepted.
This demonological theory of criminality or the pre-classical was based upon
the omnipotence(control/invincible/supremacy) of spirit, which they regarded as a
divine and superior power. The offender was made victim to the worships, sacrifices and
ordeals by water and fire which were usually prescribed to determine the guilt of the
offender. However, as the times developed people started analysing and questioning
the demonological theory which led to the scientific development and therefore, led to
the formation of the classical school of criminology.
2. Classical School (18th Century, Supported by Beccaria based upon free will concept)
(Rationality + Hedonism(pleasure)}
The pioneers and the scholars of the classical school of criminology are
Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham and Romilly. The main belief of this school is that
all men are self-seeking and therefore they attempt to commit the offence on account
of the free will and not on account of being possessed by an evil spirit. According to
the theory of this school, men possess free will and therefore, act as per their pleasure
and in order to cause pain (hedonism) to the victim. The theory devised(develop) by
the pre-classical school was rejected.
Beccaria, a renowned criminologist proposed that, the punishment of a crime
that is decided should be proportionate (balance) and in accordance with its
seriousness. This thought was based on the simple reason that torture was
inappropriate and thus allowed the weak to incriminate and the strong would be
found innocent before the adjudication because of social position. The ideology of
Beccaria was supported by various criminologists that emphasises upon the criminal rather
than the crime. The classical school focuses on the principle of deterrence (prevent)
instead of the retributive theory (the act of taking revenge).
The major drawback of the classical school was that it was based upon 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 or on the criminal. Another shortcoming of
this school was that they prescribed equal punishments for same offence and created no
distinction between first offenders and habitual criminals irrespective of the gravity of
the offence. However, the greatest achievement of this school of criminology lies in the
fact that it recognized and suggested for the development of a substantial and robust
criminal policy which would overcome the barrier of allotting arbitrary punishments. Due
to the theory devolved by Beccaria the earlier concepts of crime and criminals which
were based on religious beliefs and myths were denounced and therefore, the
emphasis was upon the criminal rather than the crime which eventually led to the
need for concentrating on the personality of an offender in determine the
causation(connection) of crime.
3. Neo-classical School (18th Century) (Upgraded version of classical school/ focus to
understand the circumstances, mental health of the offender/ punishment should be
as per the categories like first time offender, habitual, minor, insane/ No
Reformation) founder - Gabriel Tarde}:
The ‘free will’ theory developed by the classical school did not survive for too
long because of ignoring the individual differences under certain situations and
treating first offenders and the habitual alike irrespective of the crime committed.
The neo-classists asserted that certain categories of offenders such as minors, idiots,
insane or incompetent cannot be treated equally as a prudent man in matters of
punishment irrespective of the similarity of their criminal act because these persons
were incapable of understanding the nature or the conduct of the act committed. The
Neo-classical school was greatly appreciated because of evolution of the theory of
differentiating the aforementioned categories from the other criminals on the basis of their
mental depravity was indeed a progressive step.
Thus, it would be seen that the main contribution of neo-classical school of
criminology lies in the fact that the theory of classical school and suggested that an
individual might commit criminal acts due to certain justifying circumstances and such
situations must be taken under consideration while discharging the criminal liability.
Therefore, along with the criminal act, the other factors such as the, the personality of
the criminal, the motives, previous life, history, general character, etc., should not be
lost while assessing his guilt. Today’s jury system has inculcated the approach of the
Neo-classists by granting leniency to the aforementioned classes. As to the shortcomings
of neo-classical school of criminology, it believed that criminals are a nuisance to the
society and therefore, must be expelled.

Differences Between Classical and Neo-Classical Schools of Criminology

The said theories are two of the early significant theories in criminology but differ
in explaining crime causation(action) and punishment:
Proponent:
Classical: Jeremy Bentham & Cesare Beccaria
Neoclassical: Gabriel Tarde
Main Principle
Classical: Free will and rationality of the offender.
 Neoclassical: admits environmental, psychological, and other mitigating
circumstances as modifying conditions of free will and rationality.
Classical: Holds that all people are capable of committing crime, since they all
pursue their own self-interests and some crimes benefit people
Neoclassical: holds that evident differences exist among criminal such as age,
gender and social class, thus not all offenders should be treated in the same fashion.

Principle :
Classical school
a) Equality- All should be treated equally under the law
b) Liberty- All must be protected from the potential abuses of power by the
state. The law cannot be applied retroactively and there can be no
punishment without law
c) Utilitarianism- The major goal of sovereign should be the greatest
happiness for the greater number, justice should entail utility than
retaliation and retribution.
d) Humanitarianism- punishment should not only be fair but humane.
Neoclassical School:
a) When assessing criminal responsibility, a degree of subjectivity or
discretion should be applied.
b) Punishment should be flexible.
On Punishment:
Classical: Punishment should be viewed as a deterrent
It must be certain, swift and severe.
Neoclassical: Punishment should be individualized
Contribution:
Classical: Criminal needs to take responsibility and to make better choices
- Established the idea of crime prevention measures and due process
before punishment as justified means.
 Neoclassical: Crime is a result of many conditions that affects choices, thus,
some criminals need not take responsibility.
- Introduce the notion of mitigating (exempting circumstances)
In addition, Classical theory explains that all human beings are aware of what is
right and what is wrong and possess the ability to make choices, thus those who
commit crime choose to do so.
Neoclassical theory is a continuation of classical crime theory. It brought with it a
few new revisions.
Neoclassical theory believed that some human beings are less rational than others
and punishment can be reduced according to what are judged as the limitations of
the person when they commit crime.
4. Positivist/Typological/Italian School(19th Century/ rejected free will theory)
(Determinism + Scientific methods + Rehabilitation)
The earlier schools focussed on the crime rather than the criminal therefore,
this school was the beginning of a new era wherein the focus was on the criminal and
the various reasons leading to the causation of crime. The real cause of criminality lay
in anthropological(It is a field of study where they linked the study of human being to
criminality) features of the criminal which helps in demonstrating the functioning of
brain in order to establish a corelation-ship between criminality and the structure
and functioning of brain.
The main exponents of this school were three eminent Italian criminologists,
namely, Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo and Enrico Ferri and therefore, it is
known as the Italian School of Criminology.
LOMBROSO THEORY: (Offender = Born Criminal + Insane person + Criminoids)
Lombroso conducted an intensive study of the physical characteristics of his
patients and later on of criminals, and he came to a definite conclusion that criminals
were physically inferior because of which they developed a tendency for inferior acts.
Lombroso’s theory devised that there were 3 kinds of criminals:
a) The Atavists or hereditary criminals(born criminal) —Lombroso also termed them as
born criminals. In his opinion, born-criminals could not refrain from committing crimes
because they aspect of criminality was hereditary in nature and he termed such a class
at the Atavists. He, therefore, considered these criminals beyond reformation. Insane
Criminals. —
b) Insane: The second category of criminals according to Lombroso consisted of insane
criminals who are unable to understand the nature and conduct of their act on
account of mental depravity or disorder.
c) Criminoids. —Lombroso devised the third category of criminals which were deemed as
criminoids who had devised a physical criminal type and had a tendency to commit
crime in order to overcome their inferiority complex in order to survive in the
society. Even though, Lombroso’s theory was not accepted in the earlier centuries but
was widely appreciated however, with the focus being shifted upon the criminal rather
than the crime, the Atavist theory of Lombroso was rejected upon the sole reason that
no criminal is beyond reformation.
ENRICO FERRIO’S THEORY: He challenged Lombroso theory/ emotional, social
& geographical facts are responsible.
(Offender = Born offender + Occasional + Passionate + Insane + Habitual)
The major contribution of Ferri to the field of criminology is his theory of "Law
of Criminal Saturation". This theory presupposes that the crime is basically the produce
of three main factors: —
(1) Physical or geographical;
(2) Anthropological; and
(3) Psychological or social.
Thus, Ferri emphasised that criminal behaviour is an outcome of a variety of
factors which have effect upon such an offender and instigate him to commit a certain
offence. According to him social change, which is inevitable in a dynamic society;
results in disharmony, conflict and cultural variations but change cannot be
avoided. Ferri classified the criminals into 5 types mainly:
(a) born criminals;
(b) occasional criminals;
(c) passionate criminals;
(d) insane criminals; and
(e) habitual criminals.
He suggested an intensive programme of crime prevention and recommended a series
of measures for treatment of offenders and therefore, believed in the rehabilitation
and reformation of the criminal.
RAFFAELE GAROFALO: Rejected both Lombroso & Ferri’s Theory/ Criminal
against person(pity)/ Crime against Property (Probity).
 (Offenders = Endemic + Violent + Lack of sentiment + Lustful)
Raffaele Garofalo was one of the three main exponents of positive school of
criminology, he emphasised that lack of pity generates crimes against person while
lack of probity leads to crimes against property. He placed criminals mainly into
four categories, namely:
(a) murderers
(b) violent criminals who are affected by environmental influences such as
prejudices of honour, politics and religion;
(c) criminals lacking in sentiment of probity(integrity/righteousness); and
(d) lascivious or lustful criminals who commit crimes against sex and chastity.

5. Sociological School (20th Century): External factors are responsible/ Reject the
concept of born criminal. (Social Structure + Social Disorganisation + Social
Bonds) (Sutherland is considered as the father of the sociological school of
criminology)
This school offers a sociological explanation of crime. An attempt is made to
establish various social factors correlative of various types of crimes. The sociological
school of criminology focuses on the social and structural factors that contribute to
crime and criminal behaviour. It examines how social institutions, such as family,
education, the economy, influence individuals’ behaviour and their likelihood of
engaging in criminal activities.
The sociological approach is concerned with effects of group patterns of
behaviour, as well as the social status, the role the individual plays in the society, and the
individual’s conceptions of it, and of various other types of social situations and
relationships. The sociological school focuses on how factors such as neighbourhood
characteristics, community cohesion, and social control can influence crime rates.
The sociological school emphasizes the importance of social bonds, such as family,
school, and community, in preventing crime. It argues that individuals with strong
social bonds are less likely to engage in criminal activities.
Sutherland observed that crime is basically a learned activity. It is only by
association with criminals that one learns the nature of crimes and its modus
operandi (a particular way or method of doing something, example: every killer has
his own special modus operandi). No one invents crime it has to be learnt and its
 techniques mastered. This learning and training can be received by associating with the
group of criminals. According to D.R.Taft social disorganization is at the root of all
crimes. By disorganization it is meant that there is a breakdown of the traditional
social structure, rejection of old values and loosening of social control upon human
behaviour.

6. Chicago School:
In the late 1800s, few cities in North America were as diverse as Chicago. The
population of the city was rapidly expanding thanks to successive waves of
immigration from Europe. In 1870, the city had a population of 299,000, which grew to
1,698,600 by 1900, making it the fastest growing city in the world at the time
(Cumbler, 2005). The city provided a tableau for a new way of thinking about crime
and society that came to be known as the Chicago School.
The Chicago School had a distinctly macro-level ecological approach to
studying crime. Under the influence of Robert Park and Ernest Burgess,
generations of researchers were trained to go out into the city and learn about the
dynamics of delinquency first hand. In their book The City, observed that crime was
not evenly distributed throughout Chicago but was concentrated in particular
neighbourhoods. The model they proposed for understanding the geographic
distribution of crime was akin to the rings on a tree, with each concentric circle
representing a different urban zone. Certain zones were marked by greater
degrees of social disorganisation due to the transitional nature of these areas as
new immigrant communities moved in and older ones moved out. Crime was a
characteristic of this transitional state, and while unwanted it represents the normal
dynamic of a developing city, with disorganisation leading to reorganisation over time.
Working in this tradition, Frederic Thrasher’s (1936/2013) book The Gang: A
Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago catalogues the activities of gangs operating in the city
during this period. Like Park and Burgess, Thrasher argues that gangs are located
in interstitial areas of the city, the zones between the settled, more organised
neighbourhoods.
Figure of Concentric Zone by Park & Burgess:
 The characteristic habitat of Chicago’s numerous gangs is the broad twilight
zone of railroads and factories, of deteriorating neighbourhoods and shifting
populations, that borders the city’s central business district on the north, west, and
south. The gangs dwell among the shadows of the slums in this zone .
The most famous example of the ecological perspective on crime to emerge
from this period is Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay’s (1942) book Juvenile Delinquency
and Urban Areas. Shaw and McKay (1942) argue that the key variable that leads to
crime is the social disorganisation that characterises interstitial areas. They found
that zones of transition are characterised by higher levels of residential mobility,
ethnic heterogeneity, and lower socio-economic status (Sampson & Groves, 1989).
Drawing upon decades of court records, they show that it does not matter which
ethnic group lives in the area—it is the zone itself that is criminogenic. As groups
move to other zones, their crime rates correspondingly . While their work builds on the
ecological approach, Shaw also pioneered the use of life histories within criminology,
such as his semi-autobiographical account of the life of a juvenile delinquent in The
Jack-Roller
The approach taken by the Chicago School remains influential today, but there
are nevertheless some important limitations to their findings. While the concentric zone
model may have worked for Chicago, it is not characteristic of all cities. The idea of
disorganisation itself has also been criticised; while such neighbourhoods may look
disorganised to outsiders, for those who live within them there is a definite order
made up of informal associations and networks (Cohen, 1955). Despite these
criticisms, Sampson and Groves (1989) provide empirical support for Shaw and
McKay’s approach by measuring the relative degrees of social disorganisation within
neighbourhoods and showing some correlation with respective crime rates.
7.Critical Criminology: ( Structural inequalities + Power imbalances + Social
justice)
Critical criminology has contributed to the understanding of crime and
criminal behaviour in India by highlighting the social, economic, and political
factors that contribute to crime and criminal justice disparities. It has influenced the
development of policies and programs aimed at addressing structural inequalities,
promoting social justice, and advocating for the rights of marginalised and disadvantaged
communities.
There is one of the schools of criminology that examines crime and criminal
justice from a critical perspective, focusing on the social, economic, and political
inequalities that contribute to crime and criminal behaviour. This is the Critical
Criminology. It challenges the traditional theories of criminology and argues that
crime is a result of structural inequalities, power imbalances, and social injustice.
Critical criminology is a diverse area of criminological theory and research. The
term critical criminology began to appear only in the 1970s; however, scholarship in this
tradition has existed for over a century. Broadly speaking, critical criminology is
research on crime, law, and deviance that challenges traditional criminology. The
thread that binds critical approaches together is the belief that inequalities influence
crime. The thread that binds critical approaches together is the belief that inequalities
influence crime. Class inequality and its repercussions dominated much of the early
critical criminological thought. While class inequalities are still viewed as important by
many critical scholars, inequalities based on race and gender are now also garnering
attention. The majority of contemporary critical criminology scholars would agree that
all three forms of inequality constitute important areas of study.
The critical criminology lineage can be traced back to Karl Marx. Marx himself did
not write much about crime and the criminal justice system, but his ideas influenced a
number of early criminologists.
i. Willem Bonger’s Criminality and Economic Conditions (1916) argued that
people in the lower classes were criminalized and punished much more than those
in the upper class.
 ii. Following Bonger, Rusche and Kirchheimer (1939) suggested that the way
societies punish people is directly related to the mode of production.
iii. A smattering of related works on class, power, and society were conducted in
criminology and sociology during this period, most notably Mills’s (1956) work on
The Power Elite and Sutherland’s (1940, 1945) introduction of the concept of
white-collar crime. While these scholars advanced compelling arguments, Marxist
and other critically focused criminologists did not have much influence within the
larger discipline of criminology until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
iv. Peace-making criminologists believe that the criminal justice system treats people
too harshly, they still think that offenders need to understand that what they did
was wrong and must take responsibility for it. One approach that peace-making
criminologists support is restorative justice.
v. Restorative justice seeks to resolve disputes between offenders and victims and to
make offenders understand the harm they caused the victim. This is often done
through informal meetings (sometime referred to as “circles”) between a mediator,
the offender(s), and the victims(s).
vi. Abolitionist criminology – or the prison abolition movement – suggests that penal
institutions should be done away with and replaced by more progressive means of
rehabilitation and punishment, such as work within the community, or restitution.
Abolitionist criminologists argue that the criminal justice system as it is currently
constructed is a social problem itself.

⇒ Taylor et al. aimed for a theory which fully explains deviance in society, combining
both traditional Marxist ideas and those from labelling theory.
⇒ They suggest that this theory needs to consider and unite six aspects:
i. The wider origin of the deviant act in the unequal distribution of wealth and
power.
ii. The immediate origins of the deviant act – the particular context in which the
individual decides commit the Act
 iii. The act itself – What was the meaning for the act or was it an act of rebellion
against capitalism?
iv. The immediate origins of social reaction – The response of those who are close to
the deviant, upon discovering their actions.
v. The wider origins of social reaction – In the structure of capitalist society who
has the power to label some acts as deviant?
vi. The effects of labelling - Why labelling lead to deviance amplification in some
cases but not others?

⇒ Neomarxismis – An improvement on traditional Marxist views as it considers wider

issues relating to labelling and social reactions to deviant behaviour;
⇒ It is more comprehensive explanation as it considered why some people don’t
necessarily commit deviant act, unlike traditional Marxist views
⇒ Feminist criticise the theory for being gender blind – focusing excessively on male
criminality.
⇒ Realist claim that this approach romanticises working class crime as being committed
by ‘Robin hoods’ stealing from rich to help the poor.

Marxist subcultural theory: Certain Marxist theories have investigated working class
deviant or spectacular youth subculture such as:
- Ravers in the 1980s and 1990s
- Punks in the late 1970s
- Skinheads in the 1970s
- Mods and rockers in the 1960s
- Teddy boys in the 1950s
These sociologists suggest that these youth subcultures can be seen as a form of ideology
resistance to the dominant adult value system shaped by middle- class and capitalist values.
Marxists subcultural Theories:
▪ The Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS): Youth
subcultural styles should be regarded as a challenge to the class inequality of capitalist
society.
▪ Cohen(1972): Investigate skinheads and suggested the best style was a symbolic
reaction to the decline of working class communities. Skinheads dress code
augmented working class masculinity and aggression. Their anti-immigrant ideas
were a reaction to the decline of the white working class surroundings.
▪ Hebdige (1979): the meanings by the style of punk rockers. This subcultural group
wanted to deliberately shock society. Some culture such as punks and others often
short lived because of incorporation- capitalism commercialises aspect of youth
culture style, which strips them to their ideology importance making them into just
another consumer product.

Evaluation
o CCS examined skinhead punk subculture but also Teddy boys as well mods
and rockers. Although they came to similar conclusions above these different
subcultural groups their ideas are supported by little empirical evidence.
o Burke(2005) state that new criminology and Marxism is too idealistic to deal
with it practically, and too broad to explain crime.
o Neo-Marxist failed to explain the political motive underpinning crimes like
child abuse, rape and domestic violence.
o Neo-Marxists has been criticised for over romanticising working class
criminals like ‘Robin-hoods’ who rebel against the capitalist society by taking
from the rich and providing for the poor.
o Taylor et al do not take the effects of crime seriously, for example: failing to
see that most victims of working class crimes are committed by ethnic
minority groups, who are themselves working class or from ethnic minority
groups.
o Marxist subcultural theory neglect gender and ethnicity as influences on youth
subculture.
o Marxist subculture theory also neglect globalisation especially in the form of
American cultural influences.
Summary:
o Crime is inevitable in capitalist society according to traditional Marxists.
This is because it breeds greed, competition and poverty.
o All social classes commit crime but the ruling elite control the state, make
and enforce the laws for their own interests, this means that capitalist
society criminalize the working class. Capitalism is given a caring face as
the law performs an ideological function by protecting its creator.
o Neo-Marxism or critical criminology (CC) is a less deterministic
compared to traditional Marxists (over predict working-class crime).