Why do people commit Crimes?

Theories of Criminology

Who are Victims of Crime?`

>25% of those 15 years or older
Theft, assault, robbery = 50% of crimes Household crimes = 35% of crimes Equal b/w men and women (avg. 18.5%) Youth 15-24 report greatest victimization (21x more likely violent crime over seniors) Those out at night Low household income (greater risk of violence, less of personal theft) Urban dwellers Those known to the perpetraitor (mostly lone males in violent crime) >60% crime goes unreported Men perceive safety to be more at risk then men

Causation vs. Correlation

No one theory can explain what causes crime, however factors that exist in a great number (i.e. correlation) of criminals include:

Age
Peaks between 15 to 18 Serious offenders often start earlier and continuing past 18

Gender
Males are far more likely to commit crimes The male/female gap has been decreasing

Poverty
Social status and income have no direct effect on criminal behavior Evidence exists to suggest that poverty can indirectly contribute to deviance by the conditions related to it

Substance Abuse & TV (?)

alcohol use (alcoholism among criminals is substantially higher than in the general population); drug use (significantly higher incidence of drug addiction among criminals than in the general populace and it can also lead to more serious crimes related to the drug trade e.g. drug trafficking, theft, assault, extortion, and murder) Television viewing (some evidence suggests that TV violence leads to more aggressive behaviour)

Other risk conditions that lead to child delinquency:

Receive little affection/rejected by parents Inadequately supervised by parents who fail to teach them right from wrong Grow up in homes with conflict, marital discord and/or violence Social isolation

Classical Theory
Crime is caused by the individual free will. Human beings are rational, and make decisions freely and with understanding of consequences. Persons rationally choose actions that will bring them pleasure. Crime is an immoral form of behaviour.

Positive Theory (Positivism)

Criminals are born not made This is an example of nature, not nurture Focused on biological and psychological factors to explain criminal behaviour

Positivist Theorists
Cesare Lombarso (1835 1909) Italian physician and psychiatrist What did he think/do? Studied cadavers of executed criminals in an effort to determine scientifically whether criminals were physically any different from non-criminals He believed that people were born criminals and facial features of criminals included things like enormous jaws and strong canine teeth.

Pictures of murderers that Lambarso believed carried facial features tied to criminal activity.

Murderer

Sean Penn

See any similarities!? Does this mean Sean Penn is a Criminal?

Positivist Theorists cont

In the 1960s, positivist criminologists argued that criminal behaviour lies in abnormal chromosomes The XYY theory argued that violent male criminals have an abnormal XYY chromosome (XY is the normal pattern in males) However, researchers soon found out that this was not true and that criminals had normal chromosomes and that non-criminals also had abnormal chromosomes. The Positivist theory of criminals being born rather than made died out. There were moral implications with this.

Modern Day Example

Philippe Rushton University of Western Ontario psychology professor Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995)tries to show that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.

Psychoanalytical Theory
Sigmund Freud believed that all humans have criminal tendencies. It is through socialization that these tendencies are controlled during childhood. If a child has an identity problem with his/her parent, this problem may cause the child to direct its antisocial tendencies outward and thus become a criminal. Psychological Human Development also comes into play here

John Wayne Gacy Jr.

How did he grow up to be a murderer?

Theorists consider moral behaviour to be self-regulated through mechanisms of self-evaluation where one can approve or disapprove irresponsible or inhumane behaviour
It clear that Gacy showed a lack of moral behaviour and hence, in the act was not able to disapprove his behaviour adequately to avoid it completely.

Bandura (1977), states that most violent acts and inhumanities are perpetrated by people who, in other areas of their life are quite considerate in their behaviour.
This describes Gacys behaviour perfectly as he was very friendly, well liked by the neighbours and was largely involved in the community; no one would assume he was capable of such casualties. Moreover, Gacy illustrated moral disengagement by justifying his murderous acts

Cont
According to Sigelman and Rider (2009), children who are raised in abusive environments can grow up to become abusers and to learn that violence is an integral part of human relationships.
Hence, it can be argued that Gacys immoral, violent and murderous adulthood is rooted in the violence from his childhood. Furthermore, abusers are often insecure individuals with low self-esteem

Furthermore, abusers are often insecure individuals with low selfesteem. Abusers can form negative internal working models of themselves and others, which are most likely rooted in unhappy experiences in insecure relationships with parents and negative experiences in romantic relationships
although his father hurt him physically and emotionally, Gacy desperately sought his fathers approval but was never able to achieve it. This insecurity led him to failed marriages and more interestingly, to his attraction to hiding himself under clown costumes and make-up in order for the children in the community to like him.

Sociological Perspectives:

Sociological Theorist: Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) People who live in cities feel more anonymous and isolated (as compared to rural life). No longer restrained by the strict norms of society (in rural life) and given the anonymity in a big city certain individuals turned to crime. Durkheim is also a father of functionalism (i.e., everyone has a role/function in society and that is how society runs/functions.
Durkheim believes that criminals have a role and are needed for society to function If there were no crime, it would mean that everyone in society was the same and agreed on everything. This is no ideal and society would be too comforting people need a release.

Sociology cont

Ecological School
Believed that criminal behaviour was fostered and encouraged in certain environments. They studied a number of poor neighbourhoods and concluded that communities that suffered from high rates of poverty and social disintegration were more likely to condone criminal activity than more affluent neighbourhoods.

Sociology cont

Social Conflict Theory

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels argued that the capitalist society encouraged crime as people competed for resources and wealth. Our society protects those with power and property. As a result, people who are economically disadvantaged are more likely to be punished by our justice system. The only way to solve the crime problem is to eliminate the capitalist system.

Social Psychological Perspective

Social psychology is the study of the relations between individuals and people. They are interested in how regular people can commit atrocious crimes. Stanley Milgram was specifically interested in how Nazis were able to commit horrible acts of genocide he focused on how people could do this just by following orders.

Milgram Experiment
Torturing and killing innocent civilians

In relation to torturing article

Displacement of responsibility and dehumanizing the victim are two categories of moral disengagement Bandura (1999) states, People behave in ways they would normally oppose if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the consequences of that behavior. Under these conditions, people view their actions as the dictates of authorities rather than their own actions. According to reports in the article, the torture and abuse of the civilians was approved and facilitated by the White House According to Bandura, (1999) person can justify torture by loosing empathy for the victim while convincing himself that the victim lacks human qualities. Furthermore, once the victim is dehumanized, he is no longer viewed as a person with feelings, concerns or hopes but as a subhuman object that is easily tortured (Bandura, 1999).

Contemporary Theories Of Crime

Strain Theory (Sociology)

Current societies stress the goals of acquiring wealth, success, and power. However, the means to achieve these goals require education and economic resources. These means are frequently denied or unavailable to those who are economically disadvantaged or have little opportunity for formal education. Example: The Wire, Season 4, Episode 8
Young African American youth yearning for the chance to work on the streets to sell drugs because they know this is the only way they can make money.

Consensus Theory
Consensus theorists assume there is a universal definition of right and wrong and that criminal law reflects this consensus Argue that criminal laws prohibit behaviours that society agrees are harmful

Socialization
Suggests the key influences leading to criminal behaviour are found in upbringing, peer groups, and role models

Biological Trait Theory

Argues that some human traits such as intelligence, personality, chemical and genetic makeup may predispose people to engage in criminal behaviour Research suggests that the following can cause a person to become a criminal Poor diet (Twinkie Defense) Influence of hormones (androgens) Exposure to drugs/alcohol in the womb

Neurophysiological Theory
Focus on the study of brain activity and how neurological dysfunctions are connected with criminal activity Twin studies

Indictable Offences
Serious offences Name recognizes that cases are prosecuted following

an indictment (accusation) by a grand jury Historically called felonies

Summary Conviction Offences

Petty crimes Name recognizes the more summary (simplified)

procedure for prosecution of cases Historically called misdemeanors

All offences in the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) are either indictable or summary conviction offences some can fall under both Hybrid Offences
Punishable on either indictment or summary

conviction Discretion is left to the Crown Attorney as to how to prosecute the case

Indictable Offences

Summary Conviction Offences

235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Hybrid Offences

175. (1) Every one who (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place, (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language, (ii) by being drunk, or (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. 266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal Code Classification

Part II Offences Against Public Order

Example of Offences
Unlawful assemblies and riots, ss. 63 and 64

Part III Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons

Possession of prohibited weapon, s. 90

Part IV Offenses Against the Administration of Law and Justice Part V Sexual Offences, Public Morals, and Disorderly Conduct Part VI Invasion of Privacy Part VII Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting Part VIII Offences Against the Person and Reputation Part IX Offences Against Rights and Property Part X Fraudulent Transactions Relating to Contracts and Trade Part XI Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property Part XII Offences Relating to Currency

Personating peace officer, s. 130

Sexual exploitation, s. 153 Interception of private communications, s. 184 Keeping gaming or betting houses, s. 201 Murder, s. 229 Theft, s. 322 Fraud, s. 380 Arson, s. 433 Possession of counterfeit money, s. 450

Mitigating and Aggravating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (is not a full defense) are factors that reduce the seriousness of the offence or serve as partial excuses. They generally reduce the sentence, sometimes even the charge.

Example: You are charged with drinking and driving but you have a perfect driving record and you volunteer at a shelter.

Aggravating circumstances are factors that make the offence worse. They work against the accused.

Example, you are caught shoplifting and it is the 7th time you have been caught in 3 years.

Offences against the person (people)

(Approximately 10% of all crimes reported. Homicide

Murder (1st degree, 2nd degree) Manslaughter Infanticide

Counseling or aiding suicide Assault Sexual Assault

Assault

Intentionally using force against another person without consent, threatening someone, and displaying a weapon while interfering with their movements. Shaking a fist may constitute assault! Criminal negligence: a reckless individual.

Assault

(Simple) Assault (max 5 yrs) like a hit, slap, push, or punch etc. that does not result in lasting bodily harm. (not more than a bruise or scratch) Assault causing bodily harm (max 10 yrs) Assault resulting in harm such as broken limb. Aggravated Assault (max 15 yrs) Assault resulting in maiming or disfiguring permanently affecting victim.

Assault: the Legal Perspective

The offence: an assault is an unwelcome interference with a person. It is a form of violence. The offence of assault varies from Simple Assault to Aggravated Sexual Assault.

This definition sets out the elements of the offence.

Assault causing bodily harm occurs when:

a person intentionally uses force of any sort against another person this is done without the victim's consent or agreement the victim is injured and the injury is something more serious and long-term than a scratch or small bruise.
Source: section 267 of the Criminal Code

What does the word intentionally mean?

well, from case law, we know what it is not! This is what two courts have said about intention:
A

reflex action lacks the necessary intent to constitute an assault.

Case source: R. v. Wolfe (1974), 20 C.C.C. (2d) 382 (Ontario Court of Appeal)

An

accused does not have to intend to cause bodily harm. What is necessary is that a reasonable person would be able to predict that his or her actions posed a risk of bodily harm.
Case source: R. v. DeSousa (1992), 76 C.C.C. (3d) 124 (Supreme Court of Canada)

How does the court decide if a victim has given consent?

This is what two courts have said about consent. A person cannot consent to being injured in a serious way.
of Canada)

Case source: Jobidon v. The Queen (1991), 6 C.C.C. (3d) 454 (Supreme Court

If

Case source: R. v. Oppal (1984), 43 C.R. (3d) 365 (B.C. Provincial Court) Of course the response to the provocation must be reasonable. Being slightly provoked does not give right to smashing a persons head.

the victim provokes the assault, the courts have said that the victim consented to the assault.

 All

elements of the definition of the offence need to be proven by the Crown in order to convict a person of this offence. Those elements that are in doubt become legal issues.
For example, whether or

not the victim "consented" is often a legal issue in cases of assault.

What does the law say about acting in self-defence?

Here is how the defence is defined:

Self-defence occurs when: a person attacks you when you have done nothing to provoke or cause the attack
Source: section 34 of the Criminal Code

you

defend yourself from a clear and present danger with only with as much force as is necessary to resist and you do not intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm
Source: section 34 of the Criminal Code

How can a judge know how much force was necessary in the circumstances?
This

is a difficult decision to make and it cannot be made without looking at all the facts. However the following interpretation by a court suggests the court does not demand a completely rational reaction:

person under attack is not expected to stop to weigh or measure his or her reactions perfectly or precisely.
Case source: R. v. Baxter (1975), 33 C.R.N.S. 22 R v. Martin (1985) 47 C.R. (3d) 342 (Que. C.A.)

An

accused person who is successful in arguing self-defence will be acquitted of the charge.

Sexual Assault

Sexual Assault (max 10 yrs) non-consensual sexual touch (does not have to be violent) including rape (which is not always violent).
Sexual Assault Causing bodily harm (max 14yrs) Sexual assault, and causing some bodily harm but not grievous. Aggravated sexual assault (max life) sexual assault and wounding, maiming or disfiguring.

(if a firearm is involved, there is a mandatory minimum 4 yrs)

Sexual Assault
the Legal Perspective
How does the law define a sexual assault? Sexual assault occurs when...

a person intentionally "applies force" to another person

& this is done without the victim's consent or voluntary agreement & sexual activity is involved.
Source: section 265 of the Criminal Code. See also s. 271, 272, 273.

Thus it is a criminal offence to engage in sexual activity

with another person who does not consent.

What does "apply force" mean in a sexual assault situation?

Think of "force" as "physical contact". There does
not have to be a violent demonstration of force. Touching certain body parts, for example, also fits the definition of "applying force".

What does "sexual activity" mean?

The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the surrounding circumstances including what was said - these are all relevant factors in determining if there was a sexual aspect to the "physical contact".

The defence: in many cases the accused

person argues that the victim consented, or agreed, to the sexual activity.
Most victims will say they didn't consent, and most accused persons will say the victim did consent. Does the law help people interpret the meaning of "consent"?
The first source to consult for a definition of what is and isn't "consent" is the Criminal Code. ...note that the Code uses the word "complainant" rather than "victim".

Consent with regards to sexual activity

Consent: the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question
Criminal Code
Source: section 273.1, subsection (1) of the

No consent is obtained where

The complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

The complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
The complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
Source: section 273.1, subsection (2), clauses (b), (d) and (e) of the

Criminal Code

2011 May SCC Ruling: When the complainant is asleep or not conscious, regardless of giving advance consent.

This is often referred to as the no means no law. The last clause states that if consent is given but then withdrawn during the activity, then this must be taken as a NO.

One can imagine that there are situations where there is confusion about this issue and the accused person honestly thinks the other person is consenting. What then? When this happens, the issue changes. The complainant says there was no consent. The defendants reply is that even if there was no consent, he/she had an "honest but mistaken" belief that there was consent. The courts have accepted, in the past, such an explanation as a valid defence. More recently the courts have been limiting the use of "honest belief" as a defence.

When is "honest belief in consent" a legitimate defence?

This is clarified in the Criminal Code:
Where an accused alleges that he/she believed that the complainant consented to the conduct...a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief. Source: section 265(4) of the Criminal Code

There must be sufficient evidence which, if believed, would constitute a defence. It is not enough for the accused to simply claim the he/she honestly believed there was consent. (It has to be proven)

Homicides (Death caused by another)

Murder: 1st degree, 2nd degree Manslaughter (2nd degree murder may be

reduced to manslaughter- if provocation can be proven.)

Infanticide (Mother kills baby within days of giving

birth altered mental state)

Murder: 1st degree, 2nd degree

First degree murder is a planned and deliberate murder.

Or: the killing of any peace officer (Police, Jail guard) Or: when someone is killed while you are committing certain serious indictable criminal offences like arson, kidnapping, high jacking, sexual assault.

Max life, parole possible after 25

Second degree murder is a an intentional (but not planned) killing.

This charge can sometimes be reduced to a manslaughter charge.

Max life, parole possible after 10

Manslaughter

Manslaughter definition: Unlawful killing of a human being without malice or deliberation.

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Dracon in the 7th century BCE.[1] The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.

Nelson and Jimbo get into a fight

Nelson punches Jimbo in the jaw, knocking him backwards and causing him to hit his head on the edge of the pool table. Jimbo dies later that night from internal bleeding caused by the severe concussion. Nelson wanted to hit Jimbo but didnt mean to kill him but Jimbo died as a direct result of Nelsons actions. Nelson will be arrested and charged with manslaughter.

Infanticide

A charge that can only be applied to a woman who has recently given birth and causes the death of her child a short time after giving birth. Carries a maximum of 5 years in prison.

Criminal negligence causing death-(article)

Negligent or reckless behaviour that results in the death of another. Max life

Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide (Euthanasia, consensual homicide, physician assisted suicide) Carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

What kinds of behaviour could be considered provocation for an attack?

Provocation

or gestures. Source: section 36 of the Criminal Code

Not

includes provocation by blows, words

always clear, and is subjective. Case by Case.

Defenses
Mental disorder (results in an NCR (not criminally responsible) acquittal) Automatism (sleepwalking pg.305) Self defense Intoxication (controversial and limited) Mistake of fact (accused was mistaken about the circumstances. Ex. Didnt know they were buying stolen goods) Compulsion (s.17 of Criminal Code. There are only certain minor criminal offences that may be excused with compulsion)

Dont Write this Down

Remembering that the purposes of criminal

law can be stated as:

protection of ones own safety protection of the safety of others protection of property preservation of standards of decency preservation of public order preservation of people from exploitation
Examine the following offences and state

which of the above purposes of criminal law apply. Do you agree that the offences should all be criminal offences? Why?

Any act or omission, the doing of which is an offence under federal legislation
The Parliament of Canada has sole authority over criminal

Behaviors that violate provincial laws (e.g. the Highway Traffic Act, the Liquor Licence Act) are not true criminal offences they are known as Provincial Offences -or- Quasi-Criminal Offences -or- Regulatory Offences

law Examples of federal laws that make certain conduct crimes include: the Criminal Code of Canada; the Youth Criminal Justice Act; the Narcotics Control Act; the Food and Drugs Act; the Income Tax Act

Literally guilty act The physical component needed for the commission of a crime In some cases, failing to act can be considered the actus reus called omission (e.g. failing to stop at the scene of an accident) For an act to be criminal it must be voluntary and conscious

Literally guilty mind The mental component of criminal conduct Working definition: a guilty mind exists where a person intentionally does the forbidden act with the knowledge of all the wrongful circumstances which the statute seeks to prohibit.

The mental component of criminal conduct contains the elements of intention (subjective intent) and knowledge (objective intent) Subjective Intent: the accuseds state of mind at the time of the commission of the guilty act

Recklessness and Willful Blindness

forms of Subjective Intent an individual may not intend the consequences of his/her actions but is still seen to have the subjective intent needed for criminal liability if he/she: understands the risks and persists anyway; or is reckless

Objective Intent: determines what a reasonable person would have understood, perceived, or foreseen in the circumstance

Nina hurls a china vase across the room and it smashes against the wall. We may say that Nina had subjective intent to break the vase if we have the evidence of her desire or purpose to smash it. Her knowledge that the vase was made of fine chine and that its breakage was highly probable meant that she was, at least, reckless in the throwing of the vase. Even if it could not be proven that she desired the actual result, her recklessness (knowing the risk and proceeding anyway) would be sufficient to give her subjective intent. But, what if Nina had not bothered to investigate the vases physical composition? It could be argued that she willfully closed her mind to the question of the vases physical properties, suspecting it was china but not wishing to learn the truth. Finally, assume there is no evidence that Nina either knew or suspected that the vase was made from china or that it would break if it struck the wall. If a reasonable person, however, would have foreseen the consequences of Ninas actions, Nina had objective intent in spite of her failure to appreciate the risk.

Recap: Mens rea is the required mental component of criminal conduct Essentially mens rea looks at degrees of intent

Actus Reus
(voluntary or conscious act or omission)

Mens Rea
(intentional, knowing, willful, reckless, careless)

Crime

Some offences require fewer elements of mens rea and some offences require none at all The majority of Criminal Code offences require full mens rea

The SCC recognized 3 categories of offences: Mens rea offences

Those in which mens rea must be proved

Strict liability offences

Those in which it is unnecessary for the prosecution to

prove mens rea (the doing of the act is sufficient for guilt), but the accused has the chance to prove that he/she took reasonable care to avoid committing the offence Offences dealing with public welfare (e.g. health and the environment)

Absolute liability offences

Those in which there is no opportunity for the

accused person to exonerate themselves by showing that they were free of fault. Offences in which the legislature made clear that guilt would follow the mere doing of the prohibited act.

No Mens Rea
Absolute liability offences

Objective Mens Rea

Strict liability offences Negligence offences

Subjective Mens Rea

(including intent, recklessness, and willful blindness)
Crimes carrying substantial social stigma and criminal sanctions

For a crime to occur there must be a completed actus reus

i.e. there is no murder where the victim does not die

Intent to commit a crime may have existed but there was no completed act This is the opposite of absolute or strict liability offences Because the law in Canada does not intrude into peoples minds, mere thoughts are not illegal

Once an act is defined as an attempt to commit a crime, that attempt becomes a criminal act CCC Section 24(1):
Every one who, having an intent to commit an

offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

An agreement between 2 or more people to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means It is not necessary for the intended act to be carried out

Counseling is when a person gets or solicits someone else to commit a crime CCC Sec. 21(1):
Every one is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of

aiding any person to commit it; or (c) abets [encourages or supports] any person in committing it.

CCC Sec. 23
(1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one

who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

Note assisting your spouse to escape is not accessory after the fact

Criminal Conduct Criminal Equation Causes of Crime Subjective Intent Private Harm Principle Recklessness / Willful Public Harm Principle Blindness Legal Paternalism Objective Intent Legal Moralism Strict and Absolute Indictable Offence Liability Summary Conviction Incomplete Crimes Offence Conspiracy Legal Definition of Crime Counseling or Aiding and Actus Reus Abetting voluntary act Accessory after the fact Mens Rea