How Crime and Laws Go Hand in Hand

You may believe that defining a word is as simple as locating it in a dictionary or searching its meaning online. However, a term such as “crime” carries with it a legacy of historical meanings based on societal, political, and cultural factors which makes a clear and precise definition difficult. Crime or “criminal” activity is not a natural phenomenon or an economic model which can be proven and verified globally.

“Criminal” acts are defined by society and used to reflect societal values (as codified by the government through laws and regulations) regarding behaviour. As the in-class lecture notes point out vividly, “Crime is a social construct”. Since societies are different and constantly evolving, it is impossible to assign a concrete definition to a term that must be adjusted continuously to reflect a changing society. Examples of the changing face of “crime” are as diverse as prior segregation laws, medically assisted suicide, as well as Canada’s plans to legalize marijuana in the upcoming year. Up until 1965, Southern American states enforced laws that required the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks. It was considered a crime for a black person to be found attending places and events accessible only to white people. Even just last year smoking marijuana would have been considered illegal, and punishable by fines or incarceration.

However, due to changing societal attitudes and values, Canada plans to legalize marijuana by June 2018. This is why defining a crime can be so challenging. A point in the text, Crime & Criminology that really stood out for me in regard to answering this question was the conclusion which followed after listing Hagans’ seven legal and sociological definitions of crime: “Our intention here is not to fully explain each type of definition of crime, nor to evaluate the explanatory or practical usefulness of each definition”. (White, Eisler, & Haines, 2018). They point out that their purpose is not to explain these definitions nor assess which ones should be valued over others, or which one is more useful. They instead base value on who is defining the crime and their perceptions. No person or country has the same values, morals or ethics. Therefore, the only way of explaining what is legal, or illegal, is by looking at the way society sets laws to govern behaviour. To pursue this point further, the in-class notes outline three different approaches for viewing crime: conservative (Belief in Rule of Law), liberal (Some Belief in Rule of Law), and radical (Rejects Rule of Law).

All are different and all acceptable. However, it is how we interpret society’s role and its moral framework that guide how we perceive crime. Question: Crime and laws go hand in hand. However, when it comes to interpreting crime and implementing laws, do you believe that the state should be the only ones allowed to do so? Should it be the courts as well (as it was the Supreme Court of Canada that determined medically assisted dying was no longer a criminal act)? What about countries like North Korea which set laws that restrict commonly accepted rights and freedoms? Do you believe other influential groups (e.g., United Nations, World Trade Organization, etc) should have the power to initiate laws and step in? (thereby, potentially removing state sovereignty)