A Legalistic Perspective on Crime Defines It as

For Graham Pike, writing psychology courses is part of the job. But what happened when he had to create a police drama? Crime is an essentially controversial concept. There is no universally accepted definition of what a crime is. However, the simplest way to think about crime is to look at them from a legalistic perspective – from this approach, a crime is an illegal act. It is illegal. Specifically, it violates criminal law. In that way, the law will have certain aspects – it will have an aspect of criminal harm and it will have an aspect of criminal guilt. A crime is an essentially controversial concept. So it`s something where there`s no universally accepted definition of what a crime is. However, the simplest way to think about crime is to look at them from a legalistic point of view, which means that a crime is something illegal. It is illegal.

This is contrary to criminal law and it will also have certain aspects. So there will be an aspect of criminal harm and an aspect of criminal guilt. Interestingly, however, many people have actually questioned this legalistic definition. First, because it will always be partial and determined in a very small idea of what crime is. If something is not illegal, then we may consider it false, problematic or harmful, but it will not really be something we can define as a crime. So many people have tried to unpack this legal definition, questioning the notions of what constitutes criminal harm and what is not, and also questioning the notions of criminal guilt and the strengths and weaknesses on this side of things. Some have even gone so far as to say that a crime is a statist category, that is, it is defined by the state and imbued with certain interests, ideas and power relations that reflect the interests of the powerful. It reflects the interests of those who have something to lose in society, where it does not necessarily reflect the interests of those who are powerless or at the bottom of society.

Therefore, the logic of the crime is considered imposed. It`s something that`s placed as a category, as a way to generate meanings and understandings, and some have argued that it`s actually a problem in itself and that we shouldn`t necessarily think about the logic of crime, because crime will actually lead us to certain solutions, like punishment. A number of criminologists have even gone so far as to say that a crime is a statist category, that is, it is defined by the state and imbued with certain interests, ideas and power relations that reflect the interests of the powerful. For these critics, the categories of crime defined by the state reflect the interests of those who have something to lose in society, while not necessarily reflecting the interests of those who are powerless or at the bottom of society. Therefore, the logic of crime is seen as imposed and perhaps even as a reconstruction of reality in legalist and statist classifications. A crime classified as a specific legal category, as a means of generating meanings and understandings, and some criminologists (sometimes called abolitionists) have argued that this is a problem in itself and that we should not necessarily think about the logic of crime because the use of the language and logic of crime is who will respond to it, will lead to certain paths that can be considered solutions. as punishment. This article argues that the traditional construction of “crime” is narrow and unnecessarily restricts criminological work. Most criminologists have traditionally relied on a “legal” conception of crime, which they define as criminal conduct that violates criminal law and can be sanctioned by criminal justice authorities under the political authority of the state. However, leading criminologists have repeatedly attempted to go beyond the narrow confines of criminal law to develop more comprehensive social definitions of crime.