Updated on 6 Jul, at 2: Different societies may also choose to define crimes differently. However, in general, crime can simply be defined as the breach of laws that are laid down by the ruling authority of the land. There can be many different causes of crime and many studies are conducted all around the world to understand and bring down criminal activities.
Background concepts[ edit ] Legal systems more or less try to uphold the notions of fairness and justice. If a state is going to penalize a person or require that person pay compensation to another for losses incurred, liability is imposed according to the idea that those who injure others should take responsibility for their actions.
Although some parts of any legal system will have qualities of strict liabilityin which the mens rea is immaterial to the result and subsequent liability of the actor, most look to establish liability by showing that the defendant was the cause of the particular injury or loss.
Even the youngest children quickly learn that, with varying degrees of probability, consequences flow from physical acts and omissions. The more predictable the outcome, the greater the likelihood that the actor caused the injury or loss intentionally.
There are many ways in which the law might capture this simple rule of practical experience: However it is phrased, the essence of the degree of fault attributed will lie in the fact that reasonable people try to avoid injuring others, so if harm was foreseeable, there should be liability to the extent that the extent of the harm actually resulting was foreseeable.
Relationship between causation and liability[ edit ] Causation of an event alone is insufficient to create legal liability.
Sometimes causation is one part of a multi-stage test for legal liability. For example, for the defendant to be held liable for the tort of negligence, the defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty of carebreached that duty, by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff, and that damage must not have been too remote.
Causation is just one component of the tort. On other occasions, causation is the only requirement for legal liability other than the fact that the outcome is proscribed. For example, in the law of product liabilitythe courts have come to apply to principle of strict liability: The defendant need not also have been negligent.
On still other occasions, causation is irrelevant to legal liability altogether. For example, under a contract of indemnity insurancethe insurer agrees to indemnify the victim for harm not caused by the insurer, but by other parties.
Because of the difficulty in establishing causation, it is one area of the law where the case law overlaps significantly with general doctrines of analytic philosophy to do with causation.
The two subjects have long been intermingled. Establishing causation[ edit ] Where establishing causation is required to establish legal liability, it usually involves a two-stage inquiry, firstly establishing 'factual' causation, then 'legal' causation. Establishing factual causation[ edit ] The usual method of establishing factual causation is the but-for test.
The but for test is a test of necessity. For example, if both A and B fire what would alone be fatal shots at C at approximately the same time, and C dies, it becomes impossible to say that but-for A's shot, or but-for B's shot alone, C would have died.
Taking the but-for test literally in such a case would seem to make neither A nor B responsible for C's death. Tally15 SoAla.
It is quite sufficient if it facilitated a result that would have transpired without it. However, legal scholars have attempted to make further inroads into what explains these difficult cases. Some scholars have proposed a test of sufficiency instead of a test of necessity.
This is known as the NESS test.Prominent theories of crime causation are strain theory, in which people commit crimes to get relief from strain or stress, and control theory, which claims that others force people to do crimes.
The social learning theory is the idea that people learn to do crimes through their association with others. The Theory of Crime Causation.
The theory of crime causation ELAINE WILSON 11/25/ D. COOPER UNIT 3 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT The social control theory is just what the name says; it is theory that a person is controlled by social circumstances, control of individual behavior by society. Causes of Crime - Social And Economic Factors.
In addition to studying the biological and psychological causes of criminal behavior, others looked toward society in general for possible causes.
10 causes of crime - Finding causes of crime first to find the right solutions using arts. Highlight on crime prevention, not punishment. See our Crime Cure here. the normative or moralistic approach to crime causation is associated with traditional political philosophy, theology, and the neoclassical and and classical sociologies of the 18th and 19th centuries, finding its proponents in plato, the puritans and the medieval church, bentham, and voltaire, among others.
Prominent theories of crime causation are strain theory, in which people commit crimes to get relief from strain or stress, and control theory, which claims that others force people to do crimes.
The social learning theory is the idea that people learn to do crimes through their association with others.