crime in India

1. Crime
Definition
Define the crime is extremely difficult because the offense is one well-defined behavior under
the criminal code, which is very different depending on which country we are. The outcasts
behaviors called antisocial behavior and need not coincide. The one who commits a crime is not
considered criminal, but one who repeatedly commits and is considered antisocial by society.
An estimated one of every 9 U.S. children is brought to court before age 18. According to Gold,
88% of those under 18 have committed crimes, of which only 22% are un2% arrested and
brought before a judge.
Causes Of Crime
• One of the causes of crime are biological or genetic factors. Besides
differences were found in the nervous system and brain damage.
• There is a theory that the individual who has not had a healthy relationship with their parents
has not been able to develop self-control.
• It is said that we are is the result of our past, and that therefore the delinquent, it is because in
the past has been successful doing it.
• Another theory says that is the result of a severance of ties with society through a neglect,
school failure, ...
• Another theory that society provides emphasizes the success we aspire to instill a lot, but then
not given the means to achieve it, causing frustration. It is an attempt to adapt frustrated.
• There are subcultures in which the most admired is the one who commits more crimes.
• It appears that even individual offender catalog makes that individual assumes the role.
Factors

2. •Sex: There are more male offenders than female offenders.
•Skills: There are studies supporting the relationship between low IQ
and crime.
•Hyperkinetic syndrome (hyperactivity) Children very impulsive and non-reflective are more
likely to commit crime.
•Egocentrism: They have great difficulty in visualizing the consequences of their actions (lack
of empathy).
•Social class: the crime is associated with marginal classes.
•Family: parents is associated with little moral support coerce and punish a lot. The breakdown
between parents and children early is a good predictor of crime.
Class Of Offenders
There are various classifications, we offer the Quay and Parsons (1960), for which they did
numerous tests:
• Maladjusted immatures psychologically fragile young, lazy and undisciplined dreamers who
do not get to sleep, normally unattainable, angry with the world.
• No socialized psychopath: He has not developed the self, has not assimilated norms or values.
They are "moral imbeciles" by the lack of ethical criteria. Because they have no remorse, do not
learn from the mistakes, do not mature.
• Neurotic upset: Individual loner who blames and suffers from depression too. Robbery, rape ...
They suffer from depression (something that would happen to the psychopath).
• Subcultural socialized: Has accepted norms of their subculture, but it turns out that these run
counter to the general culture.
What to Do with Lawbreakers?
There are two types of punishment: A fine and imprisonment throughout the West, and these
plus the death penalty in 100 nations, telling U.S.. From a sociological and psychological view is
not the right way because punishment has always existed and always crime has increased. The

3. punishment does not affect the way a criminal mind, for those who go to jail, if not honored, at
least not embarrassing.
In recent years it has created a new trend: Criminology, which tells us that the punishment does
little or nothing, and that there should be psychological treatment, educational and social
opportunities as well.
The methods proposed by the various branches of psychology behavior modification through
punishment only strictly necessary at times, social skills training, training in impulse control, in
analyzing and solving problems, ethics, negotiation, .. . The method of punishment through
community service to society as a system of rehabilitation is another proposal to reduce prison
overcrowding. In the 70 tested diversification, remove and replace prison but failed institutions.
This is a very complex problem in our society requires more money than you invested. It is said
that we will pay the consequences, because the placement exacerbates the problem, we know,
and no action is taken.
Disclaimer: Please consult a medical practitioner before using sensitive information. Neither the
site nor the author will be responsible for losses or damages resulting out of the use of this
article.
Next
CRIME
A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor.
A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all
offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.
The term offence may be considered as having the same meaning, but is usually understood to be
a crime not indictable but punishable, summarily or by the forfeiture of a penalty.
Felony. A felony is a serious crime punishable by at least one year in prison. Some family law
felonies include kidnapping and custodial interference (in some states).
People convicted of felonies lose certain rights, such as the right to vote or hold public office.
During the term of sentence, the convicted person may also be prohibited from making contracts,
marrying, suing or keeping certain professional licenses. Upon release from prison, the convict
may also be required to register with the police.

4. Misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime for which the punishment is usually a fine and/or up to
one year in a county jail. Often a crime which is a misdemeanor for the first offense becomes a
felony for repeated offenses. All crimes that are not felonies are misdemeanors.
Crimes are defined and punished by statutes and by the common law. Most common law
offences are as well known and as precisely ascertained as those which are defined by statutes;
yet, from the difficulty of exactly defining and describing every act which ought to be punished,
the vital and preserving principle has been adopted; that all immoral acts which tend to the
prejudice of the community are punishable by courts of justice.
Crimes are 'mala in se,' or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral
law; or they are 'mala prohibita,' bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which,
unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent. Crimes may be classed into such as affect:
- 1. Religion And Public Worship: 1. Blasphemy. 2. Disturbing public worship.
- 2. The Sovereign Power: 1. Treason. 2. Misprision of treason.
- 3. The Current Coin: 1. Counterfeiting or impairing it.
- 4. Public justice: 1. Bribery of judges or jurors, or receiving the bribe. 2. Perjury. 3. Prison
breaking. 4. Rescue. 5. Barratry. 6. Maintenance. 7. Champerty. 8. Compounding felonies. 9.
Misprision of felonies. 10. Oppression. 11. Extortion. 12. Suppressing evidence. 13. Negligence
or misconduct in inferior officers. 14. Obstructing legal process. 15. Embracery.
- 5. Public Peace: 1. Challenges to fight a duel. 2. Riots, routs and unlawful assemblies. 3.
Affrays. 4. Libels.
- 6. Public Trade: 1. Cheats. 2. Forestalling. S. Regrating. 4. Engrossing. 5. Monopolies.
- 7. Chastity: 1. Sodomy. 2. Adultery. 3. Incest. 4. Bigamy. 5. Fornication.
- 8. Decency And Morality: 1. Public indecency. 2. Drunkenness. 3. Violatiug the grave.
- 9. Public Police And Economy: 1. Common nuisances. 2. Keeping disorderly houses and
bawdy houses. 3. Idleness, vagrancy, and beggary.
- 10. Public Policy: 1. Gambling. 2. Illegal lotteries.
- 11. Individuals: 1. Homicide, which is justifiable, excusable or felonious. 3. Mayhem. 3. Rape.
4. Poisoning, with intent to murder. 5. Administering drugs to a woman quick with child to
cause, miscarriage. 6. Concealing death of bastard child. 7. Assault and battery, which is either
simple or with intent to commit some other crime. 8. kidnapping. 9. False imprisonment. 10.
Abduction.

5. - 12. Private Property: 1. Burglary. 2. Arson. 3. Robbery. 4., Forgery. Counterfeiting. 6. Larceny.
7. Receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, or theft-bote. 8. Malicious
mischief.
- 13. The Public, Individuals, Or Their Property, According To The Intent Of The Criminal: 1.
Conspiracy.
3rd
Definition of crime in general
The methodical study of the reasons, anticipation, power, and severe reactions to crime is called
criminology. For these intentions, the explanation of crime depends on the speculative posture taken.
The life of crime could be sighted from either a official or normative point of view. A legalistic
description comprises general law or the ruling codified in the laws endorsed by the superior
government. Consequently, a crime is any blameworthy act or oversight banned by law and penalized by
the State. This is an straightforward view: the commandment, and only the regulation, identify crime.
A normative definition analysis crime as abnormal behaviour which goes against the existing norms,
exclusively, cultural standards recommending how humans ought to conduct yourself. This approach
judged the multifarious realities adjacent the idea of crime and request to recognize how shifting social,
political, psychosomatic, and economic circumstances may have an effect on the current definitions of
crime and the structure of the official, law enforcement, and penal reactions made by the State.
These constitutional certainties are solution and often controversial. For example, as cultures
revolutionize and the political atmosphere transfers, behaviour may be criminalised or decriminalised,
which will straightforwardly have an effect on the statistical crime rates, establish the distribution of
assets for the enforcement of such laws, and manipulate public judgment. Hbso
A body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the government because it
threatens and harms public safety and welfare and that establishes punishment to be imposed for
the commission of such acts.
The term criminal law generally refers to substantive criminal laws. Substantive criminal laws
define crimes and may establish punishments. In contrast, Criminal Procedure describes the
process through which the criminal laws are enforced. For example, the law prohibiting murder
is a substantive criminal law. The manner in which government enforces this substantive law—
through the gathering of evidence and prosecution—is generally considered a procedural matter.
Crimes are usually categorized as felonies or misdemeanors based on their nature and the
maximum punishment that can be imposed. A felony involves serious misconduct that is
punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year. Most state criminal laws

6. subdivide felonies into different classes with varying degrees of punishment. Crimes that do not
amount to felonies are misdemeanors or violations. A misdemeanor is misconduct for which the
law prescribes punishment of no more than one year in prison. Lesser offenses, such as traffic
and parking infractions, are often called violations and are considered a part of criminal law.
The power to make certain conduct illegal is granted to Congress by virtue of the Necessary and
Proper Clause of the Constitution (art. I, § 8, cl. 18). Congress has the power to define and
punish crimes whenever it is necessary and proper to do so, in order to accomplish and safeguard
the goals of government and of society in general. Congress has wide discretion in classifying
crimes as felonies or misdemeanors, and it may revise the classification of crimes.
State legislatures have the exclusive and inherent power to pass a law prohibiting and punishing
any act, provided that the law does not contravene the provisions of the U.S. or state constitution.
When classifying conduct as criminal, state legislatures must ensure that the classification bears
some reasonable relation to the welfare and safety of society. Municipalities may make
designated behavior illegal insofar as the power to do so has been delegated to them by the state
legislature.
Laws passed by Congress or a state must define crimes with certainty. A citizen and the courts
must have a clear understanding of a criminal law's requirements and prohibitions. The elements
of a criminal law must be stated explicitly, and the statute must embody some reasonably
discoverable standards of guilt. If the language of a statute does not plainly show what the
legislature intended to prohibit and punish, the statute may be declared VOID FOR VAGUENESS.
In deciding whether a statute is sufficiently certain and plain, the court must evaluate it from the
standpoint of a person of ordinary intelligence who might be subject to its terms. A statute that
fails to give such a person fair notice that the particular conduct is forbidden is indefinite and
therefore void. Courts will not hold a person criminally responsible for conduct that could not
reasonably be understood to be illegal. However, mere difficulty in understanding the meaning
of the words used, or the Ambiguity of certain language, will not nullify a statute for vagueness.
A criminal statute does not lapse by failure of authorities to prosecute violations of it. If a statute
is expressly repealed by the legislature, but some of its provisions are at the same time re-
enacted, the re-enacted provisions continue in force without interruption. If a penal statute is
repealed without a saving clause, which would provide that the statute continues in effect for
crimes that were committed prior to its repeal, violations committed prior to its repeal cannot be
prosecuted or punished after its repeal.
The same principles govern pending criminal proceedings. The punishment that is provided
under a repealed statute without a saving clause cannot be enforced, nor can the proceeding be
prosecuted further, even if the accused pleads guilty. A court cannot inflict punishment under a
statute that no longer exists. If a relevant statute is repealed while an appeal of a conviction is
pending, the conviction must be set aside if there is no saving clause. However, once a final
judgment of conviction is handed down on appeal, a subsequent repeal of the statute upon which
the conviction is based does not require reversal of the judgment.

7. Generally, two elements are required in order to find a person guilty of a crime: an overt criminal
act and criminal intent. The requirement of an Overt Act is fulfilled when the defendant
purposely, knowingly, or recklessly does something prohibited by law. An act is purposeful
when a person holds a conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or to cause a particular
result. To act knowingly means to do so voluntarily and deliberately, and not owing to mistake or
some other innocent reason. An act is reckless when a person knows of an unjustifiable risk and
consciously disregards it.
An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act. For example,
a parent has a duty to protect his or her child from harm. A parent's failure to take reasonable
steps to protect a child could result in criminal charges if the omission were considered to be at
least reckless.
Ordinarily, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless he or she is aware of all the facts that
make his or her conduct criminal. However, if a person fails to be aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk, an act or omission involving that risk may constitute negligent conduct that
leads to criminal charges. Negligence gives rise to criminal charges only if the defendant took a
very unreasonable risk by acting or failing to act.
Intent
Criminal intent must be formed before the act, and it must unite with the act. It need not exist for
any given length of time before the act; the intent and the act can be as instantaneous as
simultaneous or successive thoughts.
A jury may be permitted to infer criminal intent from facts that would lead a reasonable person
to believe that it existed. For example, the intent to commit Burglary may be inferred from the
accused's possession of tools for picking locks.
Criminal intent may also be presumed from the commission of the act. That is, the prosecution
may rely on the presumption that a person intends the Natural and Probable Consequences of his
or her voluntary acts. For example, the intent to commit murder may be demonstrated by the
particular voluntary movement that caused the death, such as the pointing and shooting of a
firearm. A defendant may rebut this presumption by introducing evidence showing a lack of
criminal intent. In the preceding example, if the murder defendant reasonably believed that the
firearm was actually a toy, evidence showing that belief might rebut the presumption that death
was intended.
Proof of general criminal intent is required for the conviction of most crimes. The intent element
is usually fulfilled if the defendant was generally aware that he or she was very likely
committing a crime. This means that the prosecution need not prove that the defendant was
aware of all of the elements constituting the crime. For example, in a prosecution for the
possession of more than a certain amount of a controlled substance, it is not necessary to prove
that the defendant knew the precise quantity. Other examples of general-intent crimes are
Battery, rape, Kidnapping, and False Imprisonment.

8. Some crimes require a Specific Intent. Where specific intent is an element of a crime, it must be
proved by the prosecution as an independent fact. For example, Robbery is the taking of property
from another's presence by force or threat of force. The intent element is fulfilled only by
evidence showing that the defendant specifically intended to steal the property. Unlike general
intent, specific intent may not be inferred from the commission of the unlawful act. Examples of
specific-intent crimes are solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, first-degree premeditated murder,
assault, Larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretense, and Embezzlement.
Most criminal laws require that the specified crime be committed with knowledge of the act's
criminality and with criminal intent. However, some statutes make an act criminal regardless of
intent. When a statute is silent as to intent, knowledge of criminality and criminal intent need not
be proved. Such statutes are called Strict Liability laws. Examples are laws forbidding the sale of
alcohol to minors, and Statutory Rape laws.
The doctrine of transferred intent is another nuance of criminal intent. Transferred intent occurs
where one intends the harm that is actually caused, but the injury occurs to a different victim or
object. To illustrate, the law allows prosecution where the defendant intends to burn one house
but actually burns another instead. The concept of transferred intent applies to Homicide, battery,
and Arson.
Felony-murder statutes evince a special brand of transferred intent. Under a felony-murder
statute, any death caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a predicate felony is
murder. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim. For example, a
death resulting from arson will give rise to a murder charge even though the defendant
intentionally set the structure on fire without intending to kill a human being. Furthermore, the
underlying crime need not have been the direct cause of the death. In the arson example, the
victim need not die of burns; a fatal heart attack will trigger a charge of felony murder. In most
jurisdictions, a death resulting from the perpetration of certain felonies will constitute first-
degree murder. Such felonies usually include arson, robbery, burglary, rape, and kidnapping.
Malice
Malice is a state of mind that compels a person to deliberately cause unjustifiable injury to
another person. At Common Law, murder was the unlawful killing of one human being by
another with malice aforethought, or a predetermination to kill without legal justification or
excuse. Most jurisdictions have omitted malice from statutes, in favor of less-nebulous terms to
describe intent, such as purpose and knowing.
Massachusetts, for example, has retained malice as an element in criminal prosecutions. Under
the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 265, Section 1, malice is an
essential element of first- and second-degree murder. According to the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts malice is a mental state that "includes any unexcused intent to kill, to do grievous
bodily harm, or to do an act creating a plain and strong likelihood that death or grievous harm
will follow" (Commonwealth v. Huot, 403 N.E.2d 411 [1980]).

9. Motives
Motives are the causes or reasons that induce a person to form the intent to commit a crime.
They are not the same as intent. Rather, they explains why the person acted to violate the law.
For example, knowledge that one will receive insurance funds upon the death of another may be
a motive for murder, and sudden financial difficulty may be motive for embezzlement or
burglary.
Proof of a motive is not required for the conviction of a crime. The existence of a motive is
immaterial to the matter of guilt when that guilt is clearly established. However, when guilt is not
clearly established, the presence of a motive might help to establish it. If a prosecution is based
entirely on Circumstantial Evidence, the presence of a motive might be persuasive in establishing
guilt; likewise, the absence of a motive might support a finding of innocence.
Defenses
Defenses Negating Criminal Capacity To be held responsible for a crime, a person must
understand the nature and consequences of his or her unlawful conduct. Under certain
circumstances, a person who commits a crime lacks the legal capacity to be held responsible for
the act.
Examples of legal incapacity are infancy, incompetence, and intoxication.
Children are not criminally responsible for their actions until they are old enough to understand
the difference between right and wrong and the nature of their actions. Children under the age of
seven are conclusively presumed to lack the capacity to commit a crime. Between the ages of
seven and 14, children are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. However, this
presumption is not conclusive; it can be rebutted by the prosecution through the admission of
evidence that the child knew that what he or she was doing was wrong. Anyone over the age of
14 is presumed to be capable of committing a crime, but this presumption can be rebutted by
proof of either mental or physical incapacity.
SHOULD MORE CRIMES BE MADE FEDERAL OFFENSES?
Enforcement of criminal laws in the United States has traditionally been a matter handled by the
states. The federal government, conversely, has typically limited itself to policing only crimes
against the federal government and interstate crime. This is just one expression of the U.S.
system of Federalism, the notion that the federal government exists in tandem with the states and
does not, without necessity, deprive states of their powers. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution is an example of federalism at work. That amendment states, "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."
Near the end of the twentieth century, however, Congress passed a host of federal laws that
directly overlap with existing state criminal laws. Such laws include the Anti-Car Theft Act of

10. 1992, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992,
and new criminal laws on Arson, narcotics and dangerous drugs, guns, Money Laundering and
reporting, Domestic Violence, environmental transgressions, career criminals, and repeat
offenders. As a result, in 1998, the number of criminal prosecutions in federal courts increased
by 15 percent. The increase was nearly three times the increase in federal criminal prosecutions
in 1997.
In a Report of the Federal Judiciary issued at the end of 1998, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST criticized the congressional movement toward federalizing the criminal
justice system. "Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes," Rehnquist instructed,
"no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be." Rehnquist noted the tremendous toll
that federalization of crime was exacting on the federal judiciary, and he decried the damage it
was doing to the concept of federalism: "The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have
been handled in state courts not only is taxing the judiciary's resources and affecting its budget
needs, but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system." According to
Rehnquist, the problem was political in nature; senators and representatives in Congress were
using the act of lawmaking to win or keep their seats: "The pressure in Congress to appear
responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime needs to be balanced with
an inquiry into whether states are doing an adequate job in this particular area and, ultimately,
whether we want most of our legal relationships decided at the national rather than local level."
In his 1998 report, Rehnquist cited a report on federal courts issued by the 1995 Judicial
Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference recommended that federal courts be
used for only five types of cases: 1) offenses against the government or its inherent interests; 2)
criminal activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects; 3) criminal activity
involving complex commercial or institutional enterprises most effectively prosecuted under
federal resources or expertise; 4) serious high level or widespread state or local government
corruption; and 5) criminal cases raising highly sensitive local issues. "Although Congress need
not follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference," Rehnquist wrote, "this Long-Range
Plan is based not simply on the preference of federal judges, but on the traditional principle of
federalism that has guided the country throughout its existence."
Concern over the federalization trend spread during the late 1990s. The Criminal Justice Section
of the American Bar Association (ABA) organized a task force—the Task Force on the
Federalization of Criminal Law—to look into the matter. In 1998, the task force issued a report
in which it criticized the trend. Victor S. (Torry) Johnson, a representative of the National
District Attorneys Association (NDAA) on the task force, declared in Prosecutor, "By trying to
fight street crime through federal legislation, Congress misleads the public into believing that a
national response will be effective and that the problem will be solved with federal intervention."
Congress then fails to provide enough federal funding to prosecute all the new laws, creating a
situation in which the efforts of local law enforcement "are undermined by the unrealistic
expectations created by Congress' well-publicized enactments."
In his 1999 article for Corrections Today, James A. Gondles Jr., executive director of the
American Correctional Association, lamented the introduction of low-level, local criminals into
the federal system. According to Gondles, mixing such prisoners with big-time federal criminals

11. blurs the jurisdictional line and makes it "more difficult for those at the state and local levels to
do their jobs."
Not everyone is troubled by the federalization of criminal law enforcement. Proponents of
federal criminal laws argue that they are necessary in an increasingly mobile society. Crime
tends to span more than one state and even local crime can have effects which cross state
boundaries. In his article for the Hastings Law Journal, Rory K. Little, a professor of law at the
University of California, Hastings College of Law, defended the increase in federal crimes as a
protection against the inability of states to catch and prosecute all criminals. If the quality of
justice is better in the federal courts, Little opines, "then problems of crime cannot be ignored
federally while state criminal justice systems slowly sink and justice fails."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in March 1999 constituted an approval of increased federal
authority over crime. In United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 119 S.Ct. 1239, 143
L.Ed.2d 388 (1999), Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno KIDNAPPED a drug associate and took him from
Texas to New Jersey, then to New York, and finally to Maryland. Rodriguez-Moreno was
charged with, among other crimes, kidnapping and using and carrying a firearm in relation to a
kidnapping, an act that violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). Section 924(c)(1) makes it a crime to
use or carry a firearm during, and in relation to, any crime of violence. Rodriguez-Moreno was
tried in New Jersey on the charges, even though he did not have a gun in New Jersey.
Rodriguez-Moreno, who did not want to be tried in New Jersey, argued that the statute did not
allow the federal government to prosecute him for the § 924 crime in New Jersey because he did
not commit the crime in that state. The Court rejected the argument, holding that because the
crime of violence (kidnapping) continued through several states, prosecution was proper in any
district where the crime of violence was committed, even if the firearm was used or carried in
only one state. The decision made it easier for federal prosecutors to pick and choose the venues
for their cases.
Further readings
"Federalization of Crimes: Chief Justice Rehnquist on Federalization of Crimes." 1999.
Prosecutor (March/April).
"Federalization of Crimes: NDAA's Representative Reports on ABA's Federalization Task
Force." 1999. Prosecutor (March/April).
Gondles, James A. 1999. "The Federalization of Criminal Justice." Corrections Today (April).
Little, Rory K. 1995. "Myths and Principles of Federalization." Hastings Law Journal (April).
Cross-references
Federal Courts; State Courts; States' Rights.

12. All states have juvenile courts, which are separate from criminal courts. Juveniles who are
accused of a crime are tried in these courts as delinquent children, rather than as criminal
defendants. This alternative prevents children from invoking the defense of infancy. In juvenile
courts, criminal charges lead to an adjudication rather than prosecution, because the aim of
juvenile courts is to rehabilitate, rather than to punish. In the 1990s, some state legislatures
passed laws to make it easier to prosecute juveniles in adult courts, especially in cases involving
violent crimes.
Insane persons cannot, in a legal sense, form the intent necessary to commit a crime. They are
not, therefore, criminally responsible for their actions. Courts have applied a variety of legal tests
to determine the mental state of a criminal defendant who claims that he or she was insane at the
time of the alleged crime. One test is the M'Naghten Rule, which was originally used by an
English court in the criminal prosecution of Daniel M'Naghten.
M'Naghten had an insane delusion that the prime minister of England, Sir Robert Peel, was
trying to kill him. Mistaking the prime minister's secretary, Edward Drummond, for the prime
minister, M'Naghten killed the secretary. At his trial, M'Naghten asserted that he had been insane
when he committed the crime. The jury accepted his argument and acquitted him. From that
decision evolved the M'Naghten test, under which, in order to disclaim criminal responsibility, a
defendant must be affected by a disease of the mind at the time he or she commits the act. The
disease must cause the ability to reason to become so defective that the person does not know the
nature and quality of the act or else does not know that the act is wrong. A successful invocation
of the M'Naghten defense results in commitment to a mental institution for treatment, rather than
imprisonment.
A number of states prefer the "irresistible impulse" test as the standard for determining the sanity
of a criminal defendant. If the defendant is suffering from a mental disease that prevents control
of personal conduct, he or she may be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, even if he or she
knows the difference between right and wrong.
The Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute established another test of insanity that has
been adopted by almost all of the federal courts and by numerous state legislatures. Under the
Model Penal Code test, a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such
conduct, he or she lacks the capacity either to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of
the conduct, or to conform his or her conduct to the requirement of law. This lack-of-capacity
excuse does not apply to abnormalities demonstrated by a repetitive pattern of illegal or violent
acts.
Some states employ the "lack-of-substantial-capacity" test. The phrase "lacks substantial
capacity" is a qualification of the M'Naghten rule and the irresistible-impulse test, both of which
require the total absence of capacity. This test also requires a showing of causality. The defense
is not established merely by a showing of a mental disease; rather, it is established only if, as a
result of the disease, the defendant lacks the substantial capacity that is required in order to hold
him or her criminally responsible. For example, pyromania may be a defense to a charge of
arson, but it is no defense to a charge of larceny. An Irresistible Impulse arising from anger,

13. jealousy, or a desire for revenge does not excuse a defendant from criminal responsibility unless
such emotions are part of the mental disease that caused the crime.
Generally, voluntary intoxication from drugs or alcohol does not excuse a criminal act.
Involuntary intoxication is, however, a valid defense. It occurs when a person is forced to take an
intoxicating substance against his or her will, or does so by mistake. If a defendant's involuntary
intoxicated condition causes a criminal act, the defendant will not be convicted if, because of the
intoxication, he or she is unable to appreciate the criminality of the conduct.
Fair Warning Defense The DUE PROCESS Clauses contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require that before a defendant may be prosecuted for
criminal conduct, the law must make clear which conduct is criminal. Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes articulated the standard when he wrote that a criminal statute must give "fair warning …
in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain
line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear." McBoyle v.
United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L. Ed. 816 (1931)."
The U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to revisit the fair-warning requirement in United
States. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 137 L. Ed. 2d 432 (1997). Lanier was a case
involving a prosecution under 18 U.S.C.A. § 242, a Reconstruction-era Civil Rights law that
makes it a federal crime to deprive another of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
protected by the constitution or laws of the United States" while acting "under color of any law."
Congress originally passed the law to afford a federal right in federal courts for situations when,
by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance, or otherwise, state courts might not be as
vigilant as federal courts in protecting the rights that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Traditionally, Section 242 had been primarily invoked against police officers and prison guards.
The Lanier case arose from allegations of sexual misconduct against the sole state Chancery
Court judge for two rural counties in western Tennessee, David Lanier. The trial record shows
that from 1989 to 1991, while Lanier was in office, he sexually assaulted several women in his
judicial chambers.
Lanier's most serious assault involved a woman whose Divorce proceedings had come before his
chancery court and whose daughter's custody remained subject to his jurisdiction. When the
woman applied for a secretarial job at Lanier's courthouse, Lanier interviewed her. As the
woman got up to leave, Lanier grabbed her, sexually assaulted her, and finally committed oral
rape.
On five other occasions Lanier sexually assaulted four other women: two of his secretaries, a
Youth Services officer, and a local coordinator for a federal program who had been in Lanier's
chambers to discuss a matter affecting the same court.
Lanier was later charged with 11 violations of Section 242. Each count of the indictment alleged
that Lanier, acting willfully and under color of Tennessee law, had deprived the victims of the

14. right to be free from willful sexual assault. Before trial, Lanier moved to dismiss the indictment
on the ground that Section 242 is void for vagueness. The district court denied the motion.
The jury returned verdicts of guilty on seven counts, and not guilty on three (one count having
been dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case). Lanier was then sentenced to consecutive
maximum terms totaling 25 years.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence,
United States v. Lanier, 33 F.3d 639 (6th Cir. 1994), but the full court vacated that decision and
granted a rehearing en banc. United States. v. Lanier, 43 F.3d 1033 (1995). On rehearing, the full
court set aside Lanier's convictions for "lack of any notice … that this ambiguous criminal statute
[i.e., Section 242] includes simple or sexual assault crimes within its coverage." United States v.
Lanier, 73 F.3d 1380 (6th Cir. 1996).
Specifically, the Sixth Circuit held that criminal liability may be imposed under Section 242 only
if the constitutional right said to have been violated is first identified in a decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court (not any other federal or state court), and only when that right has been held to
apply in "a factual situation fundamentally similar to the one at bar."
The Sixth Circuit then said it could not find any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that
recognized, under Section 242, a right to be free from unjustified assault or invasions of bodily
integrity in a situation "fundamentally similar" to those circumstances under which Lanier was
charged.
In the absence of such a decision, the Sixth Circuit said that Tennessee had violated Lanier's due
process right to be fairly warned that particular conduct is prohibited and carries with it the
possibility for criminal punishment. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of
conviction and instructed the trial court to dismiss the indictment.
The state of Tennessee appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit,
observing that there are three manifestations of the "fair warning requirement." First, the
"vagueness doctrine" bars enforcement of statutes that either forbid or require an act in terms that
are so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning and differ
as to their application. Second, the Court wrote that the "canon of Strict Construction of criminal
statutes" ensures fair warning by limiting application of ambiguous criminal statutes to conduct
that is clearly covered. Third, due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a
criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly
disclosed to be within its scope. In other words, a trial court cannot "clarify" a statute by
supplying terms through its own interpretation of the law, when those terms were not clearly
contemplated by the statutory language chosen by the legislature.
However, the Court emphasized that the due process fair-warning requirement does not require
that prohibited criminal conduct be previously identified by one of its own decisions and held to
apply in a factual situation "fundamentally similar" to the defendant's case at bar. Instead, the
Court wrote, "all that can usefully be said about criminal liability under [Section 242] is that

15. [liability] may be imposed for deprivation of constitutional right if, but only if, in light of
preexisting law, unlawfulness under the constitution is apparent."
The Court then remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit for further proceedings in light of its
opinion. After reading the high court's opinion, the Sixth Circuit vacated its earlier decision and
ordered Lanier to begin serving his sentence. One Sixth Circuit judge dissented, criticizing the
U.S. Supreme Court for not writing a clearer opinion that articulated what constituted "apparent"
unlawful conduct.
Exculpatory Defenses Exculpatory defenses are factors that excuse a competent person from
liability for a criminal act. Duress is an exculpatory defense. One who commits a crime as a
result of the pressure of an unlawful threat of harm from another person is under duress and may
be excused from criminal liability. At trial, whether the defendant was under duress is a Question
of Fact for the judge or jury. The defense of duress was invoked in the 1976 trial of Patricia
Campbell Hearst, the young daughter of wealthy newspaper owners Randolph A. Hearst and
Catherine C. Hearst. On February 4, 1974, Patricia Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese
Liberation Army (SLA) and held for the unusual ransom of food distribution to the poor. Shortly
after the abduction, Hearst sent a recorded message to her parents, in which she announced that
she had become a social revolutionary.
On April 15, Hearst participated in a bank robbery with members of the SLA. She was arrested
in September 1975 and tried for armed bank robbery. At trial, Hearst's lawyers argued, in part,
that Hearst's participation in the robbery had been caused by duress. Hearst testified that she had
feared for her life as she had stood inside the Hibernia Bank. On cross-examination, Hearst
invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination 42 times. The refusal to
answer so many prosecution questions might have damaged Hearst's credibility, and the jury did
not accept her argument of duress. Hearst was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison.
(President JIMMY CARTER commuted her sentence on February 1, 1979, and ordered her release
from prison.)
Entrapment is another exculpatory defense to criminal charges. Entrapment exists if a law
enforcement officer induces a person to commit a crime, for the purpose of instituting a criminal
prosecution against that person. It is not available if law enforcement merely provides material
for the crime.
Mistakes of law or fact are seldom successful defenses. Generally, a Mistake of Law is
applicable only if the criminal statute was not published or made reasonably available prior to
the act; the accused reasonably relied on the contrary teaching of another statute or judicial
decision; or, in some jurisdictions, the accused reasonably relied on contrary official advice or a
contrary official interpretation. A Mistake of Fact may excuse a defendant if the mistake shows
that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime. For example, in a specific-
intent crime such as embezzlement, evidence that the accused was unaware of transfers into his
or her own bank account would negate the specific criminal intent required for conviction.
Justification defenses include necessity, Self-Defense, defense of others, and defense of property.
If a person acts to protect the life or health of another in a reasonable manner and with no other

16. reasonable choice, that person may invoke the defense of necessity. According to the Model
Penal Code, self-defense and defense of others are permissible when it reasonably appears
necessary that force is required to defend against an aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
Nondeadly force may be used in order to retain property, and Deadly Force may be used only to
prevent serious bodily harm.
Merger
Under common law, when a person committed a major crime that included a lesser offense, the
latter merged with the former. This meant that the accused could not be charged with both
crimes. The modern law of merger applies only to solicitation and attempt. One who solicits
another to commit a crime may not be convicted of both the solicitation and the completed
crime. Likewise, a person who attempts and completes a crime may not be convicted of both the
attempt and the completed crime.
Attempt
An attempt to commit a crime is conduct intended to lead to the commission of the crime. It is
more than mere preparation, but it falls short of actual commission of the intended offense. An
intent to commit a crime is not the same as an attempt to commit a crime. Intent is a mental
quality that implies a purpose, whereas attempt implies an effort to carry that purpose or intent
into execution. An attempt goes beyond preliminary planning and involves a move toward
commission of the crime.
As a general rule, an attempt to commit a crime is a misdemeanor, whether the crime itself is a
felony or a misdemeanor. However, in a case of violent crime, an attempt may be classified as a
felony. Attempted murder and attempted rape are examples of felonious attempts. In an attempt
case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant specifically intended to commit the
attempted crime that has been charged. General intent will not suffice. For example, in an
attempted-murder case, evidence must show a specific intent to kill, independent from the actual
act, such as a note or words conveying the intent. In a murder case, intent may be inferred from
the killing itself.
Conspiracy
When two or more persons act together to break the law, conspiracy is an additional charge to
the intended crime. For example, if two persons conspire to commit robbery, and they commit
the robbery, both face two charges: conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery.
Further readings
Jonathan Clough, and Carmel Mulhern. 1999. Criminal Law. Sydney: Butterworths.
Kaplan, John, and Robert Weisberg. 1991. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. 2d ed. Boston:
Little, Brown.

17. McMahon, Katherine E. 1993. "Murder, Malice, and Mental State: A Review of Recent
Precedent Recognizing Diminished Capacity, from Commonwealth v. Grey to Commonwealth v.
Sama." Massachusetts Law Review (June).
Cross-references
Juvenile Law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights
reserved.
criminal law n. those statutes dealing with crimes against the public and members of the public,
with penalties and all the procedures connected with charging, trying, sentencing and
imprisoning defendants convicted of crimes. (See: crime, felony, misdemeanor)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle,
or visit webmaster's page for free fun content.
Criminal law
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Idioms,
Criminal Wikipedia, Hutchinson
0.03 s
ec.
Law
Ads by Google
Anti Dandruff Solution
Head & Shoulders Rids More Dandruff In Just One Wash. Order Sample Now!
www.HeadandShoulders.co.in
Personal Security Alarm
Self Defense Stun Gun & Steel Baton High Quality Guarnateed - Shop Now
StunGun.mangalindia.com/09711889803
Awareness Training
Confidently put threats in check. Corporate, Government, Private
www.escapethewolf.com

18. APC UPS for Computer
Losing Important Data Due to Power Cuts? Buy an APC UPS Today!
APCIndiaStore.com
Security Consultancy
Corporate & Leisure-Tourism Sectors Security Consultancy Services
www.ami-dynamics.com
criminal law, the branch of law that defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their
punishment. A tort tort, in law, the violation of some duty clearly set by law, not by a specific agreement
between two parties, as in breach of contract. When such a duty is breached, the injured party has the
right to institute suit for compensatory damages.
..... Click the link for more information. is a civil wrong committed against an individual; a crime, on the
other hand, is regarded as an offense committed against the public, even though only one individual
may have been wronged. The real distinction lies in the way a remedy for the wrong is pursued. A tort is
a wrong for which the remedy is pursued by, and at the discretion of, the injured individual or his or her
representative, while a crime is a wrong for which the wrongdoer is prosecuted by the state for the
purpose of punishment. However, the fact that a particular act has been or may be prosecuted as a
crime does not necessarily preclude an injured party from seeking recovery from the offender in a civil
action.
For an account of criminal law in ancient and medieval times, see composition composition, in
ancient and medieval law, a sum of money paid by a guilty party as satisfaction to the family of
the person who was injured or killed. Failure to make the payment might justify retaliation in
kind against the offender or his family.
..... Click the link for more information. ; vendetta vendetta [Ital.,=vengeance], feud between
members of two kinship groups to avenge a wrong done to a relative. Although the term
originated in Corsica, the custom has also been practiced in other parts of Italy, in other
European countries, and among the Arabs.
..... Click the link for more information. . See also military law military law, system of rules
established for the government of persons in the armed forces. In most countries the legislature
establishes the code of military law.
..... Click the link for more information. ; martial law martial law, temporary government and
control by military authorities of a territory or state, when war or overwhelming public
disturbance makes the civil authorities of the region unable to enforce its law.
..... Click the link for more information. ; international law international law, body of rules
considered legally binding in the relations between national states, also known as the law of
nations. It is sometimes called public international law in contrast to private international law (or
conflict of laws), which regulates
..... Click the link for more information. ; piracy piracy, robbery committed or attempted on the
high seas. It is distinguished from privateering in that the pirate holds no commission from and
receives the protection of no nation but usually attacks vessels of all nations.
..... Click the link for more information. ; war crimes war crimes, in international law, violations
of the laws of war (see war, laws of). Those accused have been tried by their own military and
civilian courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international tribunals.

19. ..... Click the link for more information. .
Classification of Crimes
Crimes are usually classified as treason treason, legal term for various acts of disloyalty. The
English law, first clearly stated in the Statute of Treasons (1350), originally distinguished high
treason from petit (or petty) treason. Petit treason was the murder of one's lawful superior, e.g.
..... Click the link for more information. , felony felony , any grave crime, in contrast to a
misdemeanor, that is so declared in statute or was so considered in common law. In early English
law a felony was a heinous act that canceled the perpetrator's feudal rights and forfeited his lands
and goods to the king,
..... Click the link for more information. , or misdemeanor misdemeanor, in law, a minor crime,
in contrast to a felony. At common law a misdemeanor was a crime other than treason or a
felony. Although it might be a grave offense, it did not affect the feudal bond or take away the
offender's property. By the 19th cent.
..... Click the link for more information. . The fundamental distinction between felonies and
misdemeanors rests with the penalty and the power of imprisonment. In general, a misdemeanor
is an offense for which a punishment other than death or imprisonment in the state prison is
prescribed by law. The term "degree of crime" refers to distinctions in the culpability of an
offense because of the circumstances surrounding its commission. Crimes are sometimes divided
according to their nature into crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita; the former class
comprises those acts that are thought to be immoral or wrong in themselves, or naturally evil,
such as murder, rape, arson, burglary, larceny, and the like; the latter class embraces those acts
that are not naturally evil but are prohibited by statute because they infringe on the rights of
others (e.g., acts in restraint of trade that have been made criminal under antitrust legislation).
Defining Crimes and Setting Punishment
In the United States, the power to define crimes and set punishment for them rests with the
legislatures of the United States, the several states, and the territories, the principal authority
being that of the individual states. This power in the states is restricted by the federal
Constitution, e.g., in the Fourteenth Amendment and in prohibitions against acts of attainder (an
act of attainder is a legislative declaration that a particular individual is guilty of a crime) and
against ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively declare certain actions to be criminal). State
constitutions may also limit state legislative action. The courts cannot look further into the
propriety of a penal statute than to ascertain whether the legislature has the power to enact it.
Administrative rules may have the force of law, and violations of such rules are punishable as
public offenses, provided that the legislature has made such violations misdemeanors.
A common-law crime is one punishable under common law, as distinguished from crimes
specified by statute. In many U.S. jurisdictions, including some in which comprehensive criminal
statutes have been enacted, the common law in relation to crimes and criminal procedure has
been recognized by the courts as in force, except insofar as it has been abrogated or repealed,
expressly or impliedly, by statute. Thus the state may prosecute crimes that were indictable at
common law even though they may not be denominated as such or be provided for by statute. In

20. many other jurisdictions the courts have held the common law as to crimes as being abolished,
and no act is punishable as a crime unless it is made so by statute, or unless the act is made
punishable as a crime by the constitution. Criminal procedure is entirely regulated by statute.
There are no common-law offenses against the United States, and one may be subject to
punishment for crime in a federal court only for the commission or omission of an act defined by
statute or regulation having legislative authority, and then only if punishment is authorized by
Congress. In general, crimes must be defined in a penal statute with appropriate certainty and
definiteness; the constitutional requirement of due process of law is violated by a criminal statute
that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the contemplated conduct is
forbidden by the statute.
Except as otherwise provided by statute, to constitute a crime an overt act (actus reus) must be
accompanied by a criminal intent (mens rea) or by such negligence as is regarded by law as
equivalent to a criminal intent. Motive, or that which leads or tempts the mind to indulge in a
criminal act, as distinguished from intent, is neither a crime nor an essential element of a crime.
The motive with which an offense was committed is immaterial. Proof of motive may be
material in proving that the defendant committed a particular crime, but it is not essential to a
conviction.
The Right to a Defense
Every accused has the right to any and all defenses the law recognizes and permits—e.g.,
insanity, mistake of fact, or self-defense. An accused having the right to resort to several
defenses may make an election as to the one on which he or she will rely. The fact that one
undertakes a crime on the advice, or as the agent, of another is not a defense; on the other hand,
except in the case of homicide homicide , in law, the taking of human life. Homicides that are
neither justifiable nor excusable are considered crimes. A criminal homicide committed with
malice is known as murder, otherwise it is called manslaughter.
..... Click the link for more information. , an act that would otherwise constitute a crime may be
excused when committed under duress or compulsion that is present, imminent, and impending,
and that produces a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not
done (see coercion coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain
from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or
threat of physical or moral force.
..... Click the link for more information. ). Religious belief is not ordinarily a justification or
excuse for the commission of a crime (see bigamy bigamy , crime of marrying during the
continuance of a lawful marriage. Bigamy is not committed if a prior marriage has been
terminated by a divorce or a decree of nullity of marriage.
..... Click the link for more information. ).
Criminal Procedure
The procedure in criminal cases is substantially the same throughout the United States. The
person suspected of crime is taken into custody by a police officer, sometimes by service of a
warrant warrant, in law, written order by an official of a court directed to an officer. The search

21. warrant and the warrant of arrest are the most frequently used types.
..... Click the link for more information. of arrest. If the crime is serious, the case is first
presented to a grand jury, which draws up an indictment indictment , in criminal law, formal
written accusation naming specific persons and crimes. Persons suspected of crime may be
rendered liable to trial by indictment, by presentment, or by information.
..... Click the link for more information. if there is sufficient evidence to justify trial; otherwise it
discharges the accused. While action is pending, the party charged may be released on bail bail,
in law, procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or an appeal, by the deposit
of security to insure his submission at the required time to legal authority.
..... Click the link for more information. . Trial is by jury or before a judge alone if a jury is not
required, or if the defendant consents. The government presents its case (i.e., attempts to prove
the allegations of the indictment), through the public prosecutor, usually called the district
attorney, while the accused is represented by counsel that he or she has chosen or that the court
has appointed. The legal presumption of innocence puts the burden of proving guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt on the prosecution, unless, of course, the defendant pleads guilty to the charge.
Special rules restricting the introduction of evidence evidence, in law, material submitted to a
judge or a judicial body to resolve disputed questions of fact. The rules discussed in this article
were developed in England for use in jury trials.
..... Click the link for more information. in criminal trials further protect the defendant. If the
accused is found or adjudged innocent, he or she is discharged; if the accused is found guilty, the
judge pronounces sentence sentence, in criminal law, punishment that a court orders, imposed on
a person convicted of criminal activity. Sentences typically consist of fines, corporal punishment,
imprisonment for varying periods including life, or capital punishment, and sometimes combine
two
..... Click the link for more information. . (For types of criminal penalties, see capital punishment
capital punishment, imposition of a penalty of death by the state. History
Capital punishment was widely applied in ancient times; it can be found (c.1750 B.C.) in the
Code of Hammurabi.
..... Click the link for more information. ; corporal punishment corporal punishment, physical
chastisement of an offender. At one extreme it includes the death penalty (see capital
punishment), but the term usually refers to punishments like flogging, mutilation, and branding.
Until c.
..... Click the link for more information. ; prison prison, place of confinement for the punishment
and rehabilitation of criminals. By the end of the 18th cent. imprisonment was the chief mode of
punishment for all but capital crimes.
..... Click the link for more information. .) If the defendant is convicted, an appeal appeal, in law,
hearing by a superior court to consider correcting or reversing the judgment of an inferior court,
because of errors allegedly committed by the inferior court.
..... Click the link for more information. may be filed; the prosecution, however, cannot appeal
an acquittal. Generally speaking, this procedure is confined to felonies; misdemeanors, being
relatively less serious offenses, are handled in a more summary fashion. It is generally accepted
that no court will enforce the criminal law of another jurisdiction, but by means of extradition
extradition , delivery of a person, suspected or convicted of a crime, by the state where he has

22. taken refuge to the state that asserts jurisdiction over him. Its purpose is to prevent criminals who
flee a country from escaping punishment.
..... Click the link for more information. a fugitive from justice may be delivered to the
competent authorities.
criminal law
n.
Law that deals with crimes and their punishments.
criminal lawyer n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright
©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.
criminal law
n
(Law) the body of law dealing with the constitution of offences and the punishment of offenders
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991,
1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. criminal law - the body of law dealing with crimes and their
punishment
crime, criminal offence, criminal offense, law-breaking, offense,
offence - (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually
considered an evil act; "a long record of crimes"
judgment of conviction, sentence, conviction, condemnation -
(criminal law) a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the
punishment that is imposed; "the conviction came as no surprise"
partial verdict - (criminal law) a finding that the defendant is guilty of some charges but
innocent of others
Riot Act - a former English law requiring mobs to disperse after a magistrate reads the
law to them
nolo contendere, non vult - (law) an answer of `no contest' by a defendant who does not
admit guilt but that subjects him to conviction
insanity plea, plea of insanity - (criminal law) a plea in which the defendant claims
innocence due to mental incompetence at the time
charge, complaint - (criminal law) a pleading describing some wrong or offense; "he
was arrested on a charge of larceny"
plea bargain, plea bargaining - (criminal law) a negotiation in which the defendant

23. agrees to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor agrees to drop a
more serious charge; "his admission was part of a plea bargain with the prosecutor";
"plea bargaining helps to stop the courts becoming congested"
legal code - a code of laws adopted by a state or nation; "a code of laws"
law, jurisprudence - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization
presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom
while enforcing order"
principal - (criminal law) any person involved in a criminal offense, regardless of
whether the person profits from such involvement
bail, bail bond, bond - (criminal law) money that must be forfeited by the bondsman if
an accused person fails to appear in court for trial; "the judge set bail at $10,000"; "a
$10,000 bond was furnished by an alderman"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex
Inc.