Human being & Crime

Hello my reader friends. This is one more blog in the series of "Criminal law" blogs. This blog is intended only for study purpose hence if you need a legal help please message us using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

Image Credit: dawgiebowl.com

The first essential of Crime is that it must have been committed by a human being. There are two parties involved in every crime:

i) The wrong doer – the wrong doer must be a human being.

ii) aggrieved/injured/deceased – the victim who may be considered as aggrieved or injured or deceased must also be a human being.

In order to establish an act as a crime against a person, the involvement of certain parties is essential.

The Perpetrator is the person who actually commits the crime/ offence. If there are more than one person involved then it is known as “co-perpetrators.” To be involved in a crime it is not necessary to be directly being involved in the crime. There can be other, non-participating “parties to a crime.”

The victim is the one against whom the crime actually took place. There can be multiple victims for an act by one or more perpetrators.

e.g. (i) If a person uses the internet to commit crimes is considered as cyber-crimes. For example hacking into other’s accounts or systems, identity theft, sharing or downloading pirated data, pornography etc. all are considered as cyber-crime. Anyone using the internet can be a victim to an act of cyber-crime.

e.g. (ii) If a person is involved in taking the life of some other person willingly with a guilty intent then it is a crime as it is covered under the definition of Murder or Culpable Homicide under.

e.g. (iii) In a case where X person shoots another person Y, resulting in his death, such a situation cannot be covered under the definition of crime as the action of the X are not criminal but necessary as per the circumstances for self-defence.

Also the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards of morality or constructs them. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts". He regarded people as by nature rational beings, concluding that it becomes morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus this is we the human beings who can commit a crime and make punishments for it no other animal can do this.

You can read this book for more knowledge.

Exceptions: In ancient world animals were also punished for committing crimes by throwing stones on them or beating them. Now a days for any act committed by an animal, the owner of such animal is held liable as the owner is subject to civil/tortious liability as per Scienter Rule.

If a person is committing a crime against animals specifically wild animals, then such person is punished under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; because the wild animals are protected under the Act and they form part and parcel of the environment. This Act is exception to this element of the crime because it is deemed that crime with animals is crime with environment.