Explicit Omission Crimes Summary

State Crimes are defined as “acts that are largely committed, instigated or condoned by governments and their officials” (International State Crime initiative). These crimes are considered to be very serious crimes in society today, due to the fact that they are either committed or condoned by governmental personnel with the aim of achieving certain goals. Having said that, scholars today do not have the knowledge of how important these crimes are since it violate international and criminal law within that state. Eugene McLaughlin identified four categories of state crime; Political crimes, crimes by security, economic crimes and social and cultural crimes. However, I will focus on the two that are more widely acknowledged Political crime is corruption and censorship, a state has the right to label a behaviour as political crime if it’s seen as a threat to the state. Crime by security has to do with genocide and torture, a great example of crime by security is the Rwanda Genocide that occurred in 1994 which ended up killing 800,000 citizens in just a few weeks. According to Grabosky and Stohl (2010), state crimes can be divided into six main types; State terror against another state, state terror against private interests, State facilitation of another state’s terrorism, state terror against its own citizens, state facilitation of private actors and political terror scale. In this essay, I will be mainly concentrating on the Rwanda Genocide, Libyan civil war of 2011 and

A crime is conduct (or an act of omission) which, when it results in certain consequences, may lead to prosecution and punishment in the criminal court. Newburn (2012:8). Crime is usually defined as breaking the law. The government and authorities usually set out laws for its general public to follow and those who break the law will be faced with the consequences of being punished. The behavior codes introduced by the state are examples of codes that influence society. The criminal justice system forces the law and those that break it will be faced with its consequences. Crime is often set aside for the offences that cause harm or injury to the community, individuals or state, The institute of alcohol studies stated that according to the 2011/12 CSEW, there were 917,000 violent incidents where the victim believed the offender(s) to be under the influence of alcohol, accounting for 47% of violent offences committed that year, this represents a rise of 3 percentage points on the previous year [2010/11].

The State Action Requirement is a condition of law deeming that in order for an individuals rights to be violated, it has to be by a member of or someone acting upon behalf of the State. In Thomas Pogge’s essay he argues that the SAR is a reasonable condition, while Catherine MacKinnon argues in her work that the State Action Requirement excludes women’s suffering because it does not fit within the realm of SAR. Pogge believes that rights violations can come from the State’s own acts of disrespect, and also they can come from the State’s inability or refusal to act in certain situations. MacKinnon believes that there should be not State Action Requirement, because it systematically ignores or disregards women’s suffering under the guise of not seeing gender (in order to indiscriminate), which results in crimes against women being seen as inevitable of the state of their nation or just things that happen because of their gender. The State Action Requirement can be useful in certain situations, but it is not of my belief that it should be mandatory for any human rights violations, as violations occur every day around the world and because they are not committed by a State agent, they are not seen for what they truly are: violations of the rights of groups that are in no position to defend themselves. Because of this, through looking at both author’s assessments of the SAR, I have to agree with MacKinnon that the State

In this assignment I am going to explain the main elements of law, including detailed examples that are true and relevant to the case to illustrate the meaning of this.

Nevertheless, the government is the sole authority that can guarantee the protection of human rights and freedoms. It is responsible for putting in place the necessary laws and policies to protect and safeguard the rightful enjoyment of human rights among its citizens. In this case, the government, therefore, act as the custodians of human rights, and they are responsible for any acts that are committed against the enjoyment of a person’s freedom. Thus, the state is the guarantor and protector of human rights. However, at times the government itself may carry itself in an irresponsible manner by being the violators of human rights in occurrences such as genocides.

Sentence was passed and in that moment my whole life completely changed. In the background, you could hear the people chant, “Justice has finally been served!” They don’t know me I thought. Everybody makes mistakes, right? But, where was my second chance in life. My luck, the death penalty became legal again and eagerly waiting for me to become its newest member. My palms grew sweaty as always when I grew nervous and scared. There was nothing I could do. These people wanted me to pay for what I put them through.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.

In this essay, I will discuss what type of conduct I believe should be criminalised and why this is so. Because criminalisation stigmatizes individuals, it is something that we should be careful with. Being labelled as a murderer has a very high impact on one’s life, whether it is to find a job, a home or just to create relationships; people get blamed for being wrongdoers. Therefore, I believe that offensive conduct should not be criminalised, most of the time at least. The mere judgement of something to be “offensive” is subjective; who is to decide what is offensive and what is not? To criminalise harm done to others, I agree, as does mostly everyone else; it is very uncontroversial as a principle. Indeed, even though there is two views of the harm principle which I will discuss later on, intellectuals agree that this type of conduct should be prohibited. For what other types of conduct should be criminalised, I share Feinberg 's view that other principles never justify criminalization.

The government has made mandates and laws protecting the innocent and victims of these crimes and preserve justice in the society. However, if in case a person is involved in any crime of the state, they need to understand their charges and the consequences of each crime will be implemented.

In the final scene when Louis Levy speaks of the capacity of love I feel he is saying that we as humans have this natural need for an emotional attachment in order to feel complete as a person. Everyone on this earth is looking for love and acceptance and this starts from birth. A baby requires love, attention, physical touch and maternal nurturing along with biological needs in order to survive. This is carried on throughout out a person’s life. If one can look back as far as possible into their childhood they will come to find that love from another being is essential to growth because this will be the basis of what kind of adult you will grow

These crimes represent the power of the government in both cases because they are essentially inventing crimes to punish those who they want

Victimless crimes, the illegal act(s) that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant, have been the topic of heated debate for some time now (Kendall, 2014). This debate centers primarily on the question as to whether these acts should be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus society’s idea to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the conception of harm. People who stand on this side on this side of the argument raise questions as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society as well. More importantly, they ask whether such acts result in negative

The "intent to destroy" certain groups is unique to the characterisation of genocide. Closely related categories of international law "crimes touching humanity" aredescribed as adverse or calculated attacks against citizens.This timeline marks the growth of the term "genocide" and its systematization into international law.

The concept of crime differs widely between nations and within different social groups, locally and globally. The influence of governments, corporations and individuals who are able to wield power enables differing concepts of crime to flourish, and the interpretation of crime to vary according to laws implemented by those in power. Criminal justice also varies within different nation states. In exploring the complexities of crime it is important to emphasise that power can offer protection and immunisation for those who have caused harm to members of society. Making people accountable for their actions

Crime is considered to be some breech or violation of behaviors which stand in opposition of rules or norms instituted by some governing body. Some actions are considered to be crimes throughout most societies in history; murder or physical abuse can serve as an example as an example. However, the majorities of things that are considered crimes are more of a subjective nature and vary widely in different societies. In many societies it is a crime to be an atheist or to be homosexual for example, while in other societies these items are tolerated and in some cases are considered social norms. Furthermore, when an individual is considered to have committed a crime, the punishments for these crimes also can vary widely depending on the culture, the social norms, the position of the authority figure, as well as a plethora of other factors. This paper will analyze some of the different forms of crime and they develop and how they are treated in different societies.