A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may affect the current definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law enforcement, and penal responses made by society. These structural realities remain fluid and often contentious. For example, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, behavior may be criminalised or decriminalised, which will directly affect the statistical crime rates, determine the allocation of resources for the enforcement of such laws, and influence the general public opinion.
Similarly, changes in the way that crime data are collected and/or calculated may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to crime statistics, allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which law should be used to enforce any particular social norm. There are many ways in which behaviour can be controlled without having to resort to the criminal justice system. Indeed, in those cases where there is no clear consensus on the given norm, the use of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may be considered an improper limitation of the second group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society may lose some of their respect for the law in general whether the disputed law is actively enforced or not.
Legislatures pass laws (called mala prohibita) that define crimes which violate social norms. These laws vary from time to time and from place to place: note variations in gambling laws, for example. Other crimes, called mala in se, are nearly universally outlawed, such as murder, theft and rape
The Definition of Murder:
MURDER - This, one of the most important crimes that can be committed against individuals, has been variously defined. Hawkins defines it to be the wilful killing of any subject whatever, with malice aforethought, whether the person slain shall be an Englishman or a foreigner. Russell says, murder is the killing of any person under the king's peace, with malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied by law. And Sir Edward Coke defines or rather describes this offence to be, " when a person of sound mind and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being, and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought either express or implied."
This definition, which has been adopted by others has been severely and perhaps justly criticised. What, it has been asked, are sound memory and understanding? What has soundness of memory to do with the act; be it ever so imperfect, how does it affect the guilt? If discretion is necessary, can the crime ever be committed, for, is it not the highest indiscretion in a man to take the life of another, and thereby expose his own? If the person killed be an idiot or a new born infant, is he a reasonable creature? Who is in the king's peace? What is malice aforethought? Can there be any malice afterthought?
According to Coke's definition there must be, lst. Sound mind and memory in the agent. By this is understood there must be a will, and legal discretion. 2. An actual killing, but it is not necessary that it should be caused by direct violence; it is sufficient if the acts done apparently endanger. life, and eventually fatal The party killed must have been a reasonable being, alive and in the king's peace. To constitute a birth, so as to make the killing of a child murder, the whole body must be detached from that of the mother; but if it has come wholly forth, but is still connected by the umbilical chord, such killing will be murder. Foeticide would not be such a killing; he must have been in rerum natura. Malice, either express or implied. It is this circumstance which distiuguishes murder from every description of homicide.
In some of the states, by legislative enactments, murder has been divided into degrees. In Pennsylvania, the act of April 22, 1794, makes "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree; and the jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if they find the person guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict, whether it be murder of the first or second degree; but if such person shall be convicted by confession, the court shall proceed by examination of witnesses, to determine the degree of the crime, and give sentence accordingly.
