Before attempting an overview of the input of psychology, we need to take a step back and consider the problematic concept of crime itself. The question, what is crime? sounds as if it should have obvious answers, and certainly there would probably be widespread agreement that some acts, such as personal violence or theft, constitute crimes the world over. However, there might be disagreement about whether these acts are still seen as crimes if t he rule of law is challenged, for instance in wartime. It was only in 2001 that the mass rape of
Muslim women during the Bosnian conflict of 1992
-
95 was first deemed to be a crime against humanity, with three of its perpetrators receiving lengthy prison sentences at the Hague War Tribunal. Prior to this, wartime rape and the provision of kidnapped 'comfort women' for soldiers had been regarded simply as a by
-
product of war. While legal sanctions hold, there is reasonable understanding about what constitut es crime, but this understanding tends to vary according to historical, cultural and power dimensions which may rule different behaviours as criminal at different times. Obvious examples of this are when laws change, so for example attempting suicide was regarded as a criminal offence until 1961, while incest was not classed as a crime until
1908. Similarly, female circumcision is acceptable in some cultures though not in the UK, while in contrast male circumcision has never been against the law, though in both cases genital mutilation occurs without the consent of the individual concerned. Age and mental state also influence whether someone is regarded as having committed a crime. The age of criminal responsibility varies considerably from country to country, so in the UK it is 10 while in Norway it is 15. The murder of two small children by other children in both countries in 1993 and 1994 highlights the very different views taken of similar crimes. In 1993, two
-
year
-
old James Bulger was taken away from his mother in a Liverpool shopping centre by two boys aged ten who subsequently beat and murdered him. Both boys were charged with murder and appeared in an adult court more than a year later, when they were ordered to serve a minimum sentence of eight years. This was subsequently increased to ten and then fifteen years in response to public and media outrage, though this action was later deemed unlawful. During their time on remand they did not receive any psychiatric help because of their not guilty pleas, prompting one of the jurors to remark five years later:
The trial was about retribution ... It was apparent that in the dock were two children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings; distressed by those parts they did understand; subject to trial as if they were aware adults; unaccountably branded as 'evil' by the judge. (The Guardian, 5th
November 1999, Letters)
In 1994 in Trondheim, Norway, a five old girl was violently killed by three friends aged five and six while they were playing in the snow. There was no prosecution, the boys were not named in the media, and they were
Mentally ill offenders are not normally held responsible for their crimes unless it can be demonstrated that they intended to break th e law. However, in many trials the distinction between offenders being presented as 'mad' or
'bad' has proved controversial and moved beyond simple psychiatric diagnosis into the realms of moral responsibility. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe murdered 13 women in the 1970s and his defence claimed diminished responsibility on the grounds that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes. The jury, however, decided that Sutcliffe was not sufficiently mentally ill to be absolved of responsibility for the murders; he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Three years later he was transferred to a special hospital because of his mental illness. Similarly Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered and cannibalised 17 young men in the 1980s, was found not to be suffering from the personality disorder and necrophilia his defence described, and was sent to prison, where he was murdered by another inmate in 1994. In both cases there was clear evidence of dysfunctional beha viour with psychiatric symptoms, and yet the horrific nature of the crimes seems to have demanded some form of public accountability and retribution