Defining the Concept of Crime: A Humanistic Perspective

This paper argues that the traditional definition of crime is too narrow and unnecessarily constrictive of criminological work. Definitions more in accord with the objectives of a humanistic criminology must be developed. The traditional debate over the definition of crime has not been grounded within the context of the more fundamental images of crime that actually guide criminological work. By clarifying these underlying images (paradigms) and displaying the value questions and domain assumptions contained within them, we are in position to develop first order and second order definitions of crime which are more suitable to the task of humanistic criminology. The task of a humanistic criminology, in my view, is to combine a theoretical concern with the historically generated structural context within which crime and social control are produced and constructed, with a practical concern for human liberation and the realization of social justice.1 A humanistic criminology must identify those features of historical social formations that "...produce unnecessary social constraints and to describe how human freedom is constricted, thus indicating directions for social change" (Thomas, 1982:314). The humanistic perspective in criminology must be concerned with the way in which the structuring of crime and social control affects the human rights, dignity, survival, and material well-being of all people. In order to carry out this task, a humanistic criminology must begin by confronting a very basic, and yet troublesome and