UNIT 2 : CRIME AND

CRIMINOLOGY

Definition, elements, nature, type of crime (Hate crimes, organized crimes and public
disorder, domestic violence and workplace violence, White collar crimes), classification
and theories of criminology
 Introduction Crime & Criminal
 Legal and general definitions
 Causal factors of a crime
 Elements of crime
 Nature of a crime
 Crime Triangle
 Types of crime
 Hate crimes; organized crimes and public disorder; domestic and workplace
violence; White collar crimes
 Crime prevention strategies
 Classification and theories of criminology

CRIME, CRIMINAL & CAUSAL FACTOR

DEFINITION OF CRIME

Any act or omission that violates the law and is subject to punishment by the legal
system. It encompasses a wide range of behaviors, from minor offenses like petty
theft to serious crimes such as murder.
• Categorized into various types, including property crimes, violent crimes, white-
collar crimes, and more.
• The legal definition of crime can vary across jurisdictions, reflecting the values
and norms of a particular society.

Criminal:
 The term ‘criminology’ is derived from the combination of two Latin words crimen
and Greek word logia. Etymologically it stands for ‘scientific study of the nature,
extent, causes and control of criminal behavior.’

A criminal is an individual who has been convicted of committing a crime. Criminal

behavior is not limited to a specific demographic or background; it can be exhibited
by people from various social, economic, and cultural groups. The study of
criminals involves understanding their motives, patterns of behavior, and the
factors that contribute to their engagement in illegal activities. Criminologists seek
to analyze the characteristics of criminals to develop profiles that aid in crime
prevention, criminal justice, and rehabilitation efforts.

Causal Factors in Crime:

Understanding why individuals engage in criminal behavior involves examining a

complex interplay of various factors. Causal factors can be broadly categorized into
individual, social, and environmental factors. Here are the 5 types of causal
factors…

1) Individual Factors
Individual factors of crime refer to personal characteristics, traits, and
experiences that contribute to an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal
behavior.
 Biological Factors:
Some theories suggest that biological factors, such as genetics and brain structure,
may contribute to criminal tendencies. However, these factors are often considered in
conjunction with other influences.
1. Genetics and neurobiology
2. Brain development and function
3. Hormonal imbalances
4. Substance abuse and addiction
5. Medical conditions (e.g., mental health, chronic illness)

 Psychological Factors:
Individual psychological traits, such as personality disorders, mental health issues,
and cognitive deficits, may play a role in criminal behavior.
 1. Self-control and impulsivity
2. Emotional regulation and empathy
3. Aggression and hostility
4. Motivation and goal-oriented behavior
5. Cognitive distortions and rationalizations

2) Social Factors:
Social factors of crime refer to the external influences and conditions that
contribute to an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior.
 Family Background: The family environment, including parenting styles,
family structure, and socioeconomic status, can influence criminal behavior. A lack
of parental supervision, inconsistent discipline, and exposure to family violence
can contribute to criminal tendencies.
 Peer Influence: Social interactions and peer groups can have a significant
impact on an individual's behavior. Involvement in delinquent peer groups may
increase the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities.
 Educational Opportunities: Limited access to education and low educational
attainment can be associated with criminal behavior. Educational opportunities
and attainment are often linked to socioeconomic factors.

3) Environmental Factors:
Environmental factors of crime refer to the physical and social surroundings that
contribute to an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior.
 Economic Conditions: High levels of poverty and unemployment in a
community may contribute to crime rates. Economic disparities can lead individuals
to engage in criminal activities as a means of survival or improving their living
conditions.
 Neighborhood Environment: The physical and social characteristics of
neighborhoods, such as the availability of resources, social cohesion, and the
prevalence of crime, can impact an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal
behavior.

4) Institutional Factor:
Institutional factors of crime refer to the role of institutions and systems in
shaping criminal behavior.
 Criminal Justice System: The functioning of the criminal justice system,
including law enforcement practices, court procedures, and correctional policies,
can influence criminal behavior. Issues such as discriminatory practices and over-
reliance on incarceration may have unintended consequences.

5) Cultural Factors:
 Cultural Norms and Values: Cultural factors shape individuals' beliefs about
what is acceptable or deviant behavior. Societies with differing norms and values
may have varying rates and types of criminal activities. It's important to note that
criminal behavior is often a result of the complex interaction of multiple factors,
and different individuals may be influenced by different combinations of these
factors. Criminologists use various theories and research methods to explore these
causal factors and develop a more comprehensive understanding of crime.

CRIME
Crime denotes an unlawful act punishable by a state. The term “crime” does not, in
modern criminal law, have any simple and university accepted definition, though
statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. The most popular
view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime
if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. One proposed definition is
that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some
individual or individuals but also to a community, society or the state (“a public
wrong”). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The nation that acts such
as murder, rape and theft are to be prohibited exists worldwide. What precisely is a
criminal offence is defined by criminal law of each country. While many have a
catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, in some common law countries no
such comprehensive statute exists.

The state (government) has the power to severely restrict one’s liberty for
committing a crime. In modern societies, there are procedures to which
investigations and trials must adhere. If found guilty, an offender may be sentenced
to a form of reparation such as a community sentence, or, depending on the nature
of their offence, to undergo imprisonment, life imprisonment or, in some
jurisdictions, execution.

Usually, to be classified as a crime, the “act of doing something criminal” (actus

reus) must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the “intention to do
something criminal (mens rea). While every crime violates the law, not every
violation the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime. Breaches of
private law (tours and breaches of contract) are not automatically punished by the
state, but can be enforced through civil procedure.

ELEMENTS OF CRIME

To understand the various essential elements of crime, it is important to first have a

brief idea about the foundational concept of a crime. A crime is a designated wrong
which attracts the punitive mechanism of the state against the person or persons
committing the said wrong. It is distinguished from a tortuous wrong or a civil
wrong in a very fundamental manner. A civil wrong or a tortuous wrong is a wrong
against an individual or at times may also be against a group of individuals. The
wronged individuals then have the liberty to pursue a remedy provided by the law
against the wrongdoer. However, in case of a criminal wrong, though the
immediate victim of the crime may again be an individual or group of individuals,
the nature of the wrong is such that it is deemed to be an act against the society.
Thus, a crime is not only considered harmful to the individual or group of
individuals who have been the victims of the crime, it is also deemed harmful to
the society it at large. This difference is the reason behind the state taking up the
responsibility to punish those who have committed a crime whereas the pursuit of
a redressal for a civil or tortuous wrong is left to the discretion of the wronged
individuals or group of individuals. As a crime is considered a wrong not simply
against the wronged individual or group of individuals but against the society at
large, the consequences attached to the commission of a crime also differ
fundamentally from those that are attached to the commission of a civil or
tortuous wrong. The primary remedy in case of a civil or tortuous wrong is
monetary compensation that the wrongdoer must pay to the individuals or group
of individuals he has wronged. Monetary compensation is deemed an adequate
remedy as the specific loss the individual or the group of individuals suffer due to
the wrong is deemed capable of being measured in terms of money. However,
when the crime committed not simply affects the immediate victims but also the
society it large, the interests of the society cannot be measured when the
wrongdoers pays a monetary compensation to the wronged individual or group of
individuals. Thus, the consequences attached to the commission of a crime are
primarily punitive in nature which involve imprisonment, fine and at times also
death. The classification of wrongs which affect the society at large and those
which do not is at the core of any criminal justice system. The principles on the
basis of which this classification should be done form the foundation of the
criminological debate. Some wrongs may be classified as crime due to the inherent
violent nature of such acts which is against the basic societal principle of safety and
security. Example of such offences are robbery, assault etc. Some acts are classified
as crimes because they strike at some fundamental social institutions. One example
of such a crime is the offence of bigamy. Some other acts are determined as
offences because the society considers them to be inherently immoral. A striking
example of such a crime is the act of engaging in homosexual acts. The choice of
such principles on the basis of which criminal conduct would be classified and the
determination of the exact boundaries of such principles is a subjective exercise
consisting of societal influences, ideological underpinnings and value judgments.
Though many crimes are almost universal in nature (theft, murder etc), the detailed
classification of criminal conduct can vary from society to society, especially when
the classification is based on principles of morality. Thus, an act which is considered
a crime in one society may not be considered in another. For example, though
engaging in homosexual acts is considered a crime in India, the same is not
considered a crime in many European countries.

Understanding ‘Elements of Crime’

While the basic constituents of each crime would necessarily be different from that
of the other, the concept of ‘elements of crime’ refers to a set of general
characteristics which are to be found in each crime. The specific conduct which is
classified as a crime is a subjective choice which may differ in identity and detail
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from crime to crime, these general
characteristics can be described as the objective elements of the crime which will
almost remain common in all kinds of crime in all jurisdictions. An example of the
specific element in a crime which may be called the subjective element can be
understood when we consider the example of Theft and Rape. The specific element
in the offence of theft is that A takes away the property of B without B’s consent
with a dishonest intention. The specific element in the crime of Rape is that A has
sexual intercourse with B without B’s consent. While Theft is about a crime against
the property of a human being, Rape is about a crime against the body of a human
being. However, there are certain characteristics which go beyond these subjective
specifics of both the Theft and Rape and can be said to be common to both. For
example, in both cases the person committing the crime is a human being. In both
the cases, A is doing something which is expressly forbidden by law. In both the
cases, the actions of A cannot be described as accidental and can be said to be
 intentional in nature. The concept of ‘Elements of Crime’ deals with such
foundational general principles which form the backbone of any description of
criminal conduct. These elements provide the objective foundation on the basis of
which the subjective specification of each individual crime is constructed.

INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS
SPECIFIC TO THE CRIME IN
QUESTION
GENERAL ELEMENTS
CRIME COMMON TO ALL CRIMES

THE ELEMENTS OF CRIME

1.Human being as the Perpetrator

A crime can be committed only by a human being. The victims of a crime may be other
human being or even animals but the perpetrator who is held liable for having committed
a crime cannot be anybody other than a human being. It may be noted that in ancient
and medieval times, even animals were held liable for having committed a crime. There
have been several instances of trial being conducted against bull or a pig and then the
bull or pig being punished for the crime. However, in modern times, it is a well accepted
fact that only a human being can commit a crime. Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code
defines a ‘person’ as including a legal person in the form of a company, association or
body of persons and excludes animals from the definition. It is instructive to note that
even when a legal person commits the crime, it is the natural person or group of person
who are in control of the legal person who are held responsible for the crime. Thus, when
a company is guilty of cheating, it is the directors and mangers of the company who are
imprisonment as a consequence. However, the development of law in modern times also
imposes legal consequences on a legal person in the form of confiscatin of property and
other such measures by which companies and other such entities are held responsible. It
is also important to note that when we say that only a human being can commit a crime,
he may commit the crime either himself directly or indirectly. Thus, it is possible that A
injures B by setting his dog upon B. In such a case also, it is A who will be held liable for
causing hurt to B as he is the one responsible for the injuries caused to B even though he
might not have caused such injuries by his own hands.
 2. Mens rea

The elements of ‘Mesn rea’ and ‘Actus Reus’ have been derived from the Latin maxim of
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means; ‘An act does not make a man guilty of
a crime, unless his mind be also guilty.’ This maxim has formed the foundation of criminal
liability in common law jurisdictions and over several centuries has acquired an
irrefutable and undisputed solidity. In essence this maxim mandates that in order to hold
person liable for any crime, two elements must be present;
1. The person must have committed an act (Actus Reus)
2. The person must have committed the act with a guilty mind (Mens Rea)
Thus, the element of mens rea mandates that X must not simply have done the act that
he is accused of, but also must have done the act with a guilty mind. The concept of a
guilty mind is not that of a malicious mind. It is the presence of such a state of mind in a
person wherein he can be legitimately be held responsible for the acts committed by him
under the provision of law. The element of mens rea implies a state of mind which is
characterised by the presence of knowledge, intention, motive, negligence etc depending
on the definitional requirements of the crime in question. Thus mens rea is present when
a person knew about the consequences of his act when under the provision of law, such
awareness is sufficient to hold the person criminally liable. It is also present when a
person acts negligently and fails to take the due care which a person of ordinary
prudence ought to do. The fact that a person can be held mentally responsible for the
acts committed by him forms the foundation of his criminal liability. It may be noted that
the term mens rea has not been explicitly mentioned in any of the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code. However, the concept pervades all the crimes enumerated therein by
implication through use of words such as ‘voluntarily’, ‘fraudulently’, ‘wilfully’
‘intentionally’, ‘wrongfully’, ‘dishonestly’, ‘negligently’ etc. Thus, the requisite mens rea in
a given situation depends on the definition of the offence. For example, Section 321
provides that when X causes hurt to Y by doing something with the intention to cause
hurt to Y, he is said to ‘voluntarily cause hurt’. The same is punishable under section 323.
Thus, when X intentionally throws a rock at Y, he is aware about the physical
consequences of the rock hitting Y. He would be liable for causing hurt to Y even though
he was not meaning to hurt Y was only joking around. In this case, the awareness in X
about the physical consequences of his act is sufficient mens rea to attract criminal
liability. When an act is an offence when committed with a dishoent intent, mens rea is
present if the person had the dishonest intent. The person would not be liable simply
because he did the act intentionally as long as he was not acting dishonestly. For
example, section 378 of the Indian Penal Code defines theft as X taking dishonestly the
movable property of Y without the consent of Y. In this case, it is not sufficient that X was
aware about the physical consequences of taking a movable property of Y (for example a
book) to his own house. It is also necessary that he must have done the act with a
dishonest motive. Thus, when X has taken the book of Y innocently to read it and then
return it, he is not guilty of theft as the mens rea as required under section 378 is absent.
On the other hand, if X has taken the book with a view to gift it away to one of his
cousins, he is guilty of theft as the requisite dishonest motive is present. It is important to
understand that for mens rea to be present, it is not necessary that a person intended for
a specific crime. What is important to prove is he intended to commit the acts that he
committed and was aware of the possible physical nature of the consequences, even
though he might not have known that his acts constitute a crime. For example, X, a
private citizen captures a notorious thief (Y) and shoots Y in the head without there being
any immediate threat or danger from Y. Here, as long as X was aware about the physical
consequences of shooting a person in the head, he has committed a crime even though in
his mind he was dispensing justice and not committing a murder. Thus, in terms of
intention, mens rea does not mean the intention to commit a crime but the intention to
commit an act being aware about the physical consequences of the act. This is best
exemplified by the illustration to section 39 which defines the term ‘voluntarily’.
According to section 39, X is said to do something voluntarily when X causes an effect by
means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing
those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. The illustration to
section 39 provides a scenario where for the purpose of facilitating a robbery, X sets fire
to a residential house at night in an inhabited town. Due to the fire, a person (Y) who was
sleeping in the house died. Here, the main purpose of X was to facilitate a robbery and he
might not have intended to commit the offence of murder by causing the death Y but he
will still be liable for the same as he knew such a consequence to be likely when setting
fire to a residential house at night. The element of mens rea can be also understood by
exploring the situations where it is absent. Thus, when a person does something not
voluntarily but under some coercion, mens rea is absent in such a situation. This is
underscored by the maxim of actus me invito factus non est mens actus which is
considered an accompanying principle to the fundamental principle of Actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea. Literally, it means; an act done by me 8 against my will is not my
act. This principle is also recognised in the Indian Penal Code under Section 94 wherein a
person is excused from criminal liability when he commits the crime (other than murder
or an offence against the state punishable with death) under threat to his life. Also, mens
rea is said to be absent when the act is committed under the influence of insanity or
involuntary intoxication of a nature which deprives the person of the capacity to know
the nature of his act. Similarly, an infant is excused from criminal liability due to the lack
of maturity in understanding the nature of the acts committed by him. A person is also
excused from criminal liability when the act committed is by mistake or due to an
accident.
Exception to the Requirement of Mens rea
It is important to remember that though the element of mens rea is traditionally an
inherent part of most definitions of crime, there are certain exceptions to the rule. There
are certain situations where a person will be held guilty of a crime even though it may not
be possible to hold him responsible for the alleged act. These are known as rules of strict
liability when the commission of the act is itself a conclusive proof of the fault of the
accused and the state of his mind plays no part in the determination of his guilt.

3.Actus Reus
Actus reus refers to the act forbidden by the law for the commission of which a person is
held to be criminal liable. It is the other important element which is derived from the
maxim of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. While the element of mens rea refers to
the state of the mind of the accused while committing a physical act, the element of actus
reus focuses on the very physical act which forms the subject matter of the crime. For
example, when X takes a movable property from the possession of Y without the consent
of Y with a dishonest motive, he is said to commit theft. Here the requisite mens rea
consists of the dishonest motive on the part of X. The actus reus consists of the taking
away of a movable property from the possession of Y. In simple terms, actus reus refers to
the conduct (act or omission) which is forbidden by the law wherein the person engaging
in the forbidden conduct is punishable by a sanction. It is important to remember that
there is nothing inherently criminal in an act unless the same has been forbidden by the
law. For example, X, an executioner, executes Y, a prisoner by hanging him. Here X is not
guilty of murder as his conduct is not forbidden by law but warranted by law. It is
important to remember that the actus reus constitutes not only of the actual commission
of a forbidden act but also of the attempt to commit the forbidden act. Thus, when theft
is a forbidden act, attempt to commit theft is also a forbidden act. On certain occasions,
the attempt to commit a crime has been specifically described as a crime under the
Indian Penal Code. For example, section 393 specifically provides that an attempt to
commit robbery is a crime. Otherwise, section 511 of the Indian Penal Code lays down
the general rule that whenever any offence is punishable with life imprisonment or
imprisonment of any other kind, the attempt to commit such an offence is also
punishable.

4.Injury
Lastly, in order to constitute a crime, there must be an injury ensuing to other individuals
or to the society at large. The nature of the injury may vary depending on the nature of
the conduct which is criminalised. Thus, the injury may be in the form of injury to the
body, mind reputation or property of another human being. Crimes such as causing of
hurt, commission of rape are injurious to the body of another person. Causing of mental
harassment and infliction of mental cruelty are crimes against the mind of person.
Defamation is a crime against the reputation of a person. Theft, robbery, trespass,
misappropriation etc are crimes against the property of another person.

Injury Due to A Crime

 1. Injury to human body
2. Injury to human mind
3. Injury to human property
4. Injury to human reputation
On certain occasions, the injury may not be one to a definite person or group of
person but to the society at large. For example, a seditious speech may not in effect
harm another individual but is sedition is considered one of the most grave offences
under criminal law.

CRIME TRIANGLE
aka Crime Prevention Triangle or Problem Analysis Triangle
A conceptual model used in criminology and law enforcement to understand the
factors that contribute to the occurrence of a crime. This model is based on the idea
that for a crime to happen, three key elements must come together in a specific space
and time. The Crime Triangle is a simple yet powerful tool that helps law enforcement
and crime analysts identify and address the underlying causes of criminal activities.

The Crime Triangle is a criminological model that identifies three essential elements
necessary for a crime to occur. It was developed by criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland
and is also known as the "Crime Triangle Theory" or "Sutherland's Crime Triangle."
THREE COMPONANTS
1. MOTIVATED OFFENDER : The offender is the individual or individuals who
commit the criminal act. This component involves understanding the
characteristics, motivations, and behaviors of those responsible for the crime.
Factors related to the offender may include their age, gender, criminal history,
social influences, and personal motivations.
A person with the intention and desire to commit a crime. This can include factors
such as:
 Financial gain, Revenge, Thrill-seeking, Mental health issues

2. SUITABLE TARGET OR VICTIM : The target or victim is the person,

property, or entity that is the focus of the criminal act. This component involves
understanding what makes a particular target attractive to offenders. Factors
related to the target or victim may include vulnerability, accessibility,
attractiveness, and the perceived benefits for the offender. A vulnerable or
attractive target for the offender, such as:
- Valuables (e.g., money, jewellery)
- Property (e.g., cars, homes)
- Individuals (e.g., victims of assault)
3. LOCATION FOR ENVIRONMENT : The location or environment is the
physical space where the crime occurs. This component involves understanding the
characteristics of the area where the crime takes place and how it facilitates
criminal activities. Factors related to the location or environment may include the
layout of the area, the level of surveillance, the presence of security measures,
lighting conditions, and the overall social and economic context.

Understanding the Dynamics

The Crime Triangle suggests that crime is more likely to occur when the three
elements converge in a specific time and space. By analyzing these components, law
enforcement and crime analysts can develop strategies to prevent or reduce criminal
activities. The goal is to disrupt the elements of the Crime Triangle and create an
environment, which is less favourable for criminal behavior.

NATURE OF A CRIME

The nature of a crime refers to its inherent characteristics, severity, and impact.
Understanding Crime Nature:

1. Informs crime prevention strategies

2. Guides law enforcement and justice systems
3. Helps develop effective rehabilitation programs
4. Enhances community awareness and education
5. Informs policy and legislation

Types of Crimes:
 1. Violent Crimes: Physical harm or threat (e.g., assault, murder)
2. Property Crimes: Theft, damage, or destruction of property (e.g., burglary,
vandalism)

3. White-Collar Crimes: Financial or business-related crimes (e.g., fraud,

embezzlement)

4. Victimless Crimes: No direct victim (e.g., prostitution, drug use)

5. Organized Crimes: Complex, coordinated criminal activities (e.g., trafficking,
racketeering)

HATE CRIME
A hate crime (also known a bias crime) is crime where a perpetrator targets a victim
because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group.
A hate crime is a criminal act motivated by bias, prejudice, or hostility towards a person
or group based on:
1. Race 2. Religion 3. Ethnicity 4. National origin 5. Gender
6. Sexual orientation 7. Gender identity 8. Disability 9. Age

CHARACTERISTICS
1. Bias motivation: The perpetrator's actions are driven by prejudice or hostility.
2. Target selection: Victims are chosen because of their perceived identity or affiliation.
3. Harm or intimidation: Hate crimes aim to inflict physical or emotional harm.

MOTIVATION
 Thrill-seeking – perpetrators engage in hate crimes for excitement and drama.
Often, there is no greater purpose behind the crimes, with victims being vulnerable
because they have an ethnic, religious, sexual or gender background that differs
from their attackers. While the actual animosity present in such a crime can be
quite low, thrill-seeking crimes were determined to often be dangerous, with 70
percent of thrill-seeking hate crimes studied involving physical attacks. Typically,
these attacks are perpetrated by groups of young teenagers or adults seeking
excitement.
 Defensive – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a belief they are protecting
their communities. Often, these are triggered by a certain background event.
Perpetrators believe society supports their actions but is too afraid to act and thus
they believe they have communal assent in their actions.
 Retaliatory – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a desire for revenge. This
can be in response to perceived personal slights, other hate crimes or terrorism.
The "avengers" target members of a group whom they believe committed the
original crime, even if the victims had nothing to do with it. These kinds of hate
crimes are a common occurrence after terrorist attacks.
 Mission offenders – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of ideological reasons.
They consider themselves to be crusaders, often for a religious or racial cause. They
may write complex explanations for their views and target symbolically important
sites, trying to maximize damage. They believe that there is no other way to
accomplish their goals, which they consider to be justification for excessive
violence against innocents. This kind of hate crime often overlaps with terrorism,
and is considered by the FBI to be both the rarest and deadliest form of hate crime.
The motivations of hate-crime offenders are complex. Therefore, there is no one
theory that can completely account for hate-motived crimes. However, Mark
Austin Walters previously attempted to synthesize three interdisciplinary theories
to account for the behavior of hate-crime offenders:

1. Strain Theory: suggests that hate crimes are motivated by perceived economic
and material inequality, which results in differential attitudes towards outsiders
who may be viewed as “straining” already scarce resources. An example of this can
be seen in the discourse surrounding some people's apprehension towards
immigrants, who feel as though immigrants and/or refugees receive extra benefits
from government and strain social systems.

2. Doing Difference Theory: suggests that some individuals fear groups other than
their own and, as a result of this, seek to suppress different cultures.

3. Self-Control Theory: suggests that a person's upbringing determines their

tolerance threshold towards others, here individuals with low self-esteem are
often impulsive, have poor employment prospects, and have little academic
success.

EFFECTS OF HATE CRIMES:

1. Physical harm
2. Emotional trauma
 3. Social isolation
4. Community fear and polarization
5. Undermining social cohesion

LAWS AND PREVENTION EFFORTS:

1. Hate crime laws: Enhanced penalties for bias-motivated crimes
2. Law enforcement training: Improving response and investigation
3. Community outreach: Education and awareness programs
4. Support services: Victim assistance and advocacy

EXAMPLES OF HATE CRIMES:

1. Racially motivated attacks on individuals or communities
2. Anti-Semitic vandalism or violence
3. Homophobic or transphobic assaults
4. Islamophobic hate speech or threats
5. Disability-related harassment or violence

ORGANISED CRIME
organised crime is an act which is committed by two or more criminals as a joint venture
in a systematically organised manner. It is an illegal act which the members of an unlawful
association commit with mutual co-operation and adventure.