The Relativity of Crime in Time and Space

Abstract

Mainstream criminologists are generally criticized for accepting the criminal law and the legal definitions of crime as givens and for paying little attention to the historical origins of the criminal law or to the social processes by which the criminal law is made and changed. In contrast, critical criminology questions the raison d’être of the criminal law and challenges the need for a criminal code (separate from the civil code) that uses punitive sanctions such as imprisonment and, in some countries, the death penalty (see Chapter 7). The need for a specific criminal (or penal) code is predicated upon the premise that CRIME is a unique or exceptional category of behaviour that is more serious and more harmful than other behaviour. The primary purpose of this chapter is to test the validity of these assumptions.

In view of the diversity of moral systems in the world, it is difficult to understand why the presumption of universality could endure so long without being seriously questioned. The answer lies in the psychological predisposition of human beings to generalize from their own perspective. Western philosophers in particular seem to be prone to projecting their moral categories on others. As a consequence, the presumption of universality is deeply ingrained in Western moral philosophy.

Alison D. Renteln (1990:49)

International Human Rights: Universalism Versus Relativism