we know about her situation and, possibly, her motives can be found on pages 161–163, picking up the scholarly thread which begins here. Generally, a crime is defined by the actions taken. Theft can be defined as the taking of a physical object not belonging to the actor, without the consent of its owner, and providing the actor has no right to take it — or something like that. To which we must generally add the intent to commit the act, even if it is known to be illegal. If an ordinary, well-known act is so tricky to define, how hard is it to define – to study – a crime where the physical act and the very existence of intent might be called irrelevant, because other people’s intended reaction is the major defining factor? It is always difficult enough to study intent. How to pinpoint a crime when there is no consensus about the motive or its importance for the act, and for different reasons many actors seek to hide their intent? Faced with this, it is not surprising the results in legislation, practice, and research vary. A crime, or rather its various conceptual elements, can be constructed in more than one way. The quickest and most efficient is probably legislation.1 Fundamental for most people’s reactions is the existence of a crime according to the law. A crime with a name and definition, and carrying a specific penalty, once inserted into the rule of law will see the majority try to comply with the law and cease doing what is now prohibited. Eventually, many will use the name of the new crime and think of it, if they think of it at all, as universally accepted as a crime. One might call this pattern, whatever its starting point, a discourse coming into being. A fruitful perspective is presented by Peter King: ”All definitions of crime are, of course, social constructions changing over time and between societies, social groups, and individuals.”2 Crime, being more than Scientific introduction 1 See i e Lewis 2016 p 1 sqq on the importance the construction inCCCof infanticide and abortion would have for centuries to come. 2 King 2000 p 6. This quote is from a precise discussion about how difficult a definition of a type of crime, in his example property crime, can be, King 2000 p 6 sq. 19
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=