Introduction
This series of articles began by introducing a concept of crime that was not based on law, but rather on an action’s existential effects. Traditionally, crime is understood as a violation of the law. Since this implies that a legal system determines what constitutes a crime, it facilitates a form of autocracy. Insofar as an administrative structure or organization determines whether something constitutes a crime or not, it is not the person suffering from that action who does so. Decisions are made for people rather than with them. To make policy without the participation of those who will be affected by the policy is to dispense with any pretension to democracy. For democracy to exist, those who will be affected by a policy are, and must be, the ones who conceive and institute the policy that will affect them.
We seek to approach crime in a democratic manner. In this vein, we would define a crime as any action that injures a person, or a person’s social standing, as seen by the person affected by the action. For instance, any action that deprives a person of their personal property or their access to their personal property, against their will, or which damages or interrupts their valued relations to other people, would constitute a crime against them. It would be considered a form of victimization. The Law sees it from outside the action, through an institutionality. From within the relation between an accused perpetrator and one charging injury, the jurisprudent dialogues that would provide an arena for the accused to deny and defend themselves would be quite different (de-institutionalized, and not based on conflict).
In sum, crime is an injurious relation between a perpetrator and a victim in which it is the victim who gets to say if (and how) an injury has been done to them. The focus of this perspective is that of the one injured, rather than the institutional interests of a judicial system. Slavery or segregation would never have been possible under this alternate perspective.
-more-