Many of the different approaches to dealing with crime are developed within those frameworks from the various assumptions and values which hold sway within that particular nation. It is more likely that, for countries or systems that believe a criminal is a product of his or her environment, money will be spent on rehabilitation and treatment with much less emphasis on custodial sentences. For those who believe people are responsible for their actions and intend to commit crimes (indeed intention, or mens rea, is required in all systems in order to convict someone of crime), the emphasis is likely to be on punishment, generally not specifically intended to address rehabilitation, such as custody. Clearly these concepts require a great deal of unpacking which will be done in the course of this essay. The key thing is to examine the various explanations as to why people commit crimes, be they biological psychological or sociological, and what sorts of criminal systems such approaches generate.
It is quite imperative to begin this analysis by acknowledging the variety of definitions of crime as used by various criminal justice systems all over the world. The variety of such definitions has been brought about by the modern society whereby some people differ on what is good and what is wrong. In relation to this, some crimes are said to be acceptable in some circumstances by some groups while others, non-criminal, actions are believed unacceptable. What then ringers in our minds is who has the power to define the term crime? However, the term has had a number of definitions. To start with, a crime is said to be an act prescribed by law and is subject to punishment. It can not only be an act, but also an omission which is failure to act where law enforces a duty to act. It is worth noting that in the recent times, crimes are not only being restricted to acts and omissions that can violate that rights of other people, but also those which can either harm the