ABSTRACT
When a student of criminal law is asked to define the subject matter of his field of study, he is immediately put into a position somewhat reminiscent of a First World War infantryman being sent over the top to negotiate his way through a minefield of unexpected procedural, linguistic and philosophic difficulties. The main problem originates from the fact that the concept of crime encompasses two distinct although overlapping ideas: that of behaviour; and that of the official status, or criminal label, which is attached to the behaviour. Because the official status of the same behaviour may well change over time, it is impossible to formulate a definition which would enable us to identify any individual act as a crime or not a crime. When the criminal label is applied to, or removed from, a particular form of behaviour by the legislature or the courts, the nature of the act does not change only its legal status. Any attempt at a definition of crime based on behaviour will include a description of the behaviour both when it is and when it is not afforded the status of a crime. For example, the act of taking one’s own life was a crime until the Suicide Act 1961 made this activity perfectly lawful. The nature and, possibly, the morality of the act of suicide did not change dramatically in 1961, but its legal status did.
