Approach
Crime can be defined as the violation of established laws and engaging in actions that contravene legal standards. Although the term “crime” is commonly used in both legal contexts and everyday life, providing a precise and comprehensive definition is not straightforward. In Sinhala and English, crime is similarly defined. The English term originates from Greek and Latin, while the Sinhala term “Aparadha” is believed to have its roots in Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, a comparable term, “Aparadh,” is explained by grammarians as finding pleasure through wrongful means, engaging in prohibited actions, or committing mistakes. The penal code in Sri Lanka does not offer a complete definition of crime. Every crime reflects societal conditions and represents a significant social issue. Such issues do not arise on their own but are caused by various factors. In the Western world, the discipline of criminology has been developed to analyze criminal behavior, explore the nature and causes of crimes, and devise methods for crime prevention and control.
Identifying Crimes
A universal definition of crime is difficult to establish, but certain attributes are commonly associated with it: a mistake or wrongful act, violation of the law, potential harm to society, and the imposition of a punishment.
According to the Sri Lankan Penal Code, crimes are categorized into two main types: crimes against individuals and crimes against property. Crimes against individuals refer to acts that cause harm to a person, whether a man or a woman, often involving physical injury. Crimes against property include offenses such as theft, looting, cheating, and illegal trespassing. Property is further classified into three categories: intellectual, movable, and immovable assets. Criminologists have identified eight distinct types of criminal behaviour.
- Crimes against person
- Crimes against property
- Crimes against peace
- Crimes against justice
- Sexual crimes
- Political crimes
- Victimless crimes
- White collar crimes
The first two types of crimes have been discussed earlier. Crimes against peace refer to illegal activities that disrupt public order. Examples include unlawful assemblies, possession of weapons, and actions that disturb public tranquility. The punishment for these crimes varies depending on their nature.
Crimes against justice involve offenses such as contempt of court, violations of traffic laws, and the presentation of false evidence. Sexual crimes encompass acts like rape, bigamy, molestation, illegal sexual activities, and prostitution.
Political crimes are committed by governments or political entities to maintain power and authority, including acts such as murder and breaches of laws. Victimless crimes arise either from natural causes or the actions of others. These behaviors, widely prohibited by law, impact public safety. Examples of victimless crimes include drinking, prostitution, and suicide, which can harm individuals directly.
White-collar crimes are offenses committed by individuals in positions of authority, often abusing their power. Examples include disseminating false information and violating workplace rules.
Given the multifaceted nature of crime, it is a complex and extensive subject of study. Legal experts, social scientists, psychologists, and legislators dedicate significant efforts to understanding and addressing this field.
We have explored the concept of crime in Western philosophy, but Buddhism offers a completely different perspective. Rooted in the doctrine of cause and effect, Buddhism teaches that crime arises from specific causes, and by eliminating these causes, the crime itself can be eradicated. A typical individual, influenced by defilements, often commits sinful acts. However, there is ongoing debate among religions, scholars, and philosophical traditions about how to differentiate between good and bad actions. Buddhism categorizes actions as those performed through the mind, body, and speech, providing clear guidance on how to distinguish between virtuous and harmful deeds.
Buddhism is not an extremist tradition that labels every action as a crime at face value. Instead, it seeks to understand the reasons behind an act, focusing on the intention behind it. The Buddha stated, “cetanāhaṅ bhikkave kammaṅ vadāmi,” meaning, “Intention is the act.” Every action performed through the mind, body, or speech, driven by intention, carries consequences, and the individual is solely responsible for both the actions and their outcomes. This highlights that intention is the core factor behind what Buddhism defines as a crime. For an act to qualify as a crime, it must meet three criteria- motive, medium, and purpose and each of which delves into the nuances of intention.
For instance, harming someone is generally considered a sin in Buddhism. But is it a sin if a doctor amputates a limb to save a patient from cancer? In this case, the intention is to save a life, not to harm, so it is not regarded as a sin. Thus, in Buddhism, acts are not hastily judged as crimes based solely on their appearance; the underlying intention must be thoroughly examined.
An act is sinful if it is driven by lobha (greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion) and intentionally causes harm. However, even then, a re-analysis is essential to assess the scale and gravity of the act. That gives a good definition to a crime.
Buddhism views the result of an action as central to determining whether it constitutes a crime. An act is considered a crime if it leads to harmful or dangerous outcomes. Conversely, actions that bring happiness and goodness are not regarded as crimes. Buddhism encourages individuals to avoid actions that result in grief or regret and to prioritize acts that lead to positive outcomes, enabling one to take pride in their consequences. This perspective emphasizes the importance of analyzing the potential results of an action before committing to it. The concept of crime in Buddhism is universal, transcending religious boundaries, and advocates for careful consideration of the repercussions of one’s actions.
The ‘Bāhitika’ Sutta explains that an act can be deemed a crime if it is unwholesome (Akusala) and causes harm to oneself, others, or both. Such actions are disapproved of by the wise. Similarly, any speech that harms oneself, others, or both is also condemned by the wise and regarded as harmful.
In Buddhism, an act may initially appear to be a crime, but upon deeper analysis of the underlying circumstances, it may not be deemed so. Certain conditions are recognized where the individual’s culpability is diminished, such as
Ajānana (ignorance),
Asādiya (non-tolerance),
Ummaththaka (lunacy),
Citta Citta (lunacy due to spirit possession),
Vedanatta (depression caused by pain),
Ādikammika (the first offender in a conflict).
When someone commits an act under these circumstances, it is not considered a crime according to Buddhist teachings.
Unlike modern penal codes, which are designed to punish offenders uniformly, Buddhism emphasizes a compassionate and nuanced approach. It seeks to thoroughly understand the context and motivations behind an act before making a judgment, highlighting the importance of situational analysis over blanket punishment.
Prevention of crimes
Western schools of thought have focused extensively on crime prevention. Southerland outlines four theories that underpin laws designed to prevent crime, with punishment being a central element. In Western philosophy, punishment is regarded as a primary tool for deterring criminal behaviour.
However, while various theories have been proposed over time, each has faced criticism for its limitations. The four main theories of punishment in Western philosophy are,
- Deterrent Theory – Emphasizes discouraging crime by instilling fear of punishment in potential offenders.
- Retributive Theory- Focuses on delivering justice by ensuring that offenders receive a penalty proportionate to the crime committed.
- Preventive Theory- Aims to protect society by incapacitating offenders, thereby preventing them from committing further crimes.
- Reformative Theory – Seeks to rehabilitate offenders, helping them reintegrate into society as law-abiding individuals.
The deterrent theory of punishment advocates that every crime should be penalized according to established norms, aiming to instill fear in both criminals and the public to discourage criminal behaviour. This approach relies on the belief that fear of punishment can effectively control crime. It further argues that the severity of punishment should correspond to the gravity of the offense. However, this theory has limitations, particularly in addressing hardened criminals. Once such individuals are punished and released, they often reoffend, leading to repeated incarcerations without reform.
Historically, punishment has been used as a form of retribution, exemplified by the laws introduced by Hammurabi, a ruler from 1857 BCE. His principle, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” highlights proportional punishment based on the crime’s severity. However, Mahatma Gandhi criticized this approach, warning that a philosophy of “an eye for an eye” could make the entire world blind.
The preventive theory focuses on preemptive measures to stop crimes before they occur. It advocates for punishments that not only address current crimes but also deter future ones. This perspective seeks to protect society by incapacitating offenders while viewing punishment as a means of character cleansing. Criminals are regarded as individuals suffering from mental or social illnesses, and their rehabilitation is emphasized through prisons or specialized rehabilitation camps designed to reform their behaviour.
Finally, the reformative theory emphasizes treating offenders humanely, recognizing them as individuals capable of change. Rehabilitation efforts aim to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and reintegrate offenders into society.
Despite the diversity of these theories, all have faced criticism. Many argue that these approaches often fail to rectify offenders and, in some cases, may inadvertently reinforce criminal tendencies, making individuals more dangerous rather than reforming them.
Buddhism offers insights into crime and punishment that align with certain aspects of modern criminology. According to the Buddha, crime occurs when the Dhamma (moral law) is broken. Conversely, when the Dhamma is respected, followed, and nurtured, crime is prevented, creating a harmonious society. Thus, rulers are tasked with upholding and promoting the Dhamma to ensure societal well-being. The concept of Kamma (intentional action) is deeply intertwined with the understanding of crime in Buddhism. The Buddha stated that intention forms the essence of action (Kamma), emphasizing that the mental state and motives behind an act determine its moral weight. Similarly, in modern legal systems, intention plays a critical role in evaluating crimes and determining accountability.
Intentional crimes are particularly significant in Buddhism, as they can result in severe consequences not only for the victim but also for the perpetrator. For example, the Buddha himself suffered bodily pain due to intentional harm inflicted upon other in his previous lives, and the Arhant Moggallana Thero, a prominent disciple, was brutally murdered by thieves as a result of that sin he committed in previous lives. Such acts illustrate the impact of negative intentions.
Among the gravest offenses in Buddhism are the Anantariya Papa Kamma (heinous acts with immediate karmic consequences). These are considered the most severe crimes with far-reaching repercussions. However, the Buddha also taught that even those who commit such grave acts are not beyond redemption. Through sincere repentance, enduring the consequences of their actions, and dedicated practice, they can still attain Nibbana, the ultimate liberation.
This doctrine underscores Buddhism’s emphasis on transformation and redemption, offering a path for even the gravest offenders to purify their minds and transcend the cycle of suffering.
Buddhism uses several terms to describe societal crimes, such as
pāpa (sinful deeds),
akūsala (unwholesome actions),
miccā (incorrect action)
sāvajja (wrongful conduct),
anāriya (ignoble behavior),
kanha (dark actions), and
viŋŋu garahita (actions condemned by the wise).
These terms reflect a nuanced understanding of actions that harm oneself and others.
The reasons behind criminal behaviour are attributed to the three root defilements known lobha (greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion). Buddhism emphasizes that these unwholesome roots can be eradicated through specific practices, particularly meditation, which helps cultivate their opposites known as aloba (generosity), adosa (compassion), and amoha (non-delusion). By nurturing these wholesome qualities, an individual can transform into a virtuous person and avoid engaging in criminal acts.
Buddhism also describes the mental stages that lead to crimes such as,
- Anusaya– The latent or dormant tendencies toward crime.
- Pariuttāna– The awakening or active state of criminal intentions.
- Vitikkama– The actual commission of the crime.
The Buddhist path offers tools to address each stage,
- Vipassanā (Insight) Meditation- Helps suppress and eliminate latent tendencies (Anusaya).
- Samatha (Calmness) Meditation- Prevents the arousal of unwholesome thoughts (Pariuttāna).
- Sīla (Moral Discipline)- Helps prevent the commission of harmful acts (Vitikkama).
Buddhism also recognizes that economic hardship can drive individuals to commit crimes. While punitive measures may address the symptoms, they do not resolve the root causes of such crimes. The Kutadanta Sutta provides a powerful lesson on this issue. In the Sutta, a Brahmin advisor counsels a king who plans an extravagant public sacrificial ceremony but neglects to address his kingdom’s economic problems. The Brahmin advises the king to focus on improving the economy and addressing the people’s needs rather than pursuing ostentatious displays of power. This teaching remains relevant for contemporary leaders, highlighting the importance of prioritizing systemic issues over superficial solutions.
The Brahmin advisor in the Kutadanta Sutta provided wise counsel to the king, emphasizing that punishing thieves and imposing taxes on an already struggling population would not solve the underlying issues. He stated, “Dear king, this country is full of thieves. There are pillages. If you levy taxes on the public who are plagued by thieves, it cannot be accepted. By means of various punishments, thievery cannot be fully eradicated.” Instead, he urged the king to prioritize improving the country’s economy. While economic upliftment alone cannot eliminate all crime, its importance in addressing societal issues cannot be overlooked.
Buddhist Vinaya (monastic code) provides examples of humane and socially mindful punishments, which, though originally intended for monks, can offer insights for broader societal applications. These include,
- Preaching Avath- Advising or counseling the offender.
- Separation from the community- Temporarily isolating the individual from their group.
- Seeking forgiveness- Encouraging the offender to apologize, even to laypeople.
- Observation- Monitoring the individual for a period to ensure reform.
- Deprivation of rights or assets- Imposing restrictions as a corrective measure.
- Ostracization- Relocating the offender to a different place or separating them from their community.
- House arrest- Restricting movement to specific premises.
For monks who have attained higher ordination, the Vinaya prescribes the Parajika punishment for the most serious offenses. If found guilty in a Sanghādikarana (a formal Sangha judicial council) with clear evidence, the monk is disrobed and expelled from the Sangha. This form of ostracism renders the monk “defeated” and no longer part of the monastic community. Such a punishment is humanistic, as it does not strip the individual of their spiritual path. The disrobed monk can continue practicing Buddhism as a layperson or novice, and, through sincere repentance and adherence to the Dhamma, may even achieve higher spiritual states.
This approach reflects Buddhism’s emphasis on compassion and rehabilitation, prioritizing moral correction over retribution while allowing individuals the opportunity to transform and redeem themselves.
In the ‘Adhikarana Bedha’ section of the Cullavagga Pali, the Buddha outlined four judicial methods to address disputes within the Sangha,
- Vivādādhikaraṇa– Resolving debates and arguments.
- Anuvādādhikaraṇa– Addressing allegations and accusations.
- Āpattādhikaraṇa– Handling offenses such as Pārājika, Saṅghādisesa, Pācittiya, Pāṭidesanīya, and
- Kicchādhikaraṇa– Jurisdiction related to disciplinary actions within the Vinaya framework.
The Samathakkhandha of the Cullavagga Pali introduces seven methods of jurisdiction in Buddhism, emphasizing fairness and rehabilitation. They are,
- Sammukhā Vinaya– Ensuring both parties are present during the hearing of a dispute.
- Sati Vinaya -Addressing unfounded rumours about an Arhant to clarify misunderstandings.
- Amūlha Vinaya– Hearing cases involving individuals who were psychologically unstable when committing the act, once they regain clarity of mind.
- Paṭiññāṭakaraṇa Vinaya– Granting freedom if the offender admits their fault and the offense is minor.
- Yebhuyyasika Vinaya– Reaching a verdict by majority consensus within the Sangha.
- Tassapāpiyasika– Directly addressing the sinner to resolve the matter.
- Tinavatthāraka Vinaya– Allowing the offender to cleanse themselves publicly before the Sangha after receiving counsel (Avath).
These methods prioritize rehabilitation and humanistic values, aiming to correct offenders rather than subject them to punitive suffering. Restitution through these means often leads to meaningful transformation, making repeat offenses unlikely. The Kesi Sutta provides further insight into the Buddha’s approach to correction, presenting four methods to reform individuals such as,
- Sammā– Disciplining through soft means by teaching the benefits of wholesome actions and their positive repercussions.
- Parusa– Disciplining through stern measures by emphasizing the dire consequences of sins and crimes, including the suffering in the four hells.
- Samma-Parusa: Combining both soft and harsh methods for a balanced approach.
- Hanana: Abandoning the individual entirely, equivalent to giving up hope of their reform.
An example of Hanana is the case of Channa Bhikkhu, a close associate of the Buddha during his lay life. Due to his persistent unwholesome behaviour, he was subjected to the Brahma Danda (the ultimate penalty of complete isolation from the Sangha). In this context, Hanana is not physical execution but the social and spiritual equivalent of being “cut off” from the monastic community. This punishment remains humanistic, as it aims to correct through isolation and reflection rather than physical harm.
The Buddha’s judicial principles, as presented in these texts, are deeply rooted in compassion, focusing on rehabilitation and moral growth. Even the most severe measures seek to provide an opportunity for introspection and eventual redemption, reflecting a profound understanding of human nature and justice.
© Satipatthana Magazine