A Criminologist’s Diary-28

Judicial Criminology and Crimes

Bureaucratic crimes have been in existence ever since bureaucracy came into being- but were identified as a special category of crimes only recently. When Edwin Sutherland, an American criminologist defined white collar crimes as a special category of crimes committed by people of high socio-economic status during the course of their profession or occupation, I do not think that he aimed at bureaucratic crimes. Of course, Sutherland's description of white collar crimes has an economic motive at their base; but, I do not notice such economic motives alone for bureaucratic crimes. Bureaucratic crimes, according to me, are the crimes committed by bureaucrats during the course of their job as such bureaucrats. Of course, they need not be traditional crimes as defined by criminologists. White collar criminals do not commit traditional crimes or if at all they commit such crimes, they are then treated as such- i.e., as people who commit traditional crimes.

When I wrote the book POLICE CRIMINOLOGY and CRIMES, I concentrated very much to enumerate the crimes committed by police during the course of their job as such police officials. i.e., under the color of their uniform and under the cover of their authority-and they numbered hundreds. Criminalization of police is one thing and police crimes are quite another thing. I also wrote another book titled INDIAN POLICE and NEXUS CRIMES. Then I never thought that I might have to think about judicial criminology and crimes. They are new areas of research and study. Once, I remember to have read that the color of the skin was a powerful force influencing judicial decisions among the whites in the west. Many lawyers have told me, time and again, that religion, caste, sub castes etc. too are powerful forces influencing decisions in judiciary. Certainly, it is a serious matter of research and study, if they work as powerful forces behind judicial decisions.

Judiciary to me means the BENCH and the BAR. I have written books on LESS JUSTICE, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, WOUNDED JUSTICE, INJUSTICE etc. There is an oft quoted saying: 'One who is close to the church is far away from God' and I am inclined think that the saying is, mutandis mutandis, applicable to judiciary as well. Some lawyers may do anything to win their case, because they think that it is their business, time and money. Some judges may not write everything disposed in their courts. They write only those things which they think 'necessary' and they apply the principle (?) that 'the law is what the judge says'. One may find that it is not always just and fair to think that what the judge writes must be just and fair in every case disposed of by him. Convicted cases are acquitted and acquitted cases are convicted and all is done on the same facts in issue, but interpreted and viewed or appreciated differently by different judges.

Recently, allegations against higher, highest and subordinate judiciary-against senior and junior lawyers- are heard in plenty in India and one notices that there is some truth in many allegations. Perhaps, the crimes committed by the BAR and the BENCH during the course of their job are more than the crimes on which they write judgments. A time has now come to develop a branch called JUDICIAL CRIMES and CRIMINOLOGY and more blogs on this area will appear in the days to come.