Beyond Punishment: Re-framing Justice by Focusing on the Crime, Not the Criminal
Legal systems around the world have traditionally been structured around the concept of the criminal: identifying wrongdoers, punishing them, and attempting to restore order. However, this focus on the criminal—on who committed the crime, why they did it, and how they should be punished—often misses a critical point: the crime itself. If legal thinking were to shift away from a narrow focus on the criminal and victim and toward a broader condemnation of the crime, it could open up more holistic solutions. This paradigm shift not only allows for a deeper understanding of the root causes of crime but also empowers victims, prevents future harm, and facilitates long-term healing.
The Crime vs. Criminal Dichotomy: A Flawed Legal Focus
Traditional legal systems tend to focus on a binary of criminal vs. victim. The criminal justice system asks: Who is the perpetrator? What are their motivations? What punishment fits their crime? Meanwhile, the victim is often seen as a passive entity, a person who suffers but whose experience is primarily framed by the action of the criminal. This approach is not without its merits, especially in terms of deterrence and individual accountability. However, it overlooks an important dimension: the nature of the crime itself and the impact it has on society as a whole.
When the legal system focuses solely on the criminal, it often neglects important aspects like the societal conditions that give rise to crime, victim support, and preventive actions. Crimes are treated as isolated incidents, with little analysis of the larger systemic issues or cultural factors that make such acts possible. This results in a justice system that is reactive—punishing the criminal—rather than proactive, working to prevent crimes and heal society by addressing the root causes.
The Impact of National Interests on Legal Justice
The limitations of focusing solely on criminals can be amplified when national interests come into play. States sometimes override legal and ethical frameworks for reasons related to national security, economic gain, or geopolitical strategy. In such cases, crimes—particularly those involving human rights violations or environmental destruction—are either ignored, downplayed, or justified in the name of a "greater good." This creates a legal and moral blind spot, where the criminal is either absolved of responsibility or the crime itself is never fully condemned.
A system that focuses only on the criminal without condemning the crime leaves significant gaps in accountability. For instance, in the case of war crimes or state-sponsored violence, a nation might focus on prosecuting a few individuals responsible for such actions while ignoring the broader criminality of the state's behavior. This narrow focus allows the crime to persist in the form of unchecked governmental or institutional abuse, limiting society's ability to heal.
Re-framing Legal Intelligence: Focusing on the Crime, Not Just the Criminal
To build a more just and effective legal system, the focus needs to shift from individual perpetrators and victims to the crime itself. This re-framing of justice has profound implications. Instead of merely punishing the individual criminal, the system would condemn the harmful act itself—recognizing it as inherently wrong, irrespective of who committed it. This shift in focus allows for a broader understanding of justice that considers the impact of crime on society as a whole.
In this perspective, the focus on crime opens up avenues for addressing the root causes. Rather than merely asking "who committed this crime?" the system would also ask: What led to this crime? What societal, economic, or cultural factors made this act possible? How can we prevent it from happening again? This approach encourages a system that is less punitive and more restorative, focusing on healing and prevention rather than retribution.
Furthermore, it allows for a more fluid understanding of the relationship between victims and perpetrators. In a world where crimes can arise from complex social dynamics—where poverty, injustice, inequality, or trauma play a role—individuals may find themselves shifting between the roles of victim and perpetrator over time. By condemning the crime itself rather than focusing on individuals, the legal system acknowledges this complexity and opens up the possibility for greater empathy, healing, and prevention.
Empowering Victims: From Passive Sufferers to Active Analysts
A particularly powerful result of this shift is the way it empowers victims. In many current legal systems, victims are treated as passive entities who simply bear the brunt of criminal actions. Their role is defined by the harm they experience at the hands of criminals. However, if the legal system begins to focus on the crime itself, victims are no longer solely defined by their suffering. They become active participants in a larger societal conversation about justice, societal values, and what is acceptable behavior.
The legal system would allow victims to reflect on their experiences not simply as individuals "victimized" by a criminal act, but as part of a larger cultural, political, or social context. This perspective allows them to see their trauma not as an isolated event, but as something that can be understood, analyzed, and even transformed. In the case of crimes that are not just individual actions—such as state-sponsored violence, corporate malfeasance, or environmental destruction—victims could begin to see themselves not as helpless bystanders but as part of a collective experience that demands accountability.
This shift also challenges the criminal, de-centering them in the narrative and redirecting focus on the act itself. When crimes are seen for what they are—wrongful, damaging acts—victims are empowered to take ownership of their narrative. They are no longer defined by the criminal, but by their own resilience, agency, and the societal responsibility to prevent further harm.
The Healing Process: Addressing Crimes of Collective Harm
The shift from focusing on the criminal to focusing on the crime itself becomes even more significant in cases of collective harm—such as genocide, systemic oppression, or state crimes. For example, consider a nation that has experienced genocide. For the nation to heal, it is not enough to prosecute a few perpetrators. The crime itself—genocide—must be publicly condemned in its entirety. Until the society acknowledges that genocide is inherently wrong and works to address the systems that made it possible, true healing cannot occur.
This is where the current legal framework often falls short. In many cases, nations that have been victimized by crimes such as genocide can become trapped in a cycle of abuse, where those who once suffered may, over time, become perpetrators themselves. This can occur because the societal focus remains on the criminals as individuals rather than addressing the broader, systemic nature of the crime. When a nation fails to fully condemn the crime, it risks perpetuating cycles of trauma and violence. Those who were once victims can lose their “advantage” as innocent bystanders and begin to replicate the harm they once suffered.
Thus, when a nation or a collective group of people becomes entangled in this cycle, it becomes harder to distinguish between victims and perpetrators. This complicates the healing process, as it requires society to confront not only individual actions but also deep-rooted cultural and political issues that perpetuate violence and harm. By focusing on condemning the crime as a societal wrongdoing, rather than personalizing the crime by focusing on the perpetrators, the cycle of violence can be broken, allowing for collective healing and societal transformation.
Religious and Philosophical Perspectives on Crime and Morality
Interestingly, some philosophical and religious traditions have already embraced the idea of condemning the crime itself, offering moral frameworks that prioritize societal harmony and collective well-being. Christianity, for example, provides moral guidance through the Ten Commandments, not by focusing on punishment, but by providing a clear condemnation of specific harmful acts—such as stealing, lying, or killing. The emphasis is on recognizing the inherent wrongness of the act, which creates space for a more collective, restorative approach to justice.
Similarly, many legal philosophies suggest that law should be about addressing the moral weight of actions and their societal implications, rather than focusing solely on the identity of the perpetrator. A system that condemns crimes rather than merely punishing individuals would likely encourage a deeper reflection on societal norms and values, fostering both individual accountability and collective healing.
Conclusion: A New Vision for Legal Systems
The shift from focusing on the criminal to condemning the crime itself is not merely a philosophical ideal but a practical necessity for creating a more just and compassionate legal system. By broadening our focus from individual punishment to societal healing, we can create a system that is not only more effective at preventing crime but also more empowering for victims. Whether on an individual or collective level, this approach allows for a deeper understanding of justice—one that not only seeks to punish but also to heal, empower, and prevent future harm. By doing so, we open the door to a more restorative form of justice, where the crime itself is condemned, and all people—victims and perpetrators alike—are invited to reflect on the broader societal issues that shape human behavior.