The knife was raised for the first time, and it went down plunging into naked flesh; a spring of blood flowed cascading and covering all in red.  The motion was repeated several times.  Abel fell to his death and according to scriptures this was the first crime.  Cain who wielded the knife roamed the earth until his demise.  The fratricide that was committed was the first recorded murder and the very first crime.  A colleague tried to be smart and pointed that the first crime is Eve’s violation in the garden with the apple, but I did point out that according to Helena Kennedy QC, she was framed!  In the least Eve’s was a case of entrapment which is criminological but leaves the first crime vacant.  So, murder it is!  A crime of violence that separates aggressor and victim. 

The response to this crime is retribution.  In the scriptures a condemnation to insanity.  In later years this crime formed the basis of the Mosaic Law inclusive of the 10 commandments and death as the indicative punishment.  In the Ancien Régime the punishment became a spectacle on deterrence whilst the crowds denounced the evildoer as they were wheeled into the square! In modern times this criminality incorporated rehabilitation to offer the opportunity for the criminal to repent and make amends. 

‘The first man who having enclosed a piece of ground bethought himself of saying “This is mine”’!  This is an alternative interpretation of the first crime, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762/1993: 192).  In The Social Contract he identifies the first crime very differently from the scriptures.  In this case the crime is not directed at a person but the wider community.  The usurping of land or good in any manner that violates the rights of others is crime because it places individualism ahead of the common good.  As in this crime there is no violence against the person, the way in which we respond to it is different.  Imperialism as a historical mechanism accepts the infringement of property, rights, and human rights as a necessity in human interactions.  The law here is primarily protected for the one who claims the land rather than those who have been left homeless.  In this case, crime is associated with all those mechanisms that protect privilege and property.  Soon after titles of land emerged and thereafter titles of people owning other people follow.  The land becomes an empire, and the empire allows a man and his regime to set the laws to protect him and his interests.  Traditionally empires change from territories of land to centres of government and control of people.  The land of the English, the land of the Finnish, the land of the Zulu.  In this instance the King become a figure and custom law subverts natural law to accommodate authority and power.

These two “original” crimes represent the diversity in which criminology can be seen; one end is the interpersonal psychological rendition of criminality based on the brutality of violence whilst on the other end is an exploration of wider structural issues and the institutional violence they incorporate.  The spectrum of variety criminology offers is a curse and a blessing in one.  From one end, it makes the discipline difficult to specify, but it also allows colleagues to explore so many different issues.  Regardless of the type of crime category for any person attracted to the discipline there is a criminology for all. 

Between these two polar apart approaches, it is interesting to note their interaction.  In that it can be seen the interaction of the social and historical priorities of crime given at any given time.  This historical positivism of identifying milestones of progression is an important source of understanding the evolution of social progression and movements.  Let’s face it, crime is a social construct and as such regardless of the perspective is indicative of the way society prioritises perceptions of deviance.  

Arguably the crimes described previously denote different schools of thought and of course the many different perspectives of criminology.  A perfectly contorted discipline that not only adapts following the evolution of crime but also theorises criminality in our society.  When you are asked to describe criminology, numerous associations come to mind, “the study of crime and criminality” the “discipline of criminal behaviours” “the social construction of crime” “the historical and philosophical understanding of crime in society across time” “the representation of criminals, victims, and agents in society”.  These are just a few ways to explain criminology.  In this entry we explore the origins of two perspectives; theology and sociology; image that the discipline is influenced by many other perspectives; so consider their “origin” story. How different the first crime can be from say a psychological or a biological perspective. The origins of criminology is an ongoing tale of fascinating specialisms.  

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, (1762/1993), The Social Contract and Discourses, tr. from the French by G.D.H. Cole, (London: Everyman’s Library)