Offenses relating to Public Order

It will explain the offenses related to public tranquility and to maintain law and order in state.

1. Adv. Vijay Jayshwal Kathmandu University School of Law Offenses relating to Public Order Or Offences against Public Tranquility

2. Perspectives Public order crimes are sometimes called “victimless” or “complaintless” crimes. Public order is derived from French designate order publique and it is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Such acts are considered crimes not because there is a discernable offender and victim, but because the larger community, or at least a vocal and powerful segment of it, is offended and therefore victimized by such acts . The legal status of public order crimes varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because there is often no complainant in such offenses. They are detected only as a result of proactive police operations that specifically target them.

3. Crimes against public order are violations that interfere with the normal operations of society. These crimes go against publicly shared values, norms, or customs. A public order crime does not require an identifiable victim. Individuals can be charged with public order crimes if their conduct or acts are considered “harmful to society.” Public order crimes primarily focus on the offensive conduct. Public order crimes are a smorgasbord of offenses, some of which have been variously called vice offenses, consensual offenses, victimless crimes, or even nuisance offenses . Some public order crimes are considered very seriously (the sale of drugs), and some are dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders or a look of disgust (drunken and disorderly behavior ). Public order crimes are better conceived of as consensual mala prohibita acts that always have the potential for causing harm to others besides the person engaging in them

4. According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ formulation of liberty is that “each individual should have the maximum liberty consistent with the equal liberty of all other individuals”. According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Concentrating more on public order than individual rights would decrease the crime rate, fear of crime, and terrorism in the United States. Greater public order lowers crime but limits individual rights; laws concentrating on individual rights tend to create public disorder and high fear of crime. The 'public order' is essentially the absence of disorder in quiet and orderly behaviour of people in public space. It involves people behaving sensibly and rationally, and respecting others.

5. Broken Windows Approach The  broken windows  theory is a criminological theory that states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes It maintains that allowing or ignoring public order offenses can only lead to more serious crimes because it signals that nobody cares for the community. The broken windows model of policing was first described in 1982 in a seminal article by Wilson and Kelling . Briefly, the model focuses on the importance of disorder (e.g., broken windows) in generating and sustaining more serious crime. Disorder is not directly linked to serious crime; instead, disorder leads to increased fear and withdrawal from residents, which then allows more serious crime to move in because of decreased levels of informal social control.

6. Promoting higher levels of informal social control will help residents themselves take control of their neighborhood and prevent serious crime from infiltrating . The police can play a key role in disrupting this process. If they focus in on disorder and less serious crime in neighborhoods that have not yet been overtaken by serious crime, they can help reduce fear and resident withdrawal. “Broken windows” policing, is an approach to law enforcement based on the theory that cracking down on minor crimes helps to prevent major ones.

7. Collective Efficacy concept/Approach In the sociology of crime, the term collective efficacy refers to the ability of members of a community to control the behavior of individuals and groups in the community. Control of people's behavior allows community residents to create a safe and orderly environment . Self-efficacy focuses explicitly on the efficacy expressed by an individual, and is defined as “the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. Bandura noted that “perceived  collective  efficacy will influence what people choose to do as a group, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power when group efforts fail to produce results ”.

8. Developmental Life Course Theory (DLC) According to Laub and Sampson (2001:2) life-course perspective offer the most compelling institutional sources of desistance and dynamic social processes inherent in stopping crime. Developmental and life-course-perspective, designed to influence onset, persistence and desistance. DLC are the development of antisocial and offending behaviour, the risk factors involved at different ages, and the effects on the course of development . There are 10 accepted concepts within DLC :-

9. Prevalence of offending peaks late teens 15-19 Onset begins around 8-14 Early onset in an indicator of a relatively long criminal career and offences There is continuity of antisocial and offending behaviour throughout childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Small population of offenders commit large portion of all crime . Offending more versatile then specialised (wide range of offences ) Acts defined as offences usually part of larger syndrome of antisocial behaviour, binge drinking, promiscuous sexual activity, lack of concern for others, reckless driving. Teen offences more likely to be committed within or perpetrated by a group, compared to adult offences which are largely solo events. Reasons by teen offenders given for offending include (but are not exclusive) are fun/excitement/something to do, emotional and utilitarian, as the offender matures utilitarian motives become the primary motivating factor. Progression of seriousness of offending linked to age, usually follow the route for example of shoplifting, personal theft, burglary, as they mature and learn more specialized skills

10. Unlawful Assembly An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly," if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:- First :-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, Government or Legislature, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second :-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.:-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth :-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth:-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

11. 60. Prohibition of unlawful assembly: ( 1) No person shall be engaged in an unlawful assembly. (2) An assembly of five or more persons with the objective of doing any of the following acts shall be considered to be an unlawful assembly: (a) By means of force or show of force or show of a deadly weapon: ( 1) to prevent any public servant from exercising the lawful functions or duties, ( 2) to take or obtain possession of anyone’s property, ( 3) to deprive any person of the enjoyment of the right of way, use of water, public transport or communication or similar other utilities, ( 4) to compel any person to do what he or she is not legally bound to do or to omit to do what he or she is legally entitled to do . ( b) To hinder, resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process, ( c) To commit any offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment.

12. (3) Any person who, with the knowledge that it is an unlawful assembly, joins the assembly shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees where he or she has joined it without arms, and imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees where he or she has joined it with arms. ( 4) Any person who himself or herself does not join an unlawful assembly but hires or otherwise induces or overawes another to join such assembly shall be liable to the sentence referred to in sub-section (3) as if he or she himself or herself had joined such unlawful assembly

13. 61. Prohibition of breach of order issued to prevent or disperse unlawful assembly : (1) Where a competent authority makes an order to prevent or disperse an unlawful assembly, no person shall participate or continue in such assembly . (2) A person who continues in, participates in, or joins an unlawful assembly under sub-section (1) shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or with both.

14. 62. Every member to be considered to have committed offence: Where any member of an unlawful assembly commits any offence in the achievement of the object of such assembly, every member of such assembly who aids and assists knowingly at the time of the commission of offence shall be considered to have committed the offence.

15. 63. Prohibition of rioting: (1) No person shall commit, or cause to be committed, the offence of rioting. (2) Where an unlawful assembly or a member thereof uses force or destroys, damages or causes loss to any public or private property in the course of achievement of the object of such assembly, every member of such assembly shall be considered to have committed the offence of rioting. ( 3) Every person who commits the offense referred to in sub-section (1) shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees if he or she is armed with a deadly weapon, and to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees if he or she is not armed with a deadly weapon. 74 . Statute of limitation: No complaint on an offence under this Chapter shall lie after the lapse of three months from the date of commission of such offence.

16. Thank you