The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Battery is a criminal offence involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the apprehension, not fear, of such contact.

In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.^[1] It is a specific common law misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."^[2] In most cases, battery is now governed by statute, and its severity is determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.

Generally[link]

Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:

1. an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
2. the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.

Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.

Specific countries[link]

Russia[link]

There is an offence which could be (loosely) described as battery in Russia. Article 116 [1] of the Russian Criminal Code provides that battery or similar violent actions which cause pain are an offence.

United Kingdom[link]

England and Wales[link]

Battery is an offence under the law of England and Wales.

Battery involves unlawfully touching another person (this does not include everyday knocks and jolts to which people silently consent as the result of crowds). No physical injury is necessary. Battery is distinguished from the offence of common assault, where the victim is caused to apprehend the immediate commission of a battery.

The terms "battery" and "beat" are not normally used (if at all) in statutory provisions creating offences of aggravated assault. A former exception to this was section 43 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (aggravated assault or battery on a female or a boy under 14). The term "assault" in such provisions generally includes battery.

There is no offence called "sexual battery", but the offence of sexual assault involves the non-consensual sexual touching of another.^[3]

There is no separate offence relating to incidents of domestic violence, except in the case of death, where the offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult may have been committed (s. 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004).

Under English law, a battery has only been committed if the correct mens rea (fault element) can be proven. In the case of battery, the mens rea of the offence is intention or recklessness (see R v. Venna [1976] QB 421). A person acts intentionally in terms of a result when his purpose is to cause it and he may be held to act intentionally if he foresees that the result is a virtually certain consequence of his action and he nonetheless acts (see R v. Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103; although this decision specifically applies to the law of murder, it is generally accepted that this definition of intent applies throughout the criminal law). A person acts recklessly in terms of a result when he is aware of the risk that the result will occur if he acts and he does so act where no reasonable person would (see R v. Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396).

Whether it is a statutory offence[link]

In DPP v. Taylor, DPP v. Little [1992] 1 QB 645, 95 Cr.App.R. 28, it was held that battery is a statutory offence, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This decision was criticised^[4][5][6] and in Haystead v. DPP 164 JP 396, DC,^[7] the Divisional court expressed the obiter opinion that battery remains a common law offence.

Mode of trial and sentence[link]

In England and Wales, it is a summary offence.^[8] However, where section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies, it can be an additional charge on an indictment. It is usually tried summarily.^[quantify]

However if it is tried, it is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.^[8]

See Crown Prosecution Service Sentencing Manual for case law on sentencing (despite the title of the page, the guidance applies to battery as well as common assault). Relevant cases are:

• R v. Nottingham Crown Court ex parte Director of Public Prosections [1996] 1 Cr.App.R. (S.) 283
• R v. Dunn [2003] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 90

Scotland[link]

There is no distinct offence of battery in Scotland. The offence of assault includes acts that could be described as battery.

United States[link]

At common law, simple battery is a misdemeanor. The prosecutor must prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. an unlawful application of force
2. to the person of another
3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

The common-law elements serve as a basic template; but individual jurisdictions may alter them, and they may vary slightly from state to state.

Under modern statutory schemes, battery is often divided into grades that determine the severity of punishment. For example:

• Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused. Criminal battery requires an intent to inflict an injury on another, as distinguished from a tortious battery.
• Sexual battery may be defined as non-consensual touching of the intimate parts of another. At least in Florida, "Sexual battery means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object": See section 794.011[2].
• Family-violence battery may be limited in its scope between persons within a certain degree of relationship: statutes for this offense have been enacted in response to increasing awareness of the problem of domestic violence.
• Aggravated battery generally is seen as a serious offense of felony grade, involving the loss of the victim's limb or some other type of permanent disfigurement. As successor to the common-law crime of mayhem, this is sometimes subsumed in the definition of aggravated assault. In Florida, Aggravated Battery is the intentional commission of great bodily harm. ^[9] Conversely, if there is no intent in Florida, then it is felony battery which is a third degree felony as opposed to a second degree felony in which aggravated battery is.

Jurisdictional differences[link]

In some jurisdictions, battery has recently been constructed to include directing bodily secretions at another person without his or her permission. Some of those jurisdictions automatically elevate such a battery to the charge of aggravated battery. In some jurisdictions, the charge of criminal battery also requires evidence of a mental state (mens rea). The terminology used to refer to a particular offense can also vary by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions, such as New York, refer to what, under the common law, would be battery as assault, and then use another term for the crime that would have been assault, such as menacing.

Distinction between battery and assault[link]

The overt behavior of an assault might be Person A advancing upon Person B by chasing after him and swinging a fist toward his head. The overt behavior of battery might be A actually striking B.

Battery requires (1) a volitional act that (2) results in a harmful or offensive contact with another person and (3) is committed for the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact or under circumstances that render such contact substantially certain to occur or with a reckless disregard as to whether such contact will result. Assault is an attempted battery or the act of intentionally placing a person in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with his or her person.

In some places, assault is the threat of violence against another while aggravated assault is the threat with the clear and present ability and willingness to carry it out. Likewise, battery is undesired touching of another, while aggravated battery is touching of another with or without a tool or weapon with attempt to harm or restrain.

See also[link]

• Assault or common assault
• Assault (tort)
• Battery (tort)
• Non-fatal offences against the person in English law
• Right of self-defense

References[link]

v t e English criminal law Part of the common law series Classes of crimes Common law Indictable Either way Summary Regulatory Lesser included Elements of crimes Actus reus Causation Mens rea Intention (criminal law) Intention in English law Recklessness Criminal negligence Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability Omissions Concurrence Ignorantia juris non excusat Inchoate offences Encouraging or assisting crime Conspiracy Accessory Attempt Common purpose Defences Self-defence Duress Necessity Marital coercion Consent Insanity Diminished responsibility Intoxication Category:Criminal defences Offences against the person Homicide (Murder / Manslaughter / Corporate manslaughter / Infanticide) Child destruction Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Common assault Battery Kidnapping False imprisonment Harassment Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sexual offences Rape Sexual assault Sexual Offences Act 2003 Public order offences Riot Violent disorder Affray Fear or provocation of violence Intentional harassment, alarm or distress Harassment, alarm or distress Public Order Act 1986 Nuisance Public nuisance Offences against property Dishonesty Burglary Robbery Theft Taken Without Owner's Consent (TWOC) Deception Handling stolen goods Blackmail Computer crime Theft Act 1968 Theft Act 1978 Fraud Act 2006 Criminal damage Conspiracy to defraud Forgery, personation and cheating Forgery Cheating the public revenue Offences against justice Bribery Perjury Perverting the course of justice Other common law areas Contract Tort Property Wills Trusts and estates Evidence See also Criminal procedure History Law of England and Wales portal Criminal justice portal

Look up battery in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Battery may refer to:

• Artillery battery, an organized group of artillery pieces; also gun battery with similar groupings on warships
• Battery (crime), criminal contact with another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm
  • Battery (tort), intentional harmful or offensive contact with a person under civil law
• Battery (electricity), electrochemical cells to produce electricity
  • Automotive battery
  • See List of battery types for links to electrical batteries
  • Battery room, a facility used to house batteries for large-scale backup power systems
  • Battery, 18th and 19th century term for a number of capacitors or Leyden jars connected in parallel
• Battery position, a stage of operation of a firearm action
  • Out-of-battery, the discharge of a weapon before the action has returned to the normal firing position

Places[link]

• The Battery, St. John's, Newfoundland
• Battery Island, Tasmania, Australia
• Battery Park, or its location at the Battery, in Manhattan, New York
  • Battery Park City, a neighborhood north of Battery Park in Manhattan
• Battery Park (Burlington, Vermont)
• The Battery (Charleston), South Carolina
• Battery Point, Tasmania, a suburb of Hobart
• Sultan Battery, in the Wynad District, Kerala State, India

In entertainment[link]

• Marching percussion, also called battery, in a modern drumline
• Battery (band), an American hardcore band
• The Battery (film), a 2007 Japanese film
• Battery (novel series), by Atsuko Asano
• "Battery" (song), a 1986 song by Metallica
• Battery 9, a South African music project
• Drum kit, sometimes called a battery

Other uses[link]

• Battery (baseball), collectively, the pitcher and catcher
• Battery cage, a confinement system for egg-laying chickens
• Battery (chess), a tactic consisting of placing two or more pieces on the same rank, file, or diagonal
• Battery (also stamp battery or stamp mill), a type of mill that crushes material by pounding

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Justice and Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime, 1808 oil-on-canvas by Pierre-Paul Prud'hon

Criminology and penology
Theories
Causes and correlates of crime
Anomie
Biosocial criminology
Differential association theory
Deviance
Labeling theory
Psychopathy
Rational choice theory (criminology)
Social control theory
Social disorganization theory
Social learning theory
Strain theory
Subcultural theory
Symbolic interactionism · Victimology
Types of crimes
Blue-collar crime · Corporate crime
Juvenile crime
Organized crime
Political crime · Public order crime
State crime · State-corporate crime
Victimless crime · White-collar crime
Penology
Deterrence · Prison
Prison reform · Prisoner abuse
Prisoners' rights · Rehabilitation
Recidivism · Retribution
Utilitarianism
Criminal justice portal
See also: Wikibooks:Social Deviance
This box: view talk edit klik

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Crimes may also result in cautions, rehabilitation or be unenforced. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently, in different localities (state, local, international), at different time stages of the so-called "crime", from planning, disclosure, supposedly intended, supposedly prepared, incomplete, complete or future proclaimed after the "crime".^{[citation needed]}

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Modern societies generally regard crimes as offences against the public or the state, as distinguished from torts (wrongs against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action).

Overview[link]

When informal relationships and sanctions prove insufficient to establish and maintain a desired social order, a government or a state may impose more formalized or stricter systems of social control. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel populations to conform to codes and can opt to punish or attempt to reform those who do not conform.

Authorities employ various mechanisms to regulate (encouraging or discouraging) certain behaviors in general. Governing or administering agencies may for example codify rules into laws, police citizens and visitors to ensure that they comply with those laws, and implement other policies and practices that legislators or administrators have prescribed with the aim of discouraging or preventing crime. In addition, authorities provide remedies and sanctions, and collectively these constitute a criminal justice system. Legal sanctions vary widely in their severity, they may include (for example) incarceration of temporary character aimed at reforming the convict. Some jurisdictions have penal codes written to inflict permanent harsh punishments: legal mutilation, capital punishment or life without parole.

Usually a natural person perpetrates a crime, but legal persons may also commit crimes. Conversely, at least under U.S. Law, nonpersons such as animals cannot commit crimes.^[1]

The sociologist Richard Quinney has written about the relationship between society and crime. When Quinney states "crime is a social phenomenon" he envisages both how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on societal norms.^[2]

Etymology[link]

The word crime is derived from the latin root cernō, meaning "I decide, I give judgment". Originally the Latin word crīmen meant "charge" or "cry of distress."^[3] The Ancient Greek word krima (κρίμα), from which the Latin cognate derives, typically referred to an intellectual mistake or an offense against the community, rather than a private or moral wrong.^[4]

In 13th century English crime meant "sinfulness", according to etymonline.com. The glossing was probably brought to England as Old French crimne (12th century form of Modern French crime), from Latin crimen (in the genitive case: criminis). In Latin, crimen could have signified any one of the following: "charge, indictment, accusation; crime, fault, offense".

The word may derive from the Latin cernere - "to decide, to sift" (see crisis, mapped on Kairos and Kronos^{[disambiguation needed ]}). But Ernest Klein (citing Karl Brugmann) rejects this and suggests *cri-men, which originally would have meant "cry of distress". Thomas G. Tucker suggests a root in "cry" words and refers to English plaint, plaintiff, and so on. The meaning "offense punishable by law" dates from the late 14th century. The Latin word is glossed in Old English by facen, also "deceit, fraud, treachery, [cf. fake]. Crime wave first attested in 1893 in American English.

Definition[link]

England and Wales[link]

Whether a given act or omission constitutes a crime does not depend on the nature of that act or omission. It depends on the nature of the legal consequences that may follow it.^[5] An act or omission is a crime if it is capable of being followed by what are called criminal proceedings.^[6]

History

The following definition of "crime" was provided by the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871, and applied^[7] for the purposes of section 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908:

The expression "crime" means, in England and Ireland, any felony or the offence of uttering false or counterfeit coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or the offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences, or the offence of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under the fifty-eighth section of the Larceny Act, 1861.

Scotland[link]

For the purpose of section 243 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a crime means an offence punishable on indictment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is liable under the statute making the offence punishable to be imprisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other punishment.^[8]

Sociology[link]

A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may affect changing definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law-enforcement, and penal responses made by society.

These structural realities remain fluid and often contentious. For example: as cultures change and the political environment shifts, societies may criminalise or decriminalise certain behaviours, which directly affects the statistical crime rates, influence the allocation of resources for the enforcement of laws, and (re-)influence the general public opinion.

Similarly, changes in the collection and/or calculation of data on crime may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to crime statistics, allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which the State should use law or social engineering to enforce or encourage any particular social norm. Behaviour can be controlled and influenced^{[by whom?]} in many ways without having to resort to the criminal justice system.

Indeed, in those cases where no clear consensus exists on a given norm, the drafting of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may seem to some observers an improper limitation of the second group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society have less respect for the law or laws in general — whether the authorities actually enforce the disputed law or not.

Other definitions[link]

Legislatures can pass laws (called mala prohibita) that define crimes against social norms. These laws vary from time to time and from place to place: note variations in gambling laws, for example, and the prohibition or encouragement of duelling in history. Other crimes, called mala in se, count as outlawed in almost all societies, (murder, theft and rape, for example).

English criminal law and the related criminal law of Commonwealth countries can define offences that the courts alone have developed over the years, without any actual legislation: common law offences. The courts used the concept of malum in se to develop various common law offences.^[9]

Criminalization[link]

One can view criminalization as a procedure deployed by society as a pre-emptive, harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to anyone proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm. The State becomes involved because governing entities can become convinced that the costs of not criminalizing (through allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalizing it (restricting individual liberty, for example, to minimize harm to others).

Criminalization may provide future harm-reduction at least to the outside population, assuming those shamed or incarcerated or otherwise restrained for committing crimes start out more prone to criminal behaviour. Likewise, one might assume^{[original research?]} that criminalize acts that in themselves do not harm other people ("victimless crimes") may prevent subsequent harmful acts (assuming that people "prone" to commit these acts may tend to commit harmful actions in general). Some^[who?] see the criminalization of "victimless crimes" as a pretext for imposing personal, religious or moral convictions on otherwise productive citizens or taxpayers.

Some commentators^[who?] may^{[original research?]} see criminalization as a way to make potential criminals pay or suffer for their prospective crimes. In this case, criminalization becomes a way to set the price that one must pay to society for certain actions considered detrimental to society as a whole. An extreme view might see criminalization as State-sanctioned revenge.

States control the process of criminalization because:

• Even if victims recognize their own role as victims, they may not have the resources to investigate and seek legal redress for the injuries suffered: the enforcers formally appointed by the State often have better access to expertise and resources.
• The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while remaining indifferent to a possible desire for deterrence.^[10]
• Fear of retaliation may deter victims or witnesses of crimes from taking any action. Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit from reporting incidents or from co-operating in a trial.
• Victims, on their own, may lack the economies of scale that could allow them to administer a penal system, let alone to collect any fines levied by a court.^[11] Garoupa & Klerman (2002) warn that a rent-seeking government has as its primary motivation to maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient wealth, a rent-seeking government will act more aggressively than a social-welfare-maximizing government in enforcing laws against minor crimes (usually with a fixed penalty such as parking and routine traffic violations), but more laxly in enforcing laws against major crimes.
• As a result of the crime, victims may die or become incapacitated.

Labelling theory[link]

See The "criminal"

The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply the labels of "crime" or "criminal" intend to assert the hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify any punishments prescribed by the State (in the event that standard processing tries and convicts an accused person of a crime).

Natural-law theory[link]

Justifying the State's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws has proven a consistent theoretical problem. One of the earliest justifications involved the theory of natural law. This posits that the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards of morality or constructs them. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). He regarded people as by nature rational beings, concluding that it becomes morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. In the 1760s William Blackstone (1979: 41) described the thesis:

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

But John Austin (1790–1859), an early positivist, applied utilitarianism in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality. He denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. Thus in Austinian terms a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual remains free to choose what to do. Similarly, Hart (1961) saw the law as an aspect of sovereignty, with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end.

Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law simply involved internal logic and consistency, and that the state's agents used state power with responsibility. Ronald Dworkin (2005) rejects Hart's theory and proposes that all individuals should expect the equal respect and concern of those who govern them as a fundamental political right. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of deference (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make.

Indeed, despite everything, the majority^{[citation needed]} of natural-law theorists have accepted the idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary function of the law. This view entails the problem that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible: if conformity with natural law forms a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, count as morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice.^{[clarification needed]}

One can solve this problem by granting some degree of moral relativism and accepting that norms may evolve over time and, therefore, one can criticize the continued enforcement of old laws in the light of the current norms. People may find such law acceptable, but the use of State power to coerce citizens to comply with that law lacks moral justification. More recent conceptions of the theory characterise crime as the violation of individual rights.

Since society considers so many rights as natural (hence the term "right") rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime also counts as natural, in contrast to laws (seen as man-made). Adam Smith illustrates this view, saying that a smuggler would be an excellent citizen, "...had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so."

Natural-law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" (which derives from human nature) and "illegality" (which originates with the interests of those in power). Lawyers sometimes express the two concepts with the phrases malum in se and malum prohibitum respectively. They regard a "crime malum in se" as inherently criminal; whereas a "crime malum prohibitum" (the argument goes) counts as criminal only because the law has decreed it so.

This view leads to a seeming paradox: one can perform an illegal act without committing a crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many Enlightenment thinkers (such as Adam Smith and the American Founding Fathers) subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called classical liberals^{[citation needed]} and libertarians^{[citation needed]}.

History[link]

Some religious communities regard sin as a crime; some may even highlight the crime of sin very early in legendary or mythological accounts of origins — note the tale of Adam and Eve and the theory of original sin. What one group considers a crime may cause or ignite war or conflict. However, the earliest known civilizations had codes of law, containing both civil and penal rules mixed together, though not always in recorded form.

The Sumerians produced the earliest surviving written codes.^[12] Urukagina (reigned c .2380 BC–2360 BC, short chronology) had an early code that has not survived; a later king, Ur-Nammu, left the earliest extant written law-system, the Code of Ur-Nammu (c .2100-2050 BC), which prescribed a formal system of penalties for specific cases in 57 articles. The Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code of Lipit-Ishtar". This code, from the 20th century BCE, contains some fifty articles, and scholars have reconstructed it by comparing several sources.

The Sumerian was deeply conscious of his personal rights and resented any encroachment on them, whether by his King, his superior, or his equal. No wonder that the Sumerians were the first to compile laws and law codes.

— Kramer^[13]

Successive legal codes in Babylon, including the code of Hammurabi (c. 1790 BC), reflected Mesopotamian society's belief that law derived from the will of the gods (see Babylonian law).^[14] Many states at this time functioned as theocracies, with codes of conduct largely religious in origin or reference.

Sir Henry Maine (1861) studied the ancient codes available in his day, and failed to find any criminal law in the "modern" sense of the word. While modern systems distinguish between offences against the "State" or "Community", and offences against the "Individual", the so-called penal law of ancient communities did not deal with "crimes" (Latin: crimina), but with "wrongs" (Latin: delicta). Thus the Hellenic laws^[15] treated all forms of theft, assault, rape, and murder as private wrongs, and left action for enforcement up to the victims or their survivors. The earliest systems seem to have lacked formal courts.

The Romans systematized law and applied their system across the Roman Empire. Again, the initial rules of Roman Law regarded assaults as a matter of private compensation. The most significant Roman Law concept involved dominion.^[16] The pater familias owned all the family and its property (including slaves); the pater enforced matters involving interference with any property. The Commentaries of Gaius (written between 130 and 180 AD) on the Twelve Tables treated furtum (in modern parlance: "theft") as a tort.

Similarly, assault and violent robbery involved trespass as to the pater's property (so, for example, the rape of a slave could become the subject of compensation to the pater as having trespassed on his "property"), and breach of such laws created a vinculum juris (an obligation of law) that only the payment of monetary compensation (modern "damages") could discharge. Similarly, the consolidated Teutonic laws of the Germanic tribes,^[17] included a complex system of monetary compensations for what courts would now^[update] consider the complete^{[citation needed]} range of criminal offences against the person, from murder down.

Even though Rome abandoned its Britannic provinces around 400 AD, the Germanic mercenaries – who had largely become instrumental in enforcing Roman rule in Britannia – acquired ownership of land there and continued to use a mixture of Roman and Teutonic Law, with much written down under the early Anglo-Saxon Kings.^[18] But only when a more centralized English monarchy emerged following the Norman invasion, and when the kings of England attempted to assert power over the land and its peoples, did the modern concept emerge, namely of a crime not only as an offence against the "individual", but also as a wrong against the "State".^[19]

This idea came from common law, and the earliest conception of a criminal act involved events of such major significance that the "State" had to usurp the usual functions of the civil tribunals, and direct a special law or privilegium against the perpetrator. All the earliest English criminal trials involved wholly extraordinary and arbitrary courts without any settled law to apply, whereas the civil (delictual) law operated in a highly developed and consistent manner (except where a King wanted to raise money by selling a new form of writ). The development of the idea that the "State" dispenses justice in a court only emerges in parallel with or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty.

In continental Europe, Roman law persisted, but with a stronger influence from the Christian Church.^[20] Coupled with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller feudal units, various legal traditions emerged, remaining more strongly rooted in Roman jurisprudence, but modified to meet the prevailing political climate.

In Scandinavia the effect of Roman law did not become apparent until the 17th century, and the courts grew out of the things — the assemblies of the people. The people decided the cases (usually with largest freeholders dominating). This system later gradually developed into a system with a royal judge nominating a number of the most esteemed men of the parish as his board, fulfilling the function of "the people" of yore.

From the Hellenic system onwards, the policy rationale for requiring the payment of monetary compensation for wrongs committed has involved the avoidance of feuding between clans and families.^[21] If compensation could mollify families' feelings, this would help to keep the peace. On the other hand, the institution of oaths also played down the threat of feudal warfare. Both in archaic Greece and in medieval Scandinavia, an accused person walked free if he could get a sufficient number of male relatives to swear him unguilty. (Compare the United Nations Security Council, in which the veto power of the permanent members ensures that the organization does not become involved in crises where it could not enforce its decisions.)

These means of restraining private feuds did not always work, and sometimes prevented the fulfillment of justice. But in the earliest times the "state" did not always provide an independent policing force. Thus criminal law grew out what 21st-century lawyers would call torts; and, in real terms, many acts and omissions classified as crimes actually overlap with civil-law concepts.

The development of sociological thought from the 19th century onwards prompted some fresh views on crime and criminality, and fostered the beginnings of criminology as a study of crime in society. Nietzsche noted a link between crime and creativity – in The Birth of Tragedy he asserted: "The best and brightest that man can acquire he must obtain by crime". In the 20th century Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish made a study of criminalization as a coercive method of state control.

Classification and categorisation[link]

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2010)

Categorisation by type[link]

The following classes of offences are used, or have been used, as legal terms of art:

• Offence against the person^[22]
• Violent offence^[23]
• Sexual offence^[23]
• Offence against property^[22]

Researchers and commentators have classified crimes into the following categories, in addition to those above:

• Forgery, personation and cheating^[24]
• Firearms and offensive weapons^[25]
• Offences against the State/Offences against the Crown and Government^[26]/Political offences^[27]
• Harmful or dangerous drugs^[28]
• Offences against religion and public worship^[29]
• Offences against public justice^[30]/Offences against the administration of public justice^[27]
• Public order offence^[31]
• Commerce, financial markets and insolvency^[32]
• Offences against public morals and public policy^[33]
• Motor vehicle offences^[34]
• Conspiracy, incitement and attempt to commit crime^[35]
• Inchoate offence
• Juvenile Delinquency

Categorisation by penalty[link]

One can categorise crimes depending on the related punishment, with sentencing tariffs prescribed in line with the perceived seriousness of the offence. Thus fines and noncustodial sentences may address the crimes seen as least serious, with lengthy imprisonment or (in some jurisdictions) capital punishment reserved for the most serious.

Common law[link]

Under the common law of England, crimes were classified as either treason, felony or misdemeanour, with treason sometimes being included with the felonies. This system was based on the perceived seriousness of the offence. It is still used in the United States but the distinction between felony and misdemeanour is abolished in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Classification by mode of trial[link]

The following classes of offence are based on mode of trial:

• Indictable-only offence
• Indictable offence
• Hybrid offence, aka either-way offence in England and Wales
• Summary offence, aka infraction in the US

Classification by origin[link]

In common law countries, crimes may be categorised into common law offences and statutory offences. In the US, Australia and Canada (in particular), they are divided into federal crimes and under state crimes.

Other classifications[link]

• Arrestable offence

U.S. classification[link]

In the United States since 1930, the FBI has tabulated Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) annually from crime data submitted by law enforcement agencies across the United States.^[36] Officials compile this data at the city, county, and state levels into the Uniform crime reports (UCR). They classify violations of laws based on common law as Part I (index) crimes in UCR data. These are further categorised as violent or property crimes. Part I violent crimes include murder and criminal homicide (voluntary manslaughter), forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery; while Part I property crimes include burglary, arson, larceny/theft, and motor-vehicle theft. All other crimes count come under Part II.

For convenience, such lists usually include infractions although, in the U.S., they may come into the sphere not of the criminal law, but rather of the civil law. Compare tortfeasance.

Booking-arrests require detention for a time-frame ranging 1 to 24 hours.

Causes and correlates of crime[link]

Many different causes and correlates of crime have been proposed with varying degree of empirical support. They include socioeconomic, psychological, biological, and behavioral factors. Controversial topics include media violence research and effects of gun politics.

Crimes in international law[link]

Crimes defined by treaty as crimes against international law include:

• Crimes against peace
• Crimes of apartheid
• Forced disappearance
• Genocide
• Piracy
• Sexual slavery
• Slavery
• Waging a war of aggression
• War crimes

From the point of view of State-centric law, extraordinary procedures (usually international courts) may prosecute such crimes. Note the role of the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Popular opinion in the Western World and Former Soviet Union often^[when?] associates international law with the concept of opposing terrorism^{[citation needed]} — seen as a crime as distinct from warfare.

Religion and crime[link]

Religious sentiment often becomes a contributory factor of crime. 1819 anti-Jewish riots in Frankfurt where rioters attacked Jewish businesses and destroyed property

Different religious traditions may promote distinct norms of behaviour, and these in turn may clash or harmonise with the perceived interests of a state. Socially accepted or imposed religious morality has influenced secular jurisdictions on issues that may otherwise concern only an individual's conscience. Activities sometimes criminalized on religious grounds include (for example) alcohol-consumption (prohibition), abortion and stem-cell research. In various historical and present-day societies, institutionalized religions have established systems of earthly justice that punish crimes against the divine will and against specific devotional, organizational and other rules under specific codes, such as Roman Catholic canon law.

Military jurisdictions and states of emergency[link]

In the military sphere, authorities can prosecute both regular crimes and specific acts (such as mutiny or desertion) under martial-law codes that either supplant or extend civil codes in times of (for example) war.

Many constitutions contain provisions to curtail freedoms and criminalize otherwise tolerated behaviors under a state of emergency in the event of war, natural disaster or civil unrest. Undesired activities at such times may include assembly in the streets, violation of curfew, or possession of firearms.

Employee crime[link]

Two common types of employee crime exist: embezzlement and sabotage.^{[citation needed]}

The complexity and anonymity of computer systems may help criminal employees camouflage their operations. The victims of the most costly scams include banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and other large financial institutions.^[37]

Most people guilty of embezzlement do not have criminal histories.^{[citation needed]} Embezzlers tend to have a gripe against their employer, have financial problems, or simply an inability to resist the temptation of a loophole they have found.^{[citation needed]} Screening and background checks on perspective employees can help in prevention; however, many laws make some types of screening difficult or even illegal. Fired or disgruntled employees sometimes sabotage their company's computer system as a form of "pay back".^[37] This sabotage may take the form of a logic bomb, a computer virus, or creating general havoc.

Some places of employment have developed measures in an attempt to combat and prevent employee crime. Places of employment sometimes implement security measures such as cameras, fingerprint records of employees, and background checks.^{[citation needed]} Although privacy-advocates have questioned such methods, they appear to serve the interests of the organisations using them. Not only do these methods help prevent employee crime, but they protect the company from punishment and/or lawsuits for negligent hiring.^{[38][verification needed]}

See also[link]

• Causes and correlates of crime
• Law and order (politics)

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Aquinas, Thomas. (1988). On Law, Morality and Politics. 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. ISBN 0-87220-663-7
• Attenborough, F. L. (ed. and trans.) (1922). The Laws of the Earliest English Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprint March 2006. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN 1-58477-583-1
• Blackstone, William. (1765–1769). Commentaries on the Law of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1769, Vol. 1. (1979). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-05538-8
• Blythe, James M. (1992). Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03167-3
• Cohen, Stanley (1985). Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification. Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0021-2
• Daube, David. (1969). Roman Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-85224-051-1
• Driver, G. R. & Mills, John C. (1952–1955). The Babylonian Laws. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-825110-6
• Dworkin, Ronald. (2005). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-86711-4
• Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, New York: Random House.
• Gagarin, Michael (1989) [1986] Early Greek Law (Reprint ed.) Berkeley: University of California Press ISBN 0-520-06602-2 
• Garner, Richard. (1987). Law and Society in Classical Athens. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-00856-2
• Garoupa, Nuno & Klerman, Daniel. (2002). "Optimal Law Enforcement with a Rent-Seeking Government". American Law and Economics Review Vol. 4, No. 1. pp116–140.
• Guterman, Simeon L. (1990). The Principle of the Personality of Law in the Germanic Kingdoms of Western Europe from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century. New York: P. Lang. ISBN 0-8204-0731-3
• Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. 2nd revised edition (1997). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-876123-6
• Hart, H.L.A. (1972). Law, Liberty and Morality. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-0154-7
• Kern, Fritz. (1948). Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages. Reprint edition (1985), Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
• Kramer, Samuel Noah. (1971). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago: University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-45238-7
• Maine, Henry Sumner. (1861). Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society, and Its Relation to Modern Ideas. Reprint edition (1986). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-1006-7
• Oppenheim, A. Leo (and Reiner, Erica as editor). (1964). Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised edition (September 15, 1977). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-63187-7
• Pennington, Kenneth. (1993). The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07995-7
• Polinsky, A. Mitchell. (1980). "Private versus Public Enforcement of Fines". The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, (January), pp105–127.
• Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven. (1997). On the Disutility and Discounting of Imprisonment and the Theory of Deterrence, NBER Working Papers 6259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
• Skaist, Aaron Jacob. (1994). The Old Babylonian Loan Contract: Its History and Geography. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press. ISBN 965-226-161-0
• Théry, Julien. (2011). "Atrocitas/enormitas. Esquisse pour une histoire de la catégorie de 'crime énorme' du Moyen Âge à l'époque moderne", Clio@Themis, Revue électronique d'histoire du droit, n. 4
• Tierney, Brian. (1979). Church Law and Constitutional Thought in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Reprints. ISBN 0-86078-036-8
• Tierney, Brian (1988) [1964]. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300: with selected documents (Reprint ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-6701-8. 
• Vinogradoff, Paul. (1909). Roman Law in Medieval Europe. Reprint edition (2004). Kessinger Publishing Co. ISBN 1-4179-4909-0

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Crime

Look up crime in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• www.crime-statistics.co.uk UK Crime Statistics and Comparissons
• Free Criminal Records Search - US Criminal Records and Sex Offender Records
• lacuevadelcrimen.com Crime Link
• Crimestoppers, an independent crime-fighting charity that gathers information about crime in the UK from anonymous informants
• CrimeReports.com - Crime mapping service partnered with over 1500 law enforcement agencies across North America.
• Directgov Crime and justice (Directgov, England and Wales)
• CrimLinks UK based site
• Crime at the Open Directory Project
• Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, an academic research centre focusing on crime and justice issues

Articles Related to Crime v t e Types of crime Note: Crimes vary by jurisdiction. Not all types are listed here. Classes Infraction · Misdemeanor · Felony · Summary · Indictable · Hybrid Against the person Assault · Battery · Cannibalism · Extortion · Harassment · Kidnapping · Identity theft · Manslaughter (corporate) · Murder · Rape · Robbery · Sexual assault Against property Arson · Blackmail · Burglary · Deception · Embezzlement · False pretenses · Fraud · Handling · Larceny · Theft · Vandalism Against public order Drug possession Against the state Tax evasion · Espionage · Treason Against justice Bribery · Misprision of felony · Obstruction · Perjury · Malfeasance in office Inchoate offenses Accessory · Attempt · Conspiracy · Incitement · Solicitation · Common purpose WikiSource · Wikimedia Commons · Wikiquote · Wikinews v t e Criminal procedure (investigation) Criminal investigation Arrest warrant Search warrant Probable cause Knock-and-announce Exigent circumstance Reasonable suspicion Search and seizure Search of persons Arrest Detention Right to silence Miranda warning Suspect Criminal prosecution Statute of limitations Nolle prosequi Bill of attainder Grand jury Ex post facto law Criminal jurisdiction Deferred prosecution agreement Extradition Habeas corpus Bail Inquisitorial system Adversarial system Charges and pleas Alford plea Arraignment Information Indictment Plea Peremptory plea Nolo contendere Plea bargain Presentence Investigation Related areas Criminal defenses Criminal law Evidence Legal abuse Criminal justice portal Law portal Wiktionary Wikibooks Wikiquote WikiSource Wikimedia Commons Wikinews Wikiversity

Lindsay Lohan
Lohan at a New York Fashion Week fashion show, September 2011.
Born	(1986-07-02) July 2, 1986 (age 25) New York City, United States
Occupation	Actress, singer, model
Years active	1989–present
Parents	Michael Lohan Dina Lohan
Relatives	Aliana Lohan (sister)
Website
www.lindsaylohan.com

Lindsay Lohan ( /ˈloʊ.ən/;^[1] born July 2, 1986)^[2] is an American actress, recording artist, and model. She began her career as a child fashion model before making her motion picture debut in Walt Disney's 1998 remake of The Parent Trap at the age of 11. Lohan gained further fame with leading roles in the films Freaky Friday (2003), Mean Girls (2004), and Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005). In 2006 she appeared in independent films including Robert Altman's A Prairie Home Companion and Emilio Estevez's Bobby. In 2004, Lohan launched a second career as a recording artist with her debut album Speak, which was followed by A Little More Personal (Raw) in 2005.

In 2007, her career was interrupted when two driving under the influence (DUI) incidents and three visits to rehabilitation facilities led to the loss of several movie deals. Resuming her career, she guest starred in the TV series Ugly Betty in 2008, and starred in the TV comedy film Labor Pains in 2009. In 2010, she appeared in Robert Rodriguez's film Machete. She has attracted a great deal of publicity, particularly surrounding her personal life.

Life and career[link]

Early life and education[link]

Lohan was born in New York City and grew up in Merrick and Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, New York.^[2][3] She is the eldest child of Donata "Dina" (née Sullivan) and Michael Lohan. Lindsay has three younger siblings, all of whom have been models or actors: Michael Jr. (who appeared with Lindsay in The Parent Trap), Aliana "Ali", and Dakota "Cody", the youngest Lohan child. Lohan is of Irish and Italian heritage and was raised as a Catholic.^[4] Her maternal family were "well known Irish Catholic stalwarts" and her great-grandfather, John L. Sullivan, was a co-founder of the Pro-life Party in Long Island.^[5] Lohan attended Cold Spring Harbor High School, where she did well in science and mathematics,^[6] until grade 11, when she started homeschooling.^[7]

Lohan's parents have a turbulent history. They married in 1985, separated when she was three, and later reunited.^[8][9] They separated again in 2005 and finalized their divorce in 2007.^[10][11] Her father, Michael, is a former Wall Street trader who has been in trouble with the law on several occasions,^[8][12] while her mother, Dina, is a former singer and dancer.^[6]

[edit] 1989–2002: Early career and The Parent Trap

Lohan began her career as a child model with Ford Models at the age of three.^[13][14] She modeled for Calvin Klein Kids and Abercrombie kids, and appeared in over 100 television commercials,^[6] including those for Pizza Hut and Wendy's, as well as a Jell-O spot with Bill Cosby. By the age of 10, when Lohan played Alexandra "Alli" Fowler in the series Another World, Soap Opera Magazine said she was already considered a show-business veteran.^[13][14]

Lohan remained in the role for a year, before leaving to star in Disney's 1998 family comedy The Parent Trap, a remake of the 1961 movie. She played dual roles of estranged twins who try to reunite their long-divorced parents, played by Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richardson.^[4][13] The film earned $92 million worldwide, and critic Kenneth Turan called Lohan "the soul of this film as much as Hayley Mills was of the original", going on to say that "she is more adept than her predecessor at creating two distinct personalities".^[15][16] The film won Lohan a Young Artist Award for best performance in a feature film^[17] as well as a three-film contract with Disney.^[6]

At the age of 14, Lohan played Bette Midler's daughter in the pilot episode of the short-lived series, Bette, but resigned her role when the production moved from New York to Los Angeles.^[4][18] She also starred in two Disney television movies: Life-Size opposite Tyra Banks in 2000, and Get a Clue in 2002.^[13][14]

[edit] 2003–04: Freaky Friday, Mean Girls and Speak

Lohan in 2002

Lohan starred as Anna Coleman alongside Jamie Lee Curtis in the 2003 family comedy Freaky Friday. At Lohan's own initiative, her character was rewritten and changed from a Goth style to be more relatable.^[19] Critic Roger Ebert wrote that Lohan "has that Jodie Foster sort of seriousness and intent focus beneath her teenage persona."^[20] Freaky Friday earned Lohan the award for Breakthrough Performance at the 2004 MTV Movie Awards^[21] and, as of 2010^[update], it remains her most commercially successful film, earning $160 million worldwide^[22] as well as an 88 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.^[23]

Aiming to become a triple threat — actor, singer and dancer, similar to Ann-Margret and Marilyn Monroe — Lohan began showcasing her singing through her acting.^[24] For the Freaky Friday soundtrack, she sang the closing theme, "Ultimate,"^[6] as well as recording four songs for the Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen soundtrack. Producer Emilio Estefan, Jr. signed Lohan to a five-album production deal in 2002.^[6] Two years later, Lohan signed a recording contract with Casablanca Records, headed by Tommy Mottola.^[25]

In 2004, Lohan had two lead roles. The first, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, earned a domestic box office total of $29 million, with Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo commenting that it was "well above expectations as it was strictly for young girls."^[26] The film overall, however, did not meet with critical acclaim.^[27] Robert K. Elder of Metromix wrote that, "though still a promising star, Lohan will have to do a little penance before she's forgiven for Confessions."^[28]

The teen comedy Mean Girls was Lohan's first movie independent of Disney. The film was a critical and commercial success, grossing $129 million worldwide and, according to Brandon Gray, "cementing her status as the new teen movie queen,"^[26][29][30] while Steve Rhodes wrote that "Lohan dazzles us once more. The smartly written script is a perfect match for her intelligent brand of comedy."^[31] Lohan received four awards at the 2004 Teen Choice Awards for Freaky Friday and Mean Girls, including Breakout Movie Star.^[32] Mean Girls also earned her two awards at the 2005 MTV Movie Awards, Best Female Performance and Best On-Screen Team along with several other cast members.^[33]

Lohan, then 17, became the youngest host of the MTV Movie Awards in 2004.^[34] Following Mean Girls, which was scripted by Tina Fey and featured several alumni of Saturday Night Live, Lohan hosted the show three times between 2004 and 2006, as well as hosting the 2006 World Music Awards.^[35]

Speak, Lohan's début album, was released in December 2004, peaking at number four on the Billboard 200^[36] and earning Platinum certification by early 2005.^[6] Lohan cowrote six of the twelve songs on the album. The album was praised by Linda McGee of RTÉ, who awarded it 4 out of 5 stars and commented that "Speak opens with all the raw emotion and teenage angst that you'd expect from an artist of Lohan's age," and that, "while her vocals are not sensational, their gritty edge keeps Lohan more than afloat throughout this album"^[37] as well as comparing the album to the early music of Avril Lavigne.^[37] Allmusic, however, awarded it 2 out of 5 stars and claimed the album "feels more like a byproduct of an overdriven, overamplified celebrity culture than an actual album."^[38] Though primarily a pop album, Speak was introduced with the single "Rumors." Described by Rolling Stone as "a bass-heavy, angry club anthem,"^[39] "Rumors" details Lohan's complaints with the paparazzi^[40] and eventually earned a Gold certification in the United States.^[41]

While shooting Herbie: Fully Loaded in 2004, Lohan was hospitalized with a kidney infection brought on by stress in her personal life and of recording her first album while the film was in production, prompting Vanity Fair to label it Lohan's "first disastrous shoot."^[42] The magazine also described how Lohan terminated the promotional tour and was de-emphasized on the movie poster due to "un-Disney-like behavior."^[42] Lohan began dating actor Wilmer Valderrama in 2004, guest-starring in an episode of That '70s Show, of which Valderrama was a regular.^[43] According to Vanity Fair, the breakup with Valderrama contributed to Lohan's issues during the shooting of Herbie: Fully Loaded.^[42]

With Mean Girls, Lohan's public profile was raised significantly and paparazzi began following her.^[44] She spent several years living out of hotels in Los Angeles, of which two years were spent at Chateau Marmont. In late 2007, after settling down in more permanent residence, she explained that she spent so much time in hotels because she "didn't want to be alone" but that "it wasn't a way of life ... not very consistent."^[45][46][47] Lohan has had a series of car accidents that have been widely reported, with minor crashes in August 2004,^[48] October 2005,^[49] and November 2006, when Lohan suffered minor injuries because a paparazzo who was following her for a photograph hit her car. Police called the crash intentional, but prosecutors said there was not enough evidence to file criminal charges.^[50]

[edit] 2005: Herbie: Fully Loaded and A Little More Personal (Raw)

Herbie, the car that appears with Lohan in Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005)

Lohan returned to Disney in 2005 for Herbie: Fully Loaded, the fifth film in the series with the anthropomorphic car Herbie. Fully Loaded earned $144 million worldwide and received mixed reviews.^[51][52] Stephen Holden of The New York Times called Lohan "a genuine star who ... seems completely at home on the screen",^[53] while James Berardinelli wrote that, "as bright a starlet as she may be, Lohan ends up playing second fiddle to the car."^[54] In 2005, Lohan became the first person to have a My Scene celebrity doll released by Mattel. She also voiced herself in the animated direct-to-DVD film My Scene Goes Hollywood, based on the series of dolls.^[55]

Lohan's second album, A Little More Personal (Raw), was released in December 2005, debuting at number 20 on the Billboard 200 chart, falling under the top 100 within six weeks.^[6] Lohan cowrote six of the twelve songs on the album. Slant Magazine called the album "contrived ... for all the so-called weighty subject matter, there's not much meat on these bones."^[56] The album was certified Gold in early 2006.^[57] The music video for the album's first single, "Confessions of a Broken Heart (Daughter to Father)", was directed by Lohan and featured the acting debut of her sister, Ali Lohan.^[6] The video was a dramatization of the pain Lohan says her family has suffered at the hands of her father.^[58] It was Lohan's first song to chart on the Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number 57.^[59]

Lohan's parents legally separated in December 2005 and finalized their divorce in 2007.^[10][11] Lohan spoke in 2007 about her childhood: "I feel like a second parent in the sense that I helped raise my family...I was put between my mother and father a lot. Well, I would put myself between them to try and keep the peace, and I felt good doing that."^[60] Despite the conflicts, Lohan calls herself "a family girl" and has spoken very fondly of her family, including her father.^[61][62] However, in 2007 and again in 2008 she stated that she was no longer in contact with him, describing his unpredictable behavior as hard to deal with.^[63][64][65] In November 2009, her father released recordings of private phone calls with and about Lohan to the media.^[66] She commented on Twitter: "I haven't had a real relationship w/Michael Sr. in years."^[67]

Lohan's next widely released film, the romantic comedy Just My Luck, opened in May 2006 and, according to Variety, earned Lohan over $7 million.^[68] The opening weekend box office takings of $5.7 million "broke lead actress Lindsay Lohan's winning streak" according to Brandon Gray.^[69] The film received poor reviews and earned Lohan her first Golden Raspberry nomination for worst actress.^[70][71]

2006–07: Independent movies and career interruptions[link]

Lohan in 2006

Following Just My Luck, Lohan focused on smaller roles in more mature, independent movies.^[72] Robert Altman's ensemble comedy A Prairie Home Companion, in which Lohan co-stars with Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin, had a limited release in June 2006. Peter Travers wrote for Rolling Stone that "Lohan rises to the occasion, delivering a rock-the-house version of 'Frankie and Johnny'."^[73] Co-star Streep said of Lohan's acting: "She's in command of the art form" and "completely, visibly living in front of the camera."^[74] The Emilio Estevez drama Bobby was released in theaters in November 2006. Lohan received favorable comments for her performance, particularly a scene opposite Sharon Stone.^[75][76] As part of the Bobby ensemble cast, Lohan was nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award and won an award for Ensemble Acting at the Hollywood Film Festival where she also won a Breakout Award for her work in 2006.^[77][78]

Lohan's next appearance was in Chapter 27 as a John Lennon fan who befriends Mark David Chapman (Jared Leto) on the day he murders Lennon. Filming finished in early 2006, but was not released until March 2008 due to difficulties in finding a distributor.^[79][80][81] In May 2007, the drama Georgia Rule, in which Lohan stars alongside Felicity Huffman and Jane Fonda, was released. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly wrote that "Lohan hits a true note of spiteful princess narcissism."^[82] During filming in 2006, Lohan was hospitalized, her representative saying "she was overheated and dehydrated."^[83] At the time Lohan was going through a breakup with restaurant owner Harry Morton.^[84] This contributed to her problems on the set according to Allure.^[60] In a letter that was made public, studio executive James G. Robinson called Lohan "irresponsible and unprofessional." He mentioned "various late arrivals and absences from the set" and that "we are well aware that your ongoing all night heavy partying is the real reason for your so-called 'exhaustion'."^[85] Co-star Fonda later commented that "when she showed up on the set, she was always great."^[86]