The Occult Debate: Issue #3 Definitions of Occult Crime - Necessary or Superfluous Categories? Some law enforcers have recommended the creation of a new criminal category specifically called "occult crime," arguing that such a category Is necessary to measure the actual extent of crime related to the occult. Other law enforcers have adamantly argued against the creation of such a category, claiming that an "occult crime" category would not only be superfluous, but that no precedent exists - nor should there be one - for creating a crime category based upon a specific belief system.

Hypothesis: In order to understand the extent and nature of occult criminal activity throughout the nation, law enforcement agencies should adopt a new criminal category specifically called "occult crime." Advocates argue that such a category will provide a greater understanding about occult crime, and many suggest that the FBI should create a new Uniform Crime Report category entitled "occult crime." Among the definitions suggested by advocates include: "Occult crime involves a crime that is occult-motivated, involved with secret knowledge of an occult group and uses certain rituals to change physical science." Sergeant Richard Valdemar, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (Valdemar interview , May 23, 1989). "Occult crime is in some way motivated by a person's belief either in religion or in theory." Officer Kurt Jackson, Beaumont, California Police Department (Jackson interview, May 16, 1989). "Occult crime is motivated by nontraditional or occult beliefs. It is committed to further an occult belief system." Lt. Larry Jones, Boise, Idaho Police Department and Director of Cult Crime Impact Network. (Jones interview, May 8, 1989.) "Occult crime is any illegal activity in which the trappings of the occult are present." Journalist Larry Kahaner (Kahaner interview, April 11, 1989).

Hypothesis: Creating a new criminal category of "occult crime" is a superfluous and, perhaps, a dangerous precedent as it labels crimes with the name of the perpetrators religion. Proponents argue that other crimes committed for professed religious reasons are not and should not be specifically labeled, nor should occult crime be so labeled. Further, some proponents question the actual existence of occult crime as defined by the very law enforcers who wish to adopt a definition. Among the proponents of this viewpoint are: Kenneth Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent for the FBI argues, "If a crime is committed as part of a spiritual belief system, it should make no difference which belief system it is. The crime is the same whether a child is abused or murdered as part of a Christian, Hare Krishna, Moslem, or any other belief system. We generally don't label crimes with the name of the perpetrators religion. Why then are the crimes of child molesters, rapists, sadists, and murderers who happen to be involved in Satanism and the occult labeled as Satanic or occult crimes? If criminals use a spiritual belief system to justify or to further their criminal behavior, should the focus of law enforcement be on the belief system or the criminal activity?... The author would like to define a Satanic murder as one committed by two or more individuals who rationally plan the crime and whose PRIMARY motivation is to fulfill a prescribed satanic ritual calling for the murder. By this definition, the author has been unable to identify even one documented satanic murder in the United States. Although such murders may have and can occur, they appear to be few in number." (Lanning, 1989:23-24.) Robert Hicks, Criminal Justice Analyst for the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Criminal Justice Services, points out that "One doesn't condemn Christianity because Jim Jones and his group- all Christians - committed mass suicide or because the Pope spurred a murderous crusade in the Middle East some centuries ago. Whether or not people can get criminal ideas from belief systems - whether from Buddhism, Christianity, voodoo, Islam, or anything else - has little to do with the belief system but rather with a person's own psychological makeup. And in this realm the police have no jurisdiction. It is not a law enforcement responsibility to guess at what might prompt a citizen to commit a crime. Police arrest people who commit crimes under the influence of alcohol, but we don't blame the alcohol." (Hicks, 1989:11.)