This raises a very basic question as to what should be the degree of change that we should aim at. Should the law strive for the ideal mode of behaviour or should it conform to what actually obtains in a contemporary society? The question assumes critical importance in a democratic set-up where the will of the majority will be reflected in all the measures and actions of the State. Obviously if a law is too far ahead of or too far behind the times it will be ineffective. It may be too permissive or too restrictive. The answer, to my mind, lies in avoiding these two extremes. While the law must not lose sight of the ideals, the ideals themselves must have practical relevance to contemporary trends of thought and action. After all a law cannot be divorced of its social context. But at the same time we must not overlook the fact that social reform movements are also relative to the legal framework. This is more so because one often finds a continuous process of action and reaction between the criminal law and social reforms. The criminal law can act as a starting point for further social reforms which in turn lead to certain changes in the criminal law and so on.

The criminal law has also to take note of the complexities and the increasingly speedy changes in human behaviour brought about by industrialisation. This process has now been tremendously accelerated by the advances made by man in the field of science and technology. The social relationships and attitudes in an industrial society are much more complicated than in a relatively static agricultural society. The old values and ideals become increasingly less relevant with the passage of time and with successive technological advancements. The jurisdiction of criminal law also transcends the boundaries of law and order' requirements and seeks to cover human behaviour in diverse fields. Consequently there is an increasing possibility of various types of unlawful behaviour by the people, particularly in those areas of activity in which the norms of behaviours were previously not set down by law but by the morals of the contemporary society. This two-fold reason is mainly responsible for the increasing number of crimes. This problem has assumed considerable proportions in the affluent and developed countries of the world. After all affluence is no panacea for crime. Now a criminologist cannot analyse the crime situation adequately by merely stating the total number of crimes. He will have to seek answers to such questions as to what are the new types of crimes arising, what are the relative increases in their rate, are any particular strata of society prone to a particular type of crime and if so why and so on.