Criminologists seek to understand the commission of crime in a given society, attempting to figure out why certain crimes occur, and then to study how these can be prevented, and deterred by individuals. The two key approaches I will examine in this assignment is that of the early ‘Classicalist’ approach, and the opposing ‘Positivist’ approach, each of which are crucial for understanding modern criminology today.
In the late eighteenth century Britain went through an Enlightenment period, which is also referred to as ‘The Age of Reason’ (Paine, 1794) and this is because reason was emphasised over religion, secularisation transformed society, new ways of thinking were introduced which influenced the ‘Classicalism’ theory. This approach was first developed by the Italian scholar Cesare Beccaria, who argued that it is very natural for humans to engage in deviant and criminal thoughts, and it is then an individuals choice whether they want to pursue these deviant thoughts, as “man [is] a rational calculating animal” (Bentham, 1749) when it comes to crime.
For instance if the potential gains and pleasure from illegal acts outweigh the potential pains of punishment the crime will be committed. It is through rational thoughts and free-will whether an individual chooses to fulfil illegal activities. Beccaria had a simple conclusion, which was to make the crime harder to commit, and this had several elements to it. Firstly, crime can be controlled by the fear of punishment, thus crime that is perceived to be severe and certain will deter criminal behaviour (Siegal, 2010) therefore crimes should be harder to commit and the punishment should fit the crime.
The Essay on The Cause Of Crime Lies Within The Individual
It can be argued that the genetic differences in ethnic minorities can lead to an individual becoming more likely to offend. This is evident in the work of Lombroso; he found that the majority of criminals had similar characteristics, for example, they had large jaws and were big boned. This therefore supports the view that the cause of crime lies within the individual as their big build made it ...
Another key thinker of this theory was Jeremy Bentham, also believed in this idea of utilitarianism he sought to reform the prisons in England. He was very critical of the criminal justice system of the eighteenth century England, as the death penalty was the punishment for hundreds of crimes. For instance, minor crimes such as stealing were punishable by death, as well as committing an act of murder itself. Bentham then invented his idea of the perfect prison, the panopticon. This was a model prison where all prisoners where observed at all times by unseen guards.
The Classicalist approach involves the punishments being ‘just’ and reasonable, however still being able to deter individuals. This approach has been criticised by numerous theorists for many reasons. To begin with, despite this continuing change of the punishments towards offenders, from the earliest codes of public executions, towards a more subtle reformation and rehabilitation scheme, the ‘Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974’ mirrors this idea, murder rates have not significantly changed.
Also this theory emphasises much on rational thinking and freewill, however it is debated that we do not always behave in our best interest, there are times when individuals are intoxicated by alcohol so are not as conscious of their activities. Moreover, there are crimes which entails the offender gaining no rewards, and also victimless crimes illustrate that not all crimes and punishments are ‘just’. Theorists then sought to figure out another alternative way for understanding the commission of crime, as many began to doubt this theory that crime was a simple characteristic of the human nature.
In the nineteenth century the Positivist approach was introduced, which brought a whole new way of thinking about criminals and certain crimes that they committed. This approach is often simplified to be ‘the science of religion’ because it tackles the natural science approach when undertaking its methodology. The founder of this theory was Ceseare Lombroso, who claimed he had discovered the causes of crime. He concluded that the criminal man was physically different to normal people arguing that they had physical stigmata, abnormal attributes to their skull and jaw.
The Term Paper on Marginal Deterrence Crime Criminal Punishment
The 2002 crime figures for England and Wales comprised of two separate reports, brought together for the first time: (i) Crime statistics recorded by constabularies and (ii) The British Crime Survey (BCS), based on 33, 000 interviews. The BCS is regarded as a more reliable measure of actual levels of crime because it includes experiences of crime that go unreported. The British crime survey of ...
Lombroso opposed the earlier classicalist thinking, as he believed that criminals were born different, crime was inevitable for them as they had specific traits in their biology, it was not out of free-will and and rational thinking why criminals commit crimes as the Classicalist approach would suggest. After 3000 anthropometric measurements he found some biological traits of criminals, and then argued that criminals could be visibly distinguished by their physical characteristics which included: high cheek bones, flattened or turned up nose and a low sloping forehead (Lombroso, 1876).
After the intense research of his, he was able to identify distinct types of criminals – the born criminals who are biologically different from the law abider’s because they have not evolved properly, then there are the epileptics and insane criminals who are also abnormal humans however not born so, then lastly followed by the ‘criminaloids’ who were occasional criminals, and also not born so. Ceseare Lombroso has said to be the founding father of modern criminology because of his unique ways of thinking about the commission of crime; today his work is still credited by many due to his specific reasoning.
However the Positivist approach and theory if Lombroso has also been heavily criticised because of its simplistic views and very problematic categories. This approach is very deterministic, because it implies that all behaviour is predetermined, criminal identities are ascribed to individuals before they are even born, as Lomobroso argues that a criminal gene is inherited. The current understanding of individuals show that there are more important social factors that determine whether or not someone may choose to commit crime.
It has been proven that some people do have an extra male chromosome, resulting in them being prone to aggression and more incline to criminal behaviour; this is known as the XYY syndrome. (Farrell) However, it is not every individual that has this extra Y chromosome that commits crimes, and Lombroso fails to recognise this. To summarise the two approaches I have discussed do have a great understanding of the commission of crime, however each are flawed. The two have made great individual logic and biological pathways, and have helped to shape society today.
The Essay on Environmental Fact Criminal Crime Behavior
The causes of a criminal Mind Nature versus Nurture In today's society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general ...
