The Modernism of Criminology - Essay Example

CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY & MODERNITY of the of the Crime, Criminology and Modernity Taking a genesis from Gladstone Committee Report (1895) to the 1970s, this essay will discuss the relationship between criminology modernism and science. How commitment to science led to a strategy for dealing with crime addressing rehabilitation and welfare strategies will be elaborated. In addition, the challenge that science impacted on classicist strategy of applying penalties to assured offenders will also be reviewed. Criminology is defined by Garland and Sparks (2000:6) as an organized way talking and thinking about criminals, crime, and how to control crime. This means that it is embedded in social science and disclosures, the government as pertains to criminal justice and crime control, and in the culture as pertains to popular belief pertaining justice among the people. Criminology modernism was defined by Garland (1996: 1; 2000: 1) as ways of reasoning and conceptual framework problems that came about with the exit of the nineteenth century. The author describes that this modernism in criminology resulted from criminal anthropology, medical psychology, and social reforms coupled with statistical inquires. He continues to elaborate that the following 70 years were governed by the prison authority abstract framework consulted by the penal- welfare organizations. The modernism of criminology as a result of science changed the strategy for dealing with crime as it was viewed as being benevolently modernist. This is since its faith was rooted on mental reason; it envisioned a technocratic state and was committed to social production and social encroachment. This challenged the strategy for applying penalties to known offenders as retributive chastisement was substantiated as being irrational and bleak. Modernized criminology provided that the effective management of crime could only be achieved if criminals were personalized, and rehabilitative measures generated for each case and each problem. Commitment to science consequently led to change in the strategy of dealing with crime depending on the theory on which research was based. The first theory used was from anomalous psychology and medicine. This saw the birth of dealing with crime from social psychology and sociology theories. Although they were diverse theories, they emphasized a similar theme: the welfare strategy theme. This theme evidenced deprivation as the root to crime. Science emphasized that individuals who had been deprived education opportunities, family socialization, and job prospects were more prone to become delinquent. This delinquency was also seen in individuals who lacked adequate treatment for their psychological and social problems. Garland and Sparks (2000:1-22) documented that the welfare state elucidation comprising of sustain and supervision of families, personalized treatment, was the solution to crime. The authors also emphasized that crime would also be resolved through a welfare reform stipulating augmentation of the quandary of the underprivileged. Prior to reviewing the challenge that the modern criminology had on the classicist strategy of enforcing penalties on offenders, it is imperative to understand the classicist strategy. Classicist strategy was developed by Casera Becarria and Jeremy Bethany as documented by Vold and Bernard (1986:20). The purpose of this strategy was to humanize and reform the legal system. It viewed human beings as rational, hedonistic, and having a free will. It is documented that the classicist theory believed that individuals were motivated by minimizing pain and consequently maximizing pleasure. Vold and Bernard (1986:20) documented that the classicist strategy entailed a precise amount of punishment for similar offenses with no regard to involved individuals or the circumstances in which the crimes were committed. This was because every individual was willing forfeit their personal liberty in a bid to ensure they had a secure, safe, and stable environment to thrive in. as a result of rationalism of individuals, they are bound to avoid the pain that comes with punishment and hence the punishment inflicted on them will incline them to revert their ways. The classicist strategy also proposes that the pain of punishment should coincide with the social harm caused by the offender constraining others to non- conformity. Roshier (1989:7) documented that classicist strategy aimed at inflicting certain and prompt punishment as this was meant to be embedded in the human intellect creating a lasting impression that inhibited him from further acts of crime. Modernization of criminology challenged the classicist strategy of applying fixed tariff on penalties. Robinson (1998: 85-94) documented that modern criminology viewed crime as a social and not individual problem. This meant that the petty offender could not be brought to trial as their delinquency was a result of the society. This meant that crime could only be addressed if the societies from which these individuals came from were restructured. This culminated to the rise in minor and offending behavior rates in the 1960s. Modernized criminology also challenge the classicist strategy of dealing with offenders as their mind set relieved them from their criminal acts. Kury (2009: 3-6) reported that it laid more emphasis on psychological conflicts, and childhood traumatic experiences that offenders might have had to encounter during their development. Modern criminology was aimed at giving a blind eye to the criminal temptations of the offenders as they were superficial and held no water but to focus on the emotional and the psychological well being of the offenders. This posed as a challenge to classicist penalty enforcement little emphasis lay on the offenders culminated to the increase in crime rates as no rehabilitative measure was imposed on the offenders. Sir Leon Radzinowicz (1999: 469), a British criminology founding father comprehended of an existing gap between criminal policy and criminology, as evidenced by the disparity between actual way of controlling crime, and the learning of crime and punishment. Modern criminology despite incorporating science has faced challenges of enhancing inequalities by not enforcing a standard form of punishment among offenders. It has also been criticized for letting petty offenders get away with their criminal activity hence propagating the criminal activity than reducing it. In conclusion, modern criminology resulted from integration of classicist strategy and the positivist strategy coupled with the incorporation of science. Modern criminology was aimed at strategizing the welfare of the individuals who were answerable to criminal acts. It emphasized that there was no standard punishment and that it was important to evaluate why an individual engaged in deliquescent behavior rather than inflicting punishment. It resulted to challenges in the implementation of the classicist strategy which stipulated that individuals were motivated by increasing pleasure and reducing pain. It advocated for the inflicting of pain regardless of the degree of delinquent behavior and instilled fear on others not to engaging in delinquent behavior as reported Taylor (2001: 124-140). This in turn contradicted with modern criminology which attributed the punishment as not being rehabilitative. In finality, as Taylor, Walton and Young (1973:281) documented, criminology should be focused on abolishing inequalities of power and wealth. Criminology that propagates inequalities in life chances and property is doomed for failure and should be geared towards correction. Bibliography Garland D and Sparks R, 2000, Criminology, Social Theory, and the Challenge of our Times, pp1-22, Retrieved from < http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780198299424.pdf> Accessed on November 3, 2011. Garland, D, 1996, ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society’, British Journal of Criminology, 36 (4) pp.1 Garland, D. 2000, ‘The Culture of High Crime Societies: Some Preconditions of Recent “Law and Order” Polices’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp.1. Kury, H. 2009, "Introduction", European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, vol. 15, no. 1-2, pp. 3-6 Radzinowicz, L. 1999, Adventures in Criminology. London: Routledge. Robinson, M.B., 1998, "G. Barak, Integrating Criminologies", Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 85-94. Roshier, R. 1989, Controlling Crime- The Classical Perspective in Criminology, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Taylor, R. B. 2001 “The Ecology of Crime, Fear, and Delinquency: Social Disorganization Versus Social Efficacy.” pp. 124-140 in R. Paternoster and R. Bachman, Explaining Criminals and Crime. Los Angeles: Roxbury Press. Taylor, Walton and Young, 1973, The New Criminology. Unwin Brothers Ltd: The Gresham Press. Vold and Bernard, 1986, Theoretical Criminology, Oxford: Open University Press. Read More