Positivist Criminologists - Case Study Example

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Methodological Approach Adopted by Positivist Criminologists in their Studies of Criminality Criminologists are largely divided over the question of whether or not studies in criminality should be focused on the offender, or the offence or the victim or responses to offending or some combination of all or some of these factors.1 Positivist criminologists take a methodological approach to criminality studies by assuming that criminality can be accounted for “in neutral, scientific terms”.2 By taking this approach, positivists attribute criminality to the actual offender rather than the social context of the offence itself.3 Sociological positivists, however, allow for the possibility that factors independent of the human mind and body do contribute to the propensity to commit criminal offences.4 Early positivism emerged in response to classical thinking during the nineteenth century. Classical thinking was based on the perception that individuals made conscious choices to commit crimes after weighing the benefits of crime against the costs. Positivism rejected this theory and argued that: ...crime and criminality were dependent variables to be explained, and the search was for explanatory or independent variables upon which crime and criminality could be said to be dependent.5 In its infancy, positivism emerged as a methodology focused on understanding crime as something that could be understood and explained in scientific terms. Thus, it was argued that methodologies such as those applied in the natural sciences could be used to identify the main causes of crime and predicting offending and thus providing results that could be used to prevent offending.6 In this regard, positivism queries “how phenomena rise and what course they take” and “collects facts” with the primary objective of discovering “invariable universal laws governing phenomena in time” and as such observes, experiments, and calculates.7 Positivism has evolved through stages. It was first dominated by biology which was influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution and argued that some criminal behaviour was indicative of the primitive roots of man. Eventually biology was surpassed by psychology which focused on the mental aspects of criminality. Sociological positivism dominated in the 20th century arguing that criminality was linked to social forces and could therefore be a learned behaviour or a result of poor economic conditions.8 Despite the different strands of positivism, there is a common theme that runs throughout: Positivists are committed to the use of the scientific method to study the causes of crime. They emphasize methodological issues such as proper data collection, statistical sampling, and the validity and reliability of measurement.9 In other words, positivist criminologists might not accept a study claiming that youth from single parent homes are more inclined to commit violent crimes if the sample used was small and specific to one location. Positivist might argue that such a study only proves that youth in a particular location from single parent homes are prone to violence. Positivist might also want to investigate other commonalities and differences to determine if other factors might explain the propensity for violence other than the suggestion that youth from single parent homes are prone to commit violent crimes. Thus, a major strength of positivist criminology methodologies is that it does risk making hasty generalizations. Instead positivists want to produce credible and trustworthy results. The insistence on thorough research methods is justified by the underlying objectives of positivism. In this regard positivism has as its objectives: Substituting punishment with rehabilitation.10 Obviously, if an offender is going to be rehabilitated, the focus on the individual and the causes of offending from an individualistic basis is necessary. The weaknesses of this approach however, is that regardless of the thoroughness of a research methodology, results cannot always perfectly predict who will commit crimes and therefore rehabilitation will not always be a suitable response to some criminals. Replacing the classical idea that criminality is a function of the “free will” with the idea that crime is scientifically determined.11 The difficulty with this proposition however is that it must be assumed that science can explain criminal behaviour when quite often crime can simply be a matter of opportunities or simply driven by non-scientific forces. For example, the risk of being caught against the benefits of getting away with a commercial crime may be the driving force for some criminals, and thus it might very well be a matter of free will as opposed to some scientific factor. A replacement of the “study of criminal law” with “a study of the individual offender and his or her medical, psychological, and social characteristics”.12 This approach is particularly useful for determining the appropriate methods for rehabilitating the offender. However, given the positivists’ insistence on thorough data collection and scientifically sound measurements and analysis of data, it would take a significant number of tests and empirical studies to gather enough evidence to determine whether or not the attributes of one offender is applicable to another and thus it may prove difficult to predict the common attributes that explain the propensity to commit specific crimes. On the other hand, if sufficient data can be collected and analysed satisfactorily, positivist criminologists can predict with a greater degree of accuracy whether or not an individual is vulnerable to commit certain kinds of crimes and thus appropriate preventative measure can be taken. The strengths of the positivist methodology for criminality studies have been manifested in practice. According to Vito, Maahs and Holmes, the positivist criminology school of thought has had a significant impact on the criminal justice system worldwide. In the US for example, the medical rehabilitative model was adopted as the main objective of the criminal justice system during the 1900s. The medical rehabilitative model functions on the presumption that: ...the factors that make a criminal can be identified and treatment plans can be formulated and administered to rehabilitate them. In the medical model, the offender is viewed as a patient to be treated, not an evildoer to be punished.13 In this regard, the offender is identified and individualized with a view to mending him/her on an individual level and addressing the unique characteristics that influenced his/her crime. In other words, the “punishment must fit the offender rather than the offence”.14 By the 1970s the rehabilitative model was under attack. One faction argued that the rehabilitative model permitted officials to mistreat offenders and another faction argued that it permitted the state to let criminals off easily. In addition researchers were arguing that rehabilitation did not reduce recidivism. In the latter part of the 1900s, researchers conducted numerous studies and came to the conclusion that there was significant empirical evidence suggesting that rehabilitation did reduce recidivism. Some studies found that rehabilitation reduced recidivism by at least 10% and other studies put the reduction in recidivism as high as 25%.15 According to Cullen and Gendreau: There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with the high-risk offenders.16 The strength of the positivist criminality studies’ methodology is therefore proven. When decisions in the criminal justice system is made on the basis of scientifically sound information it reaps satisfactory results. For example, knowledge of the type of rehabilitation programs suitable for reducing recidivism does not ensure that time and resources are not thrown away, but it also grants that an effective rehabilitation program is implemented. Reports of prison overcrowding particularly in the US indicate that prisons do not have the resources to implement the kind of comprehensive rehabilitation programs necessary to ensure that prisoners are properly rehabilitated. In fact, prison conditions have deteriorated as a result of prison overcrowding. Prisoners live in particularly tense conditions and violence and disruptions are frequent. Prisons often respond to these tense and uncomfortable conditions by keeping prisoners on lock down most of the time and denying them access to recreation and rehabilitation programs for a majority of their time in prison.17 Victimologists who safeguard the interests of the victims are not wholly opposed to rehabilitation but question the utility of rehabilitation within the wider objective of the criminal justice system. From the perspective of victimology, the criminal justice system is designed to ensure that justice is served for the victim, the community and the offender. Rehabilitation programs focuses solely on the needs of the offender and does nothing to achieve justice from the perspective of the victim. The victim’s needs are not taken into account and quite often the victim believes that by engaging the offender in rehabilitation programs, the offender is more or less rewarded for his crime when rehabilitation includes job training and relief from punishment.18 Moreover, there is a persistent belief that the punishment should fit the crime in terms of just dessert and culpability. In fact, scholars argue that punishment itself is rehabilitative in nature. Punishment is premised on the belief that it not only rehabilitates the offender but it deters others who might be inclined to commit a similar offence.19 Theories of just desserts argue that punishment is justified because: The criminal who breaks the law takes an unfair advantage of society through his crime. Most people abide by the law, so why should not all? One who commits a crime takes unfair advantage of others who uphold the law. The punishment restores the moral equilibrium of society by taking back, usually in an expressive manner, what has been taken away by the criminal act.20 Thus, the positivist methodology for criminal studies focuses too narrowly on the individual offender and does not take account of how this focus comes across to the wider community and therefore how it impacts other potential criminals and victims. Potential criminals may get the impression that punishment for their crimes will likely be light in that they will be subjected to rehabilitation programs instead of punitive incarceration. Victims may feel neglected and feel that the offender is not only getting special treatment and leniency, but is being rewarded for their crimes in that rehabilitation excuses his/her conduct and gives him/her opportunities that he or she did not earn. Members of the community may feel that the criminal justice system does not deal with offenders appropriately and may lose confidence in the criminal justice system. In the long run, victims and members of the community may contribute to disorder in the community by refusing to cooperate with prosecutors and police since they have no faith that justice will be done. It is therefore hardly surprising that despite the commitment to rehabilitation, it is not implemented with the kind of commitment that is required to make it work. For example, Vito, et. al. reported that although rehabilitation remained a prevalent theme during the 1990s, it was never fully implemented. As Vito, et. al. reports: The seriousness of the crime (and not the nature of the criminal), for example, remained the primary determinant of the punishment. In other words, the punishment still tended to ‘fit the offense.’21 Regardless, rehabilitation is obviously suitable for some offenders, particularly youth offenders, first offenders and offenders convicted of certain non-violent offences. In some jurisdictions, rehabilitation continues to be used and in fact, most prisons appoint parole officers to determine the extent to which an offender has been rehabilitated and thus is an appropriate candidate for early release from prison.22 In the final analysis, the strengths of positivism in terms of its methodologies for criminality studies are related to its contribution to understanding the factors contributing to an individual’s criminal behavior. Its weaknesses are primarily related to the use of that information in responding to offenders. Although rehabilitation is arguably good for the offender - if it is implemented properly and the offender is capable of being rehabilitated - it appears to be at odds with the needs of the victim and the community at large. Both the victim and the community need to feel that justice is being served. Unfortunately, rehabilitation often leaves the victim and the community with the impression that justice was denied and the offender received leniency. Bibliography Chung, S. Y. (2000). ‘Prions Overcrowding: Standards in Determining Eight Amendment Violations.’ Fordham Law Review, Vol. 68: 2351-2400. Cullen, F. T. and Gendreau, P. (2000). “Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects.” Policies, Processes and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, Vol. 3: 109-175. Downes, D. and Rock, P. (2007). Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule-Breaking. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Einstradler, W. J. and Henry, S. (2006). Criminological Theory: An Analysis of it Underlying Assumptions. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Jupp, V. R. (1989). Methods of Criminological Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Kamen, A. (2010). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Levinson, D. (2002). Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Tierney, J (1996) Criminology: Theory and Context. Longman: Harlow. Vito, G. F.; Maahs, J. R. and Holmes, R. M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Read More