Crime and Criminology: Beccaarias Theoretical Work - Essay Example

Crime and Criminology Crime and Criminology Task One. Beccaaria’s Theoretical Work. Cesare, Marquis of Beccaaria-Bonesana was an Italian philosopher and politician and he wrote in the mid sixteenth century. His writings were influenced by the economic disorder and the political chaos that was being experienced in the region. His most famous treatise is that of ‘On Crimes and Punishments’, which he wrote in 1764. It dealt with the theory of penology and was the first literature that had emerged against capital punishment. (Beccaaria-Bonesana, 1963) Beccaaria developed his work in the context of the historical and social conditions that prevailed in Europe at that particular moment and in Italy in particular. The age of enlightenment had dawned in Europe, and there was a growing realization of the importance of the relationship that existed between the state and the individual. There was emerging in society the liberal thought, and there was a change in the perception of the role of the state. Beccaaria was of the belief that the state had come to be with the help of the social contract, and the individual had entered into a social contract to escape the chaotic anarchical society that existed in state of nature. He advocated that the individual was a rational and reasonable being. There was thus, a shift of power that was being experienced in the social set up from a state which was ruled by a few, to one where every individual human was an integral part and had a say in the functioning of the state. There was a changing social and economic context, where there was demand being made for greater autonomy for the individual, and there was being experienced change in the economic system from that of a feudal set up to that of a mercantile nature. (Keel, 2009) The changes in the political set up were in response to these changes that were taking place in the social and economic sphere. Beccaaria wrote his work in this context, and he lay emphasis upon the importance of human understanding, rationality and autonomy and developed his theory of criminology on the basis of this belief. His theory believed that law should not be based on passion but to ensure ‘the greatest happiness shared by the greatest number’. He lays emphasis on the development of a new system of criminal justice for he believed that the system that existed was based more on passion. He advocated the development of a system which was more rational, and was against arbitrary punishments. He stated “for a punishment to attain its end, the evil which it inflicts has only to exceed the advantage derivable from the crime; in this excess of evil one should include the certainly of punishment and the loss of the good which the crime might have produced. All beyond this is superfluous and for that reason tyrannical” (Beccaaria, 1963). He was against torture and believed that it only weakened men, and he also believed that punishment should be certain and prompt as the fear of punishment, he believed would leave a ‘stronger impression’ (Beccaaria, 1963). Contrasting Criminological theory based on Biological Positivism and Sociological Positivism. There have been observed many deviants in the beliefs of the classical and the biological positivist theory. The classical theory of criminology defines crime as what the law says it is. They believed that crime was defined and determined by the legal set up operating in a country and any act which was against the law adopted by the state was an act of crime. On the other hand the positivist school of thought believed that the approach that was adopted by the classical school was unscientific. (Foxhall, 1996) They lay the emphasis of what is criminal in the human nature, and believed that any act that was universally condemned and offended the natural humane sentiments of sincerity and compassion was an act of crime. According to the classical school of thought led by Beccaaria and Bentham, all humans were rational human beings and committed crime if they did not understand the law or if it was acceptable to their rationality and ‘Hedonistic Calculus’. The positivist school on the other hand believed that human beings committed crime due to the psychological and environmental influences that they face in life. Lombroso believed that a human being is born criminal and this can be determined by his physical appearance. The classical school of thought believed that human nature is determined by the though process of the human beings, and that it is based on the mentality that is possessed by each individual. It takes into account the social context of the individual. The positivist on the other hand believed that the emphasis should be on the mind of the individual and on the physical appearance of an individual and completely ignores the influence that the external factors have on the mind. The classical school of though does not lay much emphasis on the analytical theory but believes that practicality is the solution. The positivists on the other hand lay a great deal of emphasis on the analysis of the environment of the criminal, his social and historical context. But when it came to punishment, it was opposite; the classical theory believed that a deep analysis of the situation is required while the positivist believed that quick action was called for against the arbitrator. The classical school of thought believed that society had been born out of asocial contract that had taken place between the individuals and the state, so as to end the anarchy and chaos that was experienced in the state of nature (Jupp, 1986). Thus, the individual was the source of the development of society. It was based on the fact that all individuals are equal and rational. The positivists on the other hand believed that the society was made up degenerated and advanced beings, and it was natural for the advanced to lead the society. The classical school was against torture and harsh punishment but believed that punishment should be certain and prompt and be decided and deliberated upon. It should be developed through a process of justice. The positivist believed in immediate punishment of the crime committed. So, the classical lead to a softening of the laws and there was a call for no capital punishment, while the positivist school called for immediate action, and Garofalo and later even Lombroso advocated capital punishment although Ferri believed in rehabilitation. Criminological Positivism Criminological positivism is the second school of thought that emerged in the nineteenth century in Europe. It was developed mainly by Cesare Lombroso who is an Italian criminologist and developed the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. He believed that the classical school of thought of criminology that was based on human nature was incorrect and he developed this theory which was based on certain concepts drawn from evolution, physiognomy, psychiatry. The positivist school of thought that was developed was of the basic belief that criminality was something that was hereditary, and innate from the time of birth (Crimetheory.com, Online). These are defects that are present in the physical character of a person and rejected the classical idea that crime was a state of mind. It rejected the concept that was developed by Beccaaria of rationality and ‘Hedonistic Calculus’ and in its place put in the theory that ‘Biological Determinism’ and advocated the idea that people are born criminal (Herman, 1999). He believes that a criminal can be distinguished by his physical appearance and believed that rehabilitation was the best methodology that can be adopted for dealing with criminals. There have over the years been developed many criticism against the positivist theory of criminology. Firstly, the criticism that has been levied against this is that it comes in conflict with the Darwinian principle of evolution and is contradictory to the evolution of man from ape. Another important problem that exists with the theory that is advocated with this school is that it completely overlooks the social and economic context of any action. It believes that criminology is hereditary in nature and is unable to include the social connotations that may be related to an act. The next important draw back of this is that it lays too much emphasis on the physical appearance and according to this theory children are also criminals, and therefore are open to punishment. The theory is also in complete contrast with the justice system that exist today, which advocates equality and promotes the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It believes that there should be quick justice and those who are believed guilty should be rehabilitated. This leads to the development of a rash system. It also allows for capital punishment, which is seen by some as a violation of the human rights of individuals. There is also the problem of labelling, as this system labels all the subsequent generations of a criminal as criminals as per the belief that criminology is inherent in an individual, and that one is born criminal. It also leads to the problem of social and racial inequality and promotes it. References Beccaria, Cesare, 1963. "On Crimes and Punishments." Trans. Henry Paolucci. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp 45-58,. Crimetheory.com (Viewed 2009), Glossary, Terms of Criminology, Positivism, Viewed, September 8 2009, at http://www.crimetheory.com/glossary.htm. Foxhall L, Lewis ADE, 1996: Greek Law in Its Political Setting: Justifications Not Justice., pp 172 Herman A 1997: The Idea of Decline in Western History, The Free Press, pp 110-113. Jupp V, 1986, Methods of Criminological Research, Routledge, pp. 154-162. Keel R, Rational choice and deterrence theory accessed on Wednesday, Viewed September 8 2009 at http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/ratchoc.html. Read More