Classical Criminology and Positivism - Essay Example

ical criminology was practised in the eighteenth century in criminal justice procedures. The underlying principle of this conceptwas that man’s rights had to be protected against the corruption and uncertainties of the institutions existing at that time, before the Enlightenment. These problems were most evident in the legal systems of eighteenth century Europe. The classical criminology approach defined both a motive behind committing a crime, and methods for its control, and was an improvement of the justice system from the harsh and unlawful modes of punishment which had prevailed earlier. Contrastingly, the school of positivism which followed, introduced the scientific method of the natural sciences for studying criminal behavior. Though the main elements of the two concepts: classical criminology and positivism focus on different issues as causal factors, both emphasize the role of social factors in fuelling crime, as well as psychological, biological and economic reasons underlying criminal behavior. The classical school’s emphasis on the free will of individuals resulting in behavior patterns, which could be corrected by appropriate punishment, was replaced by the positivist school which was geared only towards practical goals such as the elimination of anti-social conduct (Taylor et al, 1973), and not hampered by irrelevant philosophical, ethical, religious, and retributory beliefs of classical criminology. Classical Criminology and Positivism Introduction Originating in eighteenth century Europe, classical criminology was the study of human criminal behavior, in which the basic theory was that people are rational human beings who choose to commit criminal behavior, and can be discouraged from doing so by the threat of punishment as consequence for criminal behavior (Burke, 2005). Classical criminology, based on social contract theories formulated by Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau, was developed by reformers such as Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794). This approach described the motive behind the crime, and the method for its control. It was meant to be a more moderate and just approach to crime and punishment, instead of public executions which served to frighten people into obedience. On the other hand, positivism is the branch of social sciences that uses the scientific method of the natural sciences as a basis for studying criminal behavior. According to positivism, human behavior results as a manifestation of several forces: social, biological, psychological, and economic (Siegel, 2007). This paper proposes to discuss the two approaches: classical criminology as opposed to positivism in the field of criminal justice. Discussion Classical Criminology In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for nearly a hundred years, judicial philosophy was influenced to a large extent by the classical criminology approach. The core elements of classical criminology theory were that in every society people had the free will to choose criminal or lawful solutions to settle their problems; usually criminal solutions required less work for a greater payoff, hence may be more attractive than lawful ones; fear of punishment could be a factor that controlled an individual’s choice of crime, and that criminal behavior could be better controlled by punishment that is severe, certain and swift. Ensuring that the punishment fitted the crime, was central to classical criminology. Consequently, the number of executions decreased, and were used only for the most serious crimes (Siegel, 2007). Positivism During the late nineteenth century, changes in the way in which information was gathered resulted in decreasing use of the classical criminology approach. The scientific method was taking root in Europe, and careful observation and analysis of natural phenomena to understand the way the world worked, replaced the earlier reliance on pure thought and reason. This movement led to new discoveries in biology, astronomy and chemistry. If the scientific method could be applied to the study of nature, then its usefulness in studying human behavior was also realized. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), considered to be the founder of sociology, applied scientific methods to the study of society. Comte’s followers who agreed with his writings, were known as positivists. Society’s embrace of a rational, scientific view of the world in the later stages was called as the positivist stage (Siegel, 2007). It is seen that though positivism depends heavily on scientific reasoning, in some aspects it is similar to classical criminology. Classical criminology theories such as anomie and subculture theory hypothesized that low socio-economic status would increase the possibility of criminal behavior, due to lack caused by limited opportunities, alienation, lower educational and occupational aspirations, and lower self-control on the part of individuals. Social-psychological theories such as power-control theory in which high socio-economic status was believed by researchers, attributed greater delinquent behavior to lack of parental control, or a preference for risk-taking. Further, besides the race-class connection, the class-crime link is observed because of the creation of an underclass due to the impact of economic disadvantage in certain neighborhoods. The effect of economic deprivation on delinquency has been studied by Burfeind & Bartusch (2005). They confirmed that severe economic deprivation resulted in high delinquency rates, which is similar to the findings in positivism. In positivism also, such social and economic factors are taken into consideration. Positivism has two main elements: the first is the belief that human behavior is a function of forces beyond a person’s control. Some of these forces are social such as the effect of wealth and class, and others are political and historical such as war and famine. Other forces are more specific to each person, such as brain structure, biological make-up and mental ability. Each of these forces influences human behavior. The second aspect of positivism is solving problems by the scientific method. Positivists rely on the strict use of empirical method to test hypotheses: by actual, first hand observation of conditions and events. The positivist tradition took firm root when Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) work on the evolution of man strengthened a nineteenth century cult of science that dictated that all human activity could be proved by scientific principles (Siegel, 2007). Burke (2005) supports the view that biological, sociological and psychological factors shape human behavior by all the three variants acting together. The positivist approach to the concept of offense is the basis on which various debates about constitutional criminal law take place. The positivist approach has an opposing view to the traditional notion of individual liberty, and is not consistent with the American constitutional tradition. The alternative to positivism about the notion of an offense, is that the concept of offense is considered to be the product of a theory of justifiable interference with liberty. This theory is based on the role of harm in justifying infringements of liberty (Finkelstein, 2000). With development of the positivist theory, the many forms of criminal behavior left behind by the classical tradition were included. Without the classical theory of behaviro, positivists have not been able to deal with the connections among the many behaviors that constitute deviance and crime. Consequently, they have tended to develop behavior-specific theories, to relate deviance and crime as cause and effect rather than as manifestations of a single cause. This necessitates a general theory of behavior for reuniting deviance and crime (Burke, 2005). The earliest scientific studies examining human behavior were biologically oriented. By the early nineteenth century, abnormality such as insanity was being linked to criminal behavior patterns. Early research efforts focused on brain functioning and personality as the keys to criminal behavior. The psychological basis of behavior was firmly established with Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939) work on the unconscious mind gaining worldwide recognition. In contemporary criminology, a single trait or inherited characteristic is not used for explaining crime. The biological and psychological traits such as an individual’s diet, life-style, living conditions, hormonal make-up, personality, intelligence, and their interaction with the external environment is considered to influence all human behavior including criminality (Siegel, 2007). Conclusion Sociological, biological and psychological causal factors are common to both classical and positivistic approaches to criminal behavior and the formulation of law in relation to punishing and correcting these behaviors. The main difference between the two fields of criminology is that, in the earlier classical criminology, punishment for crime was arbitrary and barbarous, the correct legal procedures were often ignored, crime itself covered an extensive field of behavior and criminal behavior was poorly defined (Taylor et al, 1973). On the other hand, the positivist emphasis on science to explain criminal behavior, gives the theory consistency, uniformity in application, and limits the areas of criminal behavior within clearly demarcated boundaries. References Burfeind, J.W. & Bartusch, D.J. 2005. Juvenile delinquency: an integrated approach. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Burke, R.H. 2005. An introduction to criminological theory. Oregon: Willan Publishing. Finkelstein, C. 2000. Positivism and the notion of an offense. California Law Review, 88, March 2000: 335-396. Siegel, L.J. 2007. Criminology: the core 3rd Edition. The United States of America: Thomson Wadsworth. Taylor, I., Walton, P. & Young, J. 1973. The new criminology: for a social theory of deviance. The United States of America: Routledge. Read More