Major Issues in Positivist Criminology - Essay Example

Positivist Criminology ‘A criminal offends because he is caused to do so in a way which the non criminal is not’. Discuss this claim in relation to positivist criminology. Introduction The actual nature of crime, the reasons for which it is committed and how it can be stopped are the most crucial elements for the societal development and overall economic progress. These elements are generally investigated by criminologists. Criminology has become one of the growing fields with ever increasing rate of research and theoretical advancement because of continuously increasing rate of crime. These theories are fundamentally based upon the link between people and the particular crimes that they commit. There are different categories of criminal theories including positive criminology and classicist criminology (Understanding Criminology Theories, 2014). Although both of these theories belong to criminology at large but their ideologies are significantly different from one another. This paper aims to study positivist criminology while discussing a distinctive claim made in relation to criminology. Moreover, the two theories positivist and classist criminology would be compared to comprehend their basic functions and real world practicality. Criminology Criminology is broadly defined as the comprehensive study of why people indulge in to criminal activities. It also includes the observation of various criminal attitudes and behaviors while focusing on external and internal motivation factors (Understanding Criminology Theories, 2014). Studying criminology significantly helps in controlling crime rate since when investigators know the actual reasons for crime they can act accordingly while rehabilitating the criminal. Different criminology theories address different issues, for instance, some are associated with the individual criminals whereas others focus more towards the criminal’s act. Hence some criminologist suggests that criminals make a conscious choice in order to commit the crime while others suggest that community persuades an individual to act in an offensive manner. Thus they consider it the responsibility of social powers and community leaders to ensure that the inhabitants do not fall in to illegal and unethical activities. This can be effectively done through providing them safe and protected job opportunities with an addition of sustainable living conditions (Understanding Criminology Theories, 2014). Apart from this, criminologists who believe that individuals have internal motivations and instincts to act violently should be determined during various examinations and psychological tests. They must be put in to different negative situations so as figure out their hidden weaknesses and thinking patterns. By intensely studying various concepts of criminology law enforcement agencies can actually understand the reasons behind repeated crimes. Moreover, they can also evaluate the efficiently and effectiveness of different rehabilitation strategies (Understanding Criminology Theories, 2014). Positivist Criminology As the name indicates positivist criminology is associated with maintaining positive approach while using different methods and techniques to study crimes and criminals (Burfeind, 2011). In broader perspective it deals with the scientific method of study including observation of the event and offender, measurement of critical crime aspects, description and overall analysis. This specifically helps in revealing actual reasons for the commencement of crime. Moreover, it facilitates in understanding the individual characteristics of the criminal. Positivist criminology emphasizes over the fact that crime and felony are initiated by recognizable factors. Hence there is always a cause and effect relationship between criminal motivations and actual crime which is termed as determinism (Burfeind, 2011). Following are the four key elements of positivist criminology (Burfeind, 2011): Determinism: Crime can be identified through sociological, psychological and biological elements involved in criminal activity. Positivism: Use of positive approach to conduct various criminal investigations including scientific methods. Pathology and Differentiation: Early positivist criminologists had a greater emphasis over individual pathologies whereas later positivist criminologists focused on social pathologies based on urbanization. Rehabilitation: It stresses upon criminal treatment rather than giving a punishment. Cesare Lombroso was one of the most significant contributors of the positivist criminology. He was actually influenced by Darwin’s idea of evolution and therefore he associated the criminal instincts to the human biology and genetics. Lombroso emphasized that since human beings are developed from a common biological point therefore they tend to represent some of their historical characteristics (Sandra, 2007). He eventually categorized criminals in to four categories including born criminals, offenders suffering from a particular mental disease, occasional criminals and those who commit offense on the basis of some external force. All of these categories reject the classical criminology concept that criminals specifically choose to commit crime (Sandra, 2007). Discussion “A criminal offends because he is caused to do so in a way which the non criminal is not” The above claim states that criminals are individuals motivated to act in a certain way whereas those who do not commit crime are essentially not exposed to crime motivating factors. This claim is further studied through different articles, books and research journals. For instance, Barak mentioned in his book that in the early time period of twenty first century criminology was fundamentally supported by positivism which persuaded researchers and criminology scholars to acknowledge the above claim (Barak, 2010). There was significant emphasis over the individual characteristics of criminals including the social disorganization and personality traits. This subsequently swayed the positivist criminologists to affirm that the punishment should be based upon offenders rather than the nature of crime. Moreover, positivism rejects the idea of criminal free-will which further explains the above claim. For instance, criminals may be attracted towards crime due to certain social, psychological, biological or economic factors (Barak, 2010). On the other hand Siegel states that contemporary criminologists criticize the practicality of positivist criminology as being significantly conservative and unrelated to humans (Siegel, 2011). Hence according to his research and analysis the positivist theory of criminology does not apply to the modern world. Today law enforcement agencies cannot rely over the individual biological and social characteristics while neglecting the role of free-will in human actions. Thus in regard to his analysis the above claim is rejected and that no one can be motivated towards crime without a firm intention to actually perform it (Siegel, 2011). Critiques There are significant critical aspects related to the positivist criminology. For instance, the Lombroso’s ideas concerning anthropology and human relation to crime were proved incorrect long ago (Krajewski, 1992). Positivist criminology as discussed above typically deals with naturalism and social orders. However, the contemporary theories largely emphasize over anti-naturalism and critical criminology. Critical criminology particularly associates with wrong use of power and creation of negative influence on others. This is actually considered more relevant in the current global environment. In the period of 1970’s neoclassicism further criticized the positivist criminology (Krajewski, 1992). Yar and Penna presented their critical reviews about positivist criminology and the modern world. They mention that criminologists have faced significant difficulties in the post modern era due to extreme shift in the criminal trends and the crime genesis (Yar, 2004). Moreover, the crime control was greatly challenged. Positivist criminology could not meet all these problems and therefore the development of new theories became a necessity (Yar, 2004). Another criticism over the positivist criminology is that it has been defined as inherited trait by Lombroso. He emphasizes that different physical characteristics of people should be distinguished on the basis of large or small jaws, forehead and cheekbones structure, shape of the ears, flatness of nose, strong eyes and fleshy lips (Classical Vs. Positivist Criminology, 2011). In addition to this he also argued that individuals who have criminal tendencies are also insensitive towards pain while having comparatively long arms. After several discussions Lombroso actually modified his theories in relation to positivism and criminology. According to him all criminals cannot be categorized as born offenders rather there are few people who after going through some moral disintegrations and brain alterations begin to act violently. Hence they do not possess the physical characteristics of criminals but they turn in to offenders due to certain biological changes (Classical Vs. Positivist Criminology, 2011). The modern scientists actually refuse this theory of Lombroso because it does not give a clear analysis for crime rehabilitation. Moreover, it does not distinguish between different categories of crime while creating over emphasis on individual and physical characteristics. Comparison with Classicist Criminology In order to compare positivist criminology with the classist criminology it is important to first understand the deeper concepts of latter one. Classical criminology is actually associated with the Enlightenment era of 1700s. Philosophers including Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham and John Locke studied the underlying reasons for crime and how different societies should respond to the critical criminal situations (What is Classical Criminology, 2014). Initially they included the social contact theory to explain the ideology of crime. These concepts were acknowledged and continuously gained appreciation in many legal systems of different nations in the contemporary world (What is Classical Criminology, 2014). Classical criminology was developed to meet the requirements of European criminal laws as they were facing immense reformat and feudal influence. The criminal law was significantly inconsistent while on the other hand its application was even more inconsistent. Hence people recognized the need for an effective and uniform justice system according to which criminals could be punished in rational proportions (What is Classical Criminology, 2014). Positivist criminology, as mentioned earlier has a deeper emphasis over the individual characteristics of criminals while on the other hand there are certain rational aspects which cannot be ignored when considering crime. For instance, the self interest and free will of people which according to some scholars present the fundamental idea of crime is has been neglected by positivist criminologists (What is Classical Criminology, 2014). The concept of free will can be understood through observing different societies who largely refrain from hurting one another on the basis of mutual agreement. In this case, biology, genetics or social factors does not play a major role. When people have free will to commit good things then they also have the power of indulging into criminal activities. For instance, people might offend someone in order to fulfill a self desire (What is Classical Criminology, 2014). Hence as per the idea of classicist criminologist the government can actually reduce crime rate through imposing different punishments for different levels of offense. In this condition the criminal would have to consider the consequences of his/her actions while also controlling the free will. Classical criminology as opposed to positivist criminology can strengthen the legal and judiciary system of different nations. Moreover, it can play a significant role in improving social contract and criminal approach. Classicist criminology is also regarded as providing equal treatment for all the offenders irrespective of their background (What is the Classical School of Criminology, 2014). Conclusion Criminology is a widely studied subject in the modern world. It has been defined differently by various philosophers in history. Even today some of the criminology scholars are extensively working to explain the critical nature of crime committed in the contemporary world. Moreover, the historic criminology theories projected by Lombroso are continuously evaluated and criticized. Criminology is basically the study of the science of crime including the criminal details and the reasons for which the offense was created. One of its widely emphasized areas includes positivist criminology which broadly relates to maintain a positive approach while investigating a crime report or punishing the offender. Lombroso is considered the initial philosophers supporting the idea of positivism. He was actually impressed by Darwin’s theory of evolution and therefore he largely based his criminology discussions on biological and physical traits, genetic abnormality, social circumstances etc. Positivist criminology puts forward a claim that criminal offends because of the exposure to certain motivators which the non criminal is saved from. Hence the real issue is not the crime itself rather all the motivation factors which persuades an individual for indulging in to crime. This claim is has been critically studied in this paper while making an extensive use of books, websites and journal articles. Furthermore, the criticisms over positivist criminology are discussed while comparing it to the classicist criminology. Research indicates that positivist criminology was somewhat authentic and applicable for past centuries. However, today critical criminology and neoclassicism are playing a major role in defining various aspects of crime. Moreover, the contemporary theories are helpful in attaining equal punishment criteria for all criminals irrespective of their physical and biological characteristics. References Barak, G, Leighton, P & Flavin, J 2010, Class, race, gender, and crime: the social realities of justice in America, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. Burfeind, JW & Bartusch, DJ 2011, Juvenile delinquency: an integrated approach, Mass, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury. Classical Vs. Positivist Criminology 2011, Hub Pages, USA, viewed 20 March 2014, Siegel, LJ 2012, Criminology, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, Belmont. Krajewski, K 1992, ‘Positivist Criminology: A Critique’ Archiwum Kryminologii, vol.8, pp.7-50. Understanding Criminology Theories 2014, Criminology, USA, viewed 20 March 2014, Walklate, S 2007, Understanding criminology: current theoretical debates, McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, Maidenhead. What is Classical Criminology? 2014, WiseGeek, USA, viewed 20 March 2014, What is the Classical School of Criminology? 2014, WiseGeek, USA, viewed 20 March 2014, Yar, M & Penna, S 2004, ‘Between Positivism and Post-modernity?’ British Journal of Criminology, vol.44, no.4, pp. 533-549. Read More