Cesare Beccaria and Cesare Lombroso, and Their Competing Ideologies - Coursework Example

Topic: Cesare Beccaria and Cesare Lombroso, and their competing ideologies Introduction From the beginning, criminology has been entrenched in politics and regardless of the regular claims to scientific objectivity, criminology inquiry has been demarcated and sustained by concerns of a political nature. Similarities between political orientations and elucidations of crime have often been prominent and debates concerning theoretical differences have usually been included as references to these similarities. Undeniably, recognizing the ideological assumptions and the implications associated with theories has been a typical attribute in the evaluation of their worth. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the notion of studying crime as well as criminals was linked to that of making governance more efficient. Intellectuals from Europe considered the unpredictability and brutalities of authoritarian rule as threats to the social order. Cesare Beccaria who was among the Italian illuministi further developed these views. He vehemently and concisely developed the argument that the punishment of lawbreakers should be done publicly, is compulsory and should be the minimum possible depending on the circumstances and the proportion of the crime that has been committed. At around 1830, efforts to explain government societal regulation using the law supported research on what was considered the dangerous classes. This lead to Cesare Lombroso’s quest for the people who had been born criminals as well as the representing of associations between crime and a variety of pointers of ethical moral deficiency. This paper seeks to compare the conflicting and opposing philosophies that are associated with the two main theorists in criminology namely Cesare Beccaria and Cesare Lombroso. Cesare Beccaria was born in 1738 and puts emphasis on deterrence as the best way of preventing crime (Outram, 2006). He fits into the classical school of thought and wrote his work during an era when torture was utilized in obtaining information from people and capital punishment was used for any kind of offence. Punishment depended on retributive means in that the harm that was given to the offender was equal to the harm that had been caused by the perpetrator. In contrast, Cesare Lombroso considered the bodily and psychological attributes of the appearances of the person committing the crime. Lombroso was a doctor who was born in 1835 and he developed the opinion that some criminals were biologically determined, placing him in the positivist school of thought (Hayward, Maruna & Mooney, 2010). He research underscored the need to evaluate the individual using measures associated with economic, anthropological and social data. Comparison between classical and positivist thinking The development of ancient theory has demonstrated that classical and positivist schools of criminology are a contemporary method of addressing with criminal actions. The chief notion associated with the main schools is the creation of adequate approaches that will put an end to deviant behaviour which is perceived to be dangerous to the society. Even though the aims of both the attitudes are auxiliary to the motives of criminal activities, the two schools provide opposing philosophies in their explanation of deviant behaviour. The classical line of thinking in regard to criminology was created in the 18th century in the enlightenment era. The horrible punishments that were taking place in Europe were over-shadowed by the creation of this idea as it acknowledged an unanticipated civil change, and thus provided a critical outline of the criminal code in the western civilization. The main concerns of the classical theory were thus to increase the biased disputes associated with the criminal justice system (Larson, Garrett & Larson, 1996). The introduction of the classical theory also obligated the rule of law and personal dignity so that the criminals were no longer subjected to retribution without initially being convicted by a judge in a court of law. The father of classical theory, Cesare Beccaria was the legal reformer who instigated this justice structure whereby all the affiliates of the social order were accorded the same rights. In his work, On Crimes and Punishment, Beccaria revealed the main importance of civilizing and justifying law to make morality become more practical (Larson, Garrett & Larson, 1996). Beccaria recommended abstraction of legal discretion, and he acknowledged that elucidation of law by the courts could provoke discretion. A different supporter of the classical theory also developed the idea of utilitarianism in association with the classical theory, and this supported the notion of the greatest good to the greatest number. This theory recommended that law-making should seek to please the highest number of people in the society. On the other hand, the positivist perception of criminal activity was developed in the 19th century in Europe. Cesare Lombroso was the key theorist who supported this theory and the development of the theory took place at a time characterised by social and political turmoil in Italy. Simultaneously, the key principle of classicism was to instigate changes to the legal system while the main objective of the positivist school was the application of a scientific approach to regulate criminological elucidations of crime. As a result, the theorists associated with the positivist theories were apprehensive of sociology, psychology and biology which were considered as the main motives of criminal behaviour. Lombroso thought that lawbreakers display abnormal behaviour because of their heritable characteristics and went further to develop a biological dissimilarity among the criminals and those not involved in criminal activities. The theory of evolution by Charles Darwin significantly influenced Lombroso’s idea making him develop the belief that criminals had physical characteristics that indicated an individual who had the same characteristics as a primal ancestry. Consequently, Lombroso stated that the law-breakers were born and not influenced by the environment or the society. Another adaptation of the positivist school of thinking is the mental influence which is founded on the thought that the mind of a human being is responsible for the actions of crime and thus this creates the idea of a criminal mind. In addition, the concept of positivism in relation to sociology elucidates that crime is usually a socially assembled occurrence that needs to be regulated in a particular society. Enrico Ferri who was Lombroso’s scholar, assessed the social and economic motivations which motivated criminals. He sought to increase the social set-ups and safeguard the society from predation by criminals. The positivist theory also considered the criminals as being viruses in the society and thus came up with the idea locking up criminals for life and removing them from the rest of the society. The classicism theory applied the notion that people have a free-will that gives them the capacity to make choices in regard to various forms of behaviour. This notion validates a significant perception that if a person has the freedom determine their own actions, they must also be accountable for the choices that they make. The free will of an individual gives them an ability to control the advantages and the risks that are associated with the commission of a crime. This means that the criminals make the choice to commit a crime at will with a complete knowledge regarding the costs and the advantages of the choices they make. The rational choice theory is also a critical theory associated with classicism that strongly underscores the concept of free-will as well as human reasonableness. This notion elucidates that individuals make choices of their own conduct founded on practical calculation of pain and pleasure, which means that the lawbreakers chose the behaviours that make them happy and avoid pain. In the same way, positivism is founded on deterministic theories that explain that all the events are as a result of internal or external factors that cannot be controlled by the individual. Consequently, this eliminates the concept of free-will and supposes that the offenders did not have a choice before they committed a particular crime. Additionally, the positivist thinking of criminology emphasizes that conduct is dependent on sociological, psychological and biological dynamics which cannot be controlled by the individual, thus crime cannot be considered as a choice. As explained before, the classical theory considered crime as a choice and the people committing these crimes were supposed to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. Therefore, the unavoidability instead of the cruelty of the punishment enforced a restraining effect on the lawbreakers in regard to the classicism school. This reduced the possibilities of the criminal committing the same crimes again. In the classical view, punishment was applied in the same way to all the criminals who were associated with the same crime. The classical theorists also thought that the criminals were not supposed to be killed for serious offenses therefore developing the belief that individuals had less propensity to commit crimes if the punishments were certain and quick. Conversely, positivists considered that crime was not a choice so criminals should not be held responsible for the criminal actions they take part in. This school considered crime to be a type of disease and the people committing crimes had to get treatment instead of being disciplined by the law. However, in the event of a born criminal, removal along with continued imprisonment seen as the most sensible solution (Knepper & Ystehede, 2013). Since different criminals are motivated by varying factors, there had to be a wide range of variable treatments that were provided to the criminals. Thus positivism demonstrated a wider array of reactions to crime and provided unknown sentences which allowed the criminals to make rehabilitative progress as compared to the classical theory which depended on fixed and determined sentences (Knepper & Ystehede, 2013). Classicists did not acknowledge any key dissimilarity between the people committing crimes and the non-criminals. This theory considered all the people to be equal when the level of committing a crime was considered in particular situations. However, there was a point of distinction that was evident in the positivist line of thought. The developers of this theory considered that a difference between deviant and normal behaviour and thus criminals who had a higher class in a certain manner committed crimes. The positivists identified criminals using many physical features and Lombroso created the physical stigmata used in the description of born criminals. Criminals were thus considered as having asymmetrical-shaped heads, receding chins, big ears, low foreheads and jutting teeth among other characteristics. In addition, Lombroso supported the idea that criminals could be identified for the people who do not commit crimes through atavism which was connected to the notion that law-breakers have not gone through complete evolution from apes making them be part of a lower type of life. Even though this theories have numerous advantages, they also have various disadvantages. These disadvantages might be minute but they have a considerable effect on the outcomes associated with the theories. Howard Becker who developed the argument that the scientific analysis was supposed to be in agreement with qualitative statements concerning crime, confronted the positivist line of thought. He also argued that the scientists do not take time to look at labelling process of criminals, and the fact that various social groups define criminality differently should make the scientists recognize the ethics of the social group determining the authority needed to punish criminals existing in that society. According to the arguments fronted by Baker, positivism wholly depends on the statistics associated with crime. Conclusion The two main schools of thinking have greatly impacted the field of criminology as they were developed to prevent the occurrence of crime and to make a distinction between people who commit crimes and the non-criminals. Cesare Becarria developed the classicist theory of criminology, which was supported by Jeremy Bentham, in the eighteenth century in the course of the enlightenment era. Before the classical theory of criminology was developed, the law system was considered as ruthless and biased and the main attention of the classicists was on the legalization of the justice system and creation of a symmetric system for the public. The concept did not consider the manner in which the crime was committed or the reasons behind the committing of the crime but rather an impeccable justice system. This also entailed the concept of freedom of choice, meaning that individuals had the option of doing what they desired. However, the positivists’ school of thinking was developed in the nineteenth century by Cesare Lombroso and supported by Enrico Ferri with the main idea being the use of scientific methods in the understanding of criminality and crime itself. This theory assumed that behaviour was dependent on psychology, biology and sociology which cannot be controlled by the individual. The key dissimilarity between the two theories is that the classical theory is chiefly dependent on freedom of choice and considers crime as a choice, while the positivism theories does not perceive crime as a choice. References Hayward, K., Maruna, S., & Mooney, J. (2010). Fifty key thinkers in criminology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Knepper, P., & Ystehede, P. (2013). The Cesare Lombroso handbook. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Larson, C., Garrett, G., & Larson, C. (1996). Crime, justice, and society. Dix Hills, N.Y.: General Hall, Inc. Outram, D. (2006). Panorama of the Enlightenment. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Read More