An Evaluation of Positivist Criminology - Term Paper Example

 Positivist Criminology – An Evaluation The positivist method of criminology research has been both criticised and favoured by many over the years. Although it has many practical applications, it is based on the single idea that crime and criminal behaviour needs to be understood. Positivists researched the biological reasons of criminal behaviour and thought that by using scientific research on the biological parts of the criminal, that we could make an understanding of which types of people would be likely to commit crime. So, its aim was to predict and prevent crime, by scientifically researching criminal behaviour, attitude and make-ups. The positivist approach to criminology rejected the classical idea that people who commit crimes do it from free will; positivists believed that it is in our biological make-up, and that we are born with the tendency to commit crimes. So, we do not freely choose to commit crimes, we are born, or not born with criminal elements. While many positivists put our tendency to commit crime on different parts of our biology, the research was scientific – it looked for factual results. It was believed that if we could find factual results, then we could discover what characteristics are present in people who commit crime and then prevent it by finding the same types of characteristics in others – biological or psychological. The approach took this form because it believed that other ways of criminological research were based on elements of life which could not be controlled and which made crime difficult to predict and impossible to prevent. These elements of life were moral judgement, subjective views of people and their beliefs and opinions. Positivists argued that because these elements were subjective, they could do nothing to help prevent crime and criminal behaviour, whereas a scientific approach could give proper statistics, and reliable results, which could gain much ground in the research of criminology. Although the approach of the positivist school appears attractive, this paper will argue that its final results were not as effective as it had hoped they would be. While it is not argued that the results brought could not be relied on, it is suggested that the results were not reliable enough to be applied to prevent crime. Of course, the prevention of crime based on scientific statistics would be a very attractive idea, both history and results have shown that in practice it has not been as effective as the positivist school promised. To believe in an objective idea of criminal behaviour is not to prove it, and research suggests strongly that the positivist school did not prove enough the scientific background of criminal behaviour. Also, the paper will argue that to rely on the positivist research as an idea for preventing crime would be dangerous, and has been abused and in today’s society would not be acceptable as a single or main idea behind criminology. It is almost impossible to predict with complete certainty the future patterns of crime and criminal behaviour, and without this certainty, it should not have been, and should not be used as a way of preventing and treating crime on its own. The biggest question is: can we objectively explain human behaviour? Do the criminals of us commit crimes for objective reasons? Can science help us understand the causes of crime? Lombroso thought that this was so; he mainly said that criminal behaviour is predetermined by the biological parts in us, that it has nothing to do with our free will. Lombroso focused on the way we look – he said that criminals are physically different from those who do not commit crimes (1861). He also stated that criminals fit four classes; those who are born criminals, those who are insane, those who commit crimes of passion and those who have a tendency to commit crime sometimes (criminaloids). Of course, this seems like a good theory, but again it needs to be very reliable to be used as a preventative idea. This means proving that all people who commit crimes fit his categories. The problem with scientific evidence is that there are almost always exceptions. The attractiveness of the objective idea of criminal behaviour is huge, but it seems that evidence has not been able to make it applicable without doubt. A study made by Goring showed that Lombroso’s physical characteristics were not complete proof (1913). He studied the physical characteristics of 3000 criminals and 3000 non criminals and found that there were no specific characteristics of the first group that could not be found in the second group. The closest he could get to criminal characteristics was that criminals tended to be shorter and lighter in weight; characteristics that could not be relied on to any big degree. His study found that there were no major differences in appearances between criminals and non criminals, and that Lombroso’s findings were more like a form of coincidence, and certainly not strong enough to be used as preventative criminal theory. Ferri was another positivist, but he focused more on statistics and stated criminal behaviour to be also social, economic and political as well as physical. He said that elements such as climate of location, the age and sex of individuals and the customs of where we live affect our tendencies to commit crimes. Although it was more social, it was still based on positive data – statistics which could be relied on, or so he said. He also found Lombroso’s four categories of criminal (Ferri 2008), which goes some way in showing the objectiveness of this study, but how could they be used to prevent crime? Ferri went further than Lombroso and suggested that we use the statistics gathered to test of certain measures work – these measures were things such as more government participation, removal of monopolies, introduction of public recreation and such. This approach seems to have been much more realistic in that it tried to remove the factors which seemed to be causing criminal behaviour while not stating that they would definitely prevent it. So, it seems that the positivist method of using scientific results and statistics to test whether new methods work can have many benefits and also avoids the more direct form of prevention aimed at the individual ‘possible’ criminal. While it still arguably does not prove objective ideas of criminal behaviour, it uses possible findings of objective criminal behaviour to try to prevent such factors from being present. It so seems that positivist theories which are more social-based are more effective – it is more likely that objective social elements can be found rather than individual characteristics. While the social approach does base its research on individuals, it groups them together and makes them more easy to rely on. Maybe it was his suggestions that were more realistic than others which will be explored below. For example, Ferri suggested that there we housing for the poor – this was him suggesting that poor people are more likely to commit crimes, or poor areas are likely to have more crime and so we should remove this factor, rather than just lock up all poor people to prevent crime. While this seems like a drastic suggestion, it could have been possible under the positivist criminology theory. While an objective finding of criminal behaviour would be great, it is arguably impossible. Many debates have argued about whether, for example, a universal set of morals exist or not, and this problem was shown through Garofalo’s studies. He tried to explain crime universally, as a natural element of life and society throughout the world. This approach is very interesting and is very useful in showing how dangerous the complete application of the positivist school of thought could be. Garofalo said that criminals have a problem to reason morally, and that crime is an offense to the morals of society. This statement is based on a presumption that objective morals exist in a society, or even universally, and there are many arguments against this statement. It seems that there are always exceptions to morals, and perhaps while we could find a basic moral code, the way in which people interpret them can be very different. This debate is very large, and there is not enough space to explain it here. But Sumner has pointed out that anthropologists have found it extremely difficult to find a universal form of morality (2002); what one person finds immoral may be perfectly fine for another – the very fact that this conflict exists is a strong argument that universal morals cannot exist, and thus Garofalo’s approach is not effective or certain enough. It also shows that this approach, when put into practice as it was during the eugenics movement during the early eighteenth century could result in extremely unjust measures. During that time thousands of ‘misfits’ were sterilized so that they would not reproduce – such a practice based on moral ideals in today’s world is unthinkable, and strictly restricted to rapists in some societies only. A misfit in today’s society would not necessarily be a criminal – many misfits cause no harm to others and to sterilise them based on the mere fact that they do not comply with moral codes does not mean that we are preventing crime. The very fact that this practice is not used today shows that it is not acceptable enough. While the subjective approach to crime makes it difficult to prevent, the objective approach does not actually prevent it as much as we would think, and the possible injustices caused outweigh the possible preventions. It is very difficult in a just society to justify the imprisonment or sterilisation of a person (before he commits a crime) based on the idea that he ‘may’ commit a crime, or that he is the type to commit a crime. It is hard to imagine how this approach which aims to treat the criminal rather than punish can treat something which does not yet show. Another form of positivist criminology was that which studied body types. Kretschmer (1931) found three body types: tall and thin, athletic, and short and fat, stating that the athletic type was the more violent criminal whereas the other two were more prone to fraud and petty theft. Sheldon also based his studies on three body types, and linked certain personality characteristics to each type. He stated that mesomorphic, or muscled and hard body types are the most likely to commit crimes (1954). But again, can it be said that all mesomorphic body types will commit a crime at some point in their life? The answer is either no, or is not available, which means that we cannot prove that all muscled body types will commit crimes, and this means that it is very difficult to apply preventative acts, unless we risk unjust practices. It seems that the most a positivist approach can find is patterns, rather than specific groups, which all members will commit crimes under or not. This is not very helpful if we want to use it as a way of preventing crime – how do we know we are targeting the right individual? Can we all be put into groups based on our characteristics? It is highly arguable that the answer is no, unless injustice is okay as a side-result. It could be said with certainty that injustice is not okay as a side-result in today’s society. The fact that some criminals are muscley, and some are fat and some are thin shows that, while there may be some basic groups of criminal appearances, they again cannot be relied on as a way of preventing crime. The same can be said for the approach that studies mental deficiency as a criminal characteristic. Can it really be said that low intelligence is an objective production of crime? The Jukes Family study shows the danger of such ideas (Dugdale 1895); while it was first stated that the whole family was unintelligent and committed crimes, it was later found that the researcher seemed too eager to prove his point and missed the fact that not all of the large family had committed crimes, ‘in fact, they were not biologically flawed and doomed – they were simply poor scapegoats’ (Carlson 2003, para.4). It seems that such studies are easily manipulated to fit the idea that the conductor of the study wanted to show in the first place. Another problem is exactly how to prove mental intelligence. Studies began with IQ tests and then progressed to academic testing (Hirschi 2002). The academic testing seemed to be more successful, and it could be said that those who get lower scores in academic tests may be more likely to commit crimes. But this could be because they are given less opportunities in life, and are likely to have lower-grade, lower-paid jobs. Again, it cannot be said with certainty that those who are less intelligent are definitely going to commit crimes, the results only show the likeliness, which is not a good ground for treating someone before they commit a crime. The biggest problem is that if we can use positivist studies to prevent crime, the effects would be great, but it must be able to be one hundred percent correct if we are to rely on it as a prevention of crime. People tend to rely on numbers if we call them statistics and put science behind them, but this is not always the case, because they can be mistaken and there are almost always exceptions. It seems to be a balance between preventing crime while also preventing injustice to individuals. In today’s society, the positivist approach as a sole approach is not suitable enough because it is not certain enough – science seems to find it difficult to explain with certainty just who we are and which of us are likely to commit crimes. This is because there appear to be many different factors in society and many different characteristics of us, and many different combinations of each. This makes it almost impossible to find an objective ideal which fits everyone in practice. This is not to say that the positivist approach did not bring some good changes during the time it was most influential. As a sole theory, and especially as one in today’s society, it is not enough, but as a side-element, and as a way of testing whether certain approaches to crime are effective, it can be very useful. The biggest example as a reason to not use it as a single theory today is that of the Holocaust, and the idea of eliminating the inferior race. This shows the biggest weakness of the positivist approach, that to generalise every person is not possible; we are all different, even if we look criminal or even if we act criminal without actually committing crimes, does not mean that we are criminal. The positivist approach is outdated – now it is acceptable to act outside of society’s accepted standards, individuality is even encouraged or applauded. But to punish or treat a person because they may be criminal or because they may show criminal tendencies is not acceptable, and goes beyond treatment and punishment to irrational segregation. Whether we can ever prevent crime is a question that remains to be seen, but it is also apparent that by basing crime on purely scientific factors is not the right path. Objective criminality would be a wonderful finding, but it has not been found, and this suggests that it cannot be found. We then must accept that it is subjective, and although this makes crime prevention almost impossible on a large scale, it is the situation and we must so find a different way to deal with criminality today. Bibliography Carlson, Elof Axel. 2003. In Bad Seed or Bad Science: The Story of The Notorious Jukes Family. Scott Christianson. New York Times. 2nd August 2003. Dugdale, R.L. 1895. “The Jukes” A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity. 5th edition. UK: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Ferri, Enrico. 1899. Criminal Sociology. New York: D. Appleton and Company. Ferri, Enrico. 2008. Criminal Sociology. New York: BiblioBazaar Inc. Goring, Charles Buckman. 1913. The English Convict: A Statistical Study. London: HMS. Hirschi, Travis. 2002. Causes of Delinquency. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Kretschmer, Ernst. 1931. Physique and Character. UK: Routledge Publishers. Lombroso, Cesare. 1861. Criminal Man. Gibson, Mary. Rafter, Nicole Hahn eds. 2006. USA: Library of Congress. Sheldon, William Herbert. 1954. Atlas of Men. New York: Harper Publishing. Sumner, William Graham. 2002. Folkways: A Study of Mores, Manner, Customs and Models. USA: Dover Publications, Inc. Read More