Positivism Represented a Quite Different Agenda to that of the Earlier Classical School - Term Paper Example

Positivism represented a quite different agenda to that of the earlier ical school. Outline and assess this ment. The notion of positivism,which was not coined as such in those days, stemmed from a philosophical understanding which was closely related to mathematical logic. This statement was first addressed by Smocovitis (1996). Tierney (2010) expresses the idea that criminology came into existence thanks to sociology. Criminology originated in Britain at the beginning of the 1950s and it started as a pioneering method to research crime (Tierney 2010). Even though the crime investigation can be traced long before the 1950s, criminology itself, started to be academically recognized as a discipline (Tierney, 2010). Treadwell (2006) suggests that Cesare Lombroso can be named as the founding father of modern criminology. Lombroso also established the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. He utterly opposed the classical approach, which stood behind the idea that crime was an intrinsic characteristic of the human nature (Treadwell, 2006). Lombroso introduced the positivist movement in the end of 19th century, offering a more scientific modus operandi to criminology. Walklate (2005) elaborates that positivism introduced empirically researching crime and trying to understand it from its social perspective. Many theories have surfaced around the late 19th century such a approaching crime scientifically and researching the social background of the perpetrators (Walklate, 2005). Thanks to Lombrosos contribution, theories linking crime to psychological defects and social aspects started to be attributed to crimes. Biological theories also triggered the idea of the “born criminal”. Nowadays Positivism has evolved into the search of objective criminal fact. Wilcox and Cullen (2010) pose that positivism in criminology can be divided into three types: Biological (the period of Lombroso), Psychological (the period of Freud) and Social (the works of Durkheim and Park). The methods applied in positivism employ empirical, scientific data. The purpose of social research in positivism is to get hold of objective facts. In this train of thoughts positivism is subjective, because it is focused on finding out the meaning behind the criminal actions. Hagan (2010) describes three basic assumptions: measurement – which is related to the quantification of the collected data, objectivity – which demonstrates neutrality and causality, which determines what caused and led to the crime. Before Positivism sprang into life, criminology was applying different methodology – that of the classical school. Taylor et al (1973), explain that classical criminology was first formulated by Cesare Beccaria. “All men being by nature self-seeking are liable to commit crime (Taylor, 1973, p 2)”. This means that the decision to perpetrate a crime is purely rational. Tierney (2010) elaborates further that the main difference between the early classical school and positivism in criminology is that one stands behind the notion of “free will” and the other supports the theory of “determinism”. Bohm and Vogel (2010) outline that positivism presumes that perpetrators are fundamentally different from non perpetrators, either psychologically, biologically or sociologically. Thus, positivism attempts to classify and differentiate people according to those three categories. The Classical school believes that the crime is a well calculated act of gain and opportunity which results in the crime being committed. Consequently, according to the Classical theories, the crime is based on rationality and reason (Bohm and Vogel, 2010). Gilling (1997) assumes that positivism contributed immensely to substituting the concept of the “rational man” with the “criminal type”. It is important to understand that early classical criminology emphasises on the fact that people should not exercise and exert any crime prevention (Walklate, 2005). Positivism, on the contrary, expresses the idea that every criminal should be approached differently, depending on his/her circumstances and profile and that there could be a “personalized” treatment especially tailored for his offences (Treadwell, 2006). Durkheim was the founding father of the early Positivist Social Research and he also formulated the notion of the social fact. “A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations (Cheal, 2005 p.12)”. Furthermore, he developed various concepts about the human behaviour and conducted one of the most famous studies on suicide. The basic principle of positivism in criminology is to locate the issue in the individual and to correct it. This aims to prevent and control crime. Positivism gave researchers and theorists the possibility to scientifically collect information. Human behavioural patterns are very sophisticated and intricate and they are indeed quite unpredictable. Thus, human behaviour should be taken as a bi-product of cause and effect. On this basis, deductions can be done. Porter (2001) addresses the Age of Reason at the beginning of 18th century as the pinnacle of Positivism. This was a difficult transition from abstract thinking to rationalism and from old beliefs to science. Early biological thinkers like Lombroso tried to identify the “born criminals”. Researchers from this circle of thought believed that the character can be defined by the shape of the skulls and other body features (Gilling, 1997). Lombrosos work extensively mentions the “ape-like” criminal, who are evolutionary backwards, has prominent body hair, disproportionately long arms and ear which stick out prominently. In 2007 Enrico Ferri coined the term “law of criminal saturation”. According to this theory the annual levels of criminality in any given area depends on the political, social, economic, physical and environmental conditions at this place. These are combined with the random impulses and tendencies expressed by the individuals. The law of saturation means that if the conditions and the people in them remain unchanged, then the crime levels will remain steady (Ferri, 2007). In his book Barlow (2010) comments that early biological positivism was generally inspired by the studies of animal evolution and natural selection by Charles Darwin. As members of the animal realm, humans were ruled by the same natural laws as animals. For Charles Darwin there is no free will or choice to be made and behaviour is governed by evolutionary, biological instincts. This idea is coined as Social Darwinism by Bannister (1989). Hagan (2010) also elaborates that in this theory the criminals are the “unfit” and the natural selection singled them out, because they are struggling to survive in the surrounding environment. Their behaviour can not be corrected and is a biological shortcoming, thus as criminals they cant responsibly make a judgement and would deny any wrongdoing. Social Darwinism postulates that any preventative measures would be futile. Hagan (2010) reminiscences of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany during World War II, where “selective breeding” was used to justify class and ethnic differences for racial bias and mass murder. Bohm and Vogel (2010) look into Lombrosos positivist theory, which references women as intellectually inferior to men and simplistic. This is reason enough for women to have lower levels of criminality. This theory is largely criticized nowadays for being offensive and derogatory (Bohm and Vogel, 2010). No other factors are taken into consideration – like social or environmental elements, or impulses and motives for perpetrating the crimes. Modern and post-Lombrosian studies have revealed that there is more to biological positivism than gender differences. Predisposition to commit crimes could be genetically inherent and the advance in technological development can look beyond physical appearances. The Chicago school of positivism in criminology examines the social factors which lead to the crime (Carrabine et al, 2004). For them the criminals are socially created. They are a product of where and how they live, which transfers into their behaviour and predisposition. For the Chicago school theory crime is learned just as everything else. Thus if you are surrounded by crime, this is what you are going to learn as behavioural pattern. The likelihood of someone who lives in a high crime area to engage in crime increases and they may not necessarily consider is as a deviance (Carrabine et al, 2004). Another school of positivism is that of the psychological positivism. They focus on the violence, sexuality, and aggression when analysing the crime (Hagan, 2010). According to Hagan (2010) psychological positivism explores and measures the mental and psychological dissimilarities between the perpetrators and the non perpetrators. Such studies are also applied within the field of psychometry. Treadwell (2006) also refers to the extensive theories developed by Harold Eysenck, who brings forward a chart through which he studies key personality components: neuroticism, psychoticism and extroversion. Eysenck suggests that an exaggeration of these personality features may act as a natural inclination to develop anti-social behaviour (Treadwell, 2006). Since psychology has many branches – from cognitive to behavioural and social to developmental, the criminology theories are based on and focus on the lack of cognitions as primal cause for the criminal activities (Wilcox and Cullen, 2010). Psychoanalytical methods look into how self-image and rejection of responsibility affect the thinking patterns of perpetrators. Such techniques aid researchers to create profiles and offer counselling to offenders (Wilcox and Cullen, 2010). However, other scholars like Maguire and Radosh (1996) argue that it is very difficult to describe positivistic methods since they can not always be observed directly. Positivism takes the legal explanation of crime for granted (Bohm and Vogel, 2010). Bohm and Vogel (2010) elaborate that the definition of crime is socially constructed as “criminal” through the introduction of laws and punishments. They claim that our view and understanding of crime as deviant and culpable is a social product. We label crime as such, however since it is a product of our society its nature varies from culture to culture and from historic period to another and may not be necessarily be interpreted the same way. Bohm and Vogel (2010) criticise positivism that it is flawed because it tries to unify all people into a universal belief. Not all of us share the same values or fundamental understanding about the world around. For Schutt (2006) positivism states that “there is an objective reality that exists apart from the perceptions of those who observe it, and that the goal of science is to better understand this reality (p. 40)”. Crime has indeed a diverse and extensive meaning. It amalgamates a lot of concepts. Thus crime can not be easily explained or treated because different individuals are motivated by different reasons to commit it. Maguire and Radosh (1996) argue that it is quite incorrect to classify and distinctly divide people into criminals and non-criminals. “Victims and perpetrators are often the same people, just swapping roles in different situations (Maguire and Radosh ,1996, p.78). Positivism in criminology was established in order to acquire and collect information about the human behaviour and social lifestyle of the perpetrators. Crime is such complicated and variable phenomenon in our society that it is impossible to encapsulate it and explain it with one theory. There are many nuances than the black and white perpetrator – victim. And it is very easy to fall short when sourcing objective facts to explain crimes. The intention of positivism is to give a possible answer to misdeeds. Consequently, this may lead to adequate legislation and social policy to tackle felony. There are countless practical solutions that positivism offers to criminal activity. Negative labelling and segregating the population into criminals and non-criminals does not provide a comprehensive solution to crime solving and crime prevention. Total objectivity can not be accomplished and subjectivity needs to be recognized as an intrinsic part of human nature. Since pure objectivity is impossible, this needs to be accepted and acknowledged in any academic works addressing this. It is impossible to be entirely free from bias when analysing ones own results. Positivism in criminology offers one of many arrays of interpretations. Criminal minds and actions are ever changing and modern times give way to new divisions within the crimes – like cyber attacks. We need more than law enforcements to tackle such threats to society. No doubt mind games and mental instability contribute great deal to the creation of criminals and positivism is one of many possible answers to its origins and understanding it. References: Bannister, R. 1989. Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought. Philadelphia; Temple University Press Barlow, H. 2010. Explaining Crime: A Primer in Criminological Theory. Plymouth; Rowman and Littlefield Bohm, R. and Vogel, B. 2010. A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. 3rd ed. Belmont; Cengage Learning Carrabine, E. et al. 2004. Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. New York; Routledge Cheal, D. 2005. Dimensions of Sociological Theory. London; Palgrave Macmillan Ferri, E. 2007. Criminal Sociology. Middlesex; The Echo Library Gilling, D. 1997. Crime Prevention: Theory, Policy, and Politics. New York; Routledge Hagan, F. 2010. Introduction to Criminology: Theories, Methods, and Criminal Behavior. London; Sage Publications Maguire, B. and Radosh, P. 1996. The Past, Present, and Future of American Criminal Justice. New York; General Hall Porter, R. 2001. The Enlightenment. 2nd ed. New York; Palgrave Schutt, R. 2006. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. London; Sage Publications Smocovitis, V. 1996. Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton; Princeton University Press Taylor et al. 1973. The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance, Routledge. Tierney, J. 2010. Criminology: Theory and Context. 3rd ed. Harlow; Pearson Education Treadwell, J. 2006. Criminology. London; Sage Publications Walklate, S. 2005. Criminology: The Basics. New York; Routledge Wilcox, P. and Cullen, F. 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. Volume 1. London; Sage Publications Read More