The man credited with the birth of the classical school was Cesaer Beccaria (1738-1794), who emerged during the enlightenment period of the eighteenth century. Some argue that criminology as an independent discipline only emerged about 60 – 70 years ago (Garland 2002), and whilst not concerned with studying criminals per se in the same way that we most associate with criminology today, the classical school was hugely influential in the formation of Criminal Justice System as we know it today. Farner (cited in Taylor et al 1973) a nineteenth century commentator on Beccaria asserts :
“Whatever improvement our penal laws have undergone in the last hundred years is due primarily to Beccaria, and, to an extent that has not always been recognised. Lord Mansfield is said never to have mentioned his name without a sign of respect. Romilly referred to him in the very first speech he delivered in the House of Commons on the subject of law reform. And there is no English writer of that day who, in treating of the criminal law, does not refer to Beccaria”
The classical school is not concerned with why criminals are criminals, but seeks to reduce crime by using punishment as a means of deterrent, on the basis that individuals will choose to exercise their own free will and will employ rational decision making. By contrast, Ceasare Lombrosso (1835 – 1909) and the positivist school dismissed such ideas and theorised that criminality is a personality trait that one is born with and can be diagnosed by certain physical appearances, and is thus a more scientific method of establishing the reasons for criminal behaviour. However, this essay will concentrate on the strengths and weaknesses of the classical school.
Although Beccaria b...
... middle of paper ...
... punishment even if they were aware of its existence.
Statistics show that between 1993 and 1998 the average number of people in prison rose from 44,566 to 65,298, an increase of over 46%, and the Halliday report Making Punishments Work (Appendix 6, p130) published by the Home Office in 2001 estimated that the average offender carried out 140 offences per year . (Source: Civitas) This would surely indicate that the threat of punishment, even when considered by a rational, mentally capable person (we can assume that those in mainstream prison have been assessed as being mentally capable), exercising his own free will, is not sufficient to act as a deterrent?
As a recent blog on the web page of London Assembly member James Cleverly put it - “the central problem in British Justice is that we have no cemented view of what our underlying theory of punishment is”
The major goal of the Australian prison at the beginning of the 20th century was the removal of lawbreakers from their activities in society (King, 2001). The Australian legal system relies on deterrence (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119), that is, a system that has two key assumptions: (i) specific punishments imposed on offenders will ‘deter’ or prevent them from committing further crimes (ii) the fear of punishment will prevent others from committing similar crimes (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119). However it is not always the case that deterrence is successful as people commit crime without concern for punishment, thinking that they will get away with the crime committed (Jacob, 2011). Economists argue that crime is a result of individuals making choices
The first well known study of crime and criminals is that of one who is often referred to as the ‘father of criminology’, Cesar Lombroso. Lombroso’s argument was based around the Darwinian theory of human evolution and his theory argued that criminals were a throw back to an earlier period of human progression. In other words, they were less evolved humans, with visible physical features such as large ears and big lips. His theory suggested that criminals were born and not made therefore, where genetically prone to criminality. Merton’s argument was to the contrary.
In more recent years, numbers of the UK prison population have been on the rise – less serious crimes have been more severely punished - whereas the number of financial penalties issued to offenders have been falling (Cavadino & Dignan, 2013). In 1975, approximately 40.000 people were imprisoned, that number has risen to 83.842 in 2013 (Berman & Dar, 2013). The prison population more than doubled in that time, whereas the overall population merely grew with 14% (World Bank, n.d.), thus, the relative growth of the prison population is significantly disproportional.
Beccaria, a European theorizer, had the most influence on penology. "His work had a profound effect on criminal punishment the world over." Beccaria wrote "the purpose of punishment is not to torment a sensible being, or to undo a crime [but] is none other than to prevent the criminal from doing further injury to society and to prevent others from committing the like offense." This is how...
Up until the 19th century, Classicist ideas dominated the way in which people looked at crime. However during the late 19th century a new form of “scientific criminology” emerged, called Positivism (Newburn, 2007). Positivism looked at the biological factors on why someone would commit a crime, this involved looking at the physical attributes of a person, looking at their genetic make-up and their biochemical factors.
As an Italian lawyer and legal philosopher, he saw the then-actual criminal law as a messy jumble of laws, customs, and traditions that were being derived from ancient Roman and German cultures. This traditional law included criminal justice practices such as the use of torture to secure a confession and capital punishment. Beccaria not only believed that these methods were erratic, but ineffective. He also believed that these practices did not serve the public to its greatest potential of justice. Beccaria’s desired goal was to rationalize this jumble of laws into a uniform system that demonstrated the spirit of innovation and consistency, with principle and predictability. He would then publish the influential treatise, On Crime and Punishment, in 1764. He believed that those who abused the judicial system of its powers, did not serve the greatest good of the public. Arguments such as, justice being executed among the public, judicial torture being eradicated and deemed as inhumane, and how the accused should have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty; would be of the included within the
The three eras that have characterized the field of criminology over the past 100 years are the “Golden Age of Research,” the “Golden Age of Theory,” and an unnamed era that was “’characterized by extensive theory testing of the dominant theories, using largely empirical methods’” (28). The “Golden Age of Research” era spanned from 1900 to 1930 according to John H. Laub. This era is identified as focusing heavily on the collection of data surrounding crime and the criminal. This data was assessed without “any particular ideational framework” (28). The second era, the “Golden Age of Theory,” spanned from 1930 to 1960, also according to Laub. This era is also rather self-explanatory, it is described by the development of theories; however, Laub
Secondly, the society is based on consensus which displays the matter of traditional aspects of crime. Thirdly, orthodox criminology is based on a historical traditional methodology. Fourthly, police and state organizations have been described as deterrence and rehabilitation through the court system. Fifthly, Orthodox criminology crime issue describes the focus that society is a problematic study which is focusing on the criminal himself of herself. Therefore, this displays a more narrow solution to the individual themselves instead of the society. “Finally, the last orthodox criminology is a distinctive behavior that described as law” (Lynch & Michalowski, p.65). “In the study of crime that it’s stated the orthodox criminology has the acknowledgement of general theories” (Lynch & Michalowski,
Critical criminology, also known as radical criminology dates back to the concepts of Marxism. Despite the fact that Fredric Engels and Karl Marx were the founders of contemporary radical criminology, none of them gave explicit focus to crime. William Bonger (1876-1940), a Dutch criminologist was a more direct founder of this concept. It gained popularity during the early 1970s when it tried to explain the causes of contemporary social mayhem. He used economic explanations were used by critical criminology to analyze social behavior by arguing that social and economic inequalities were the main reason behind criminal behavior (Henry & Lainer, 1998). This view reduces the focus on individual criminals and elaborates that the existing crime is as a result of the capitalist system. Just like the conflict school of thought, it asserts that law is biased since it favors the ruling or the upper class and that the legal system that governs the state is meant to maintain the status quo of the ruling class. Critical criminologist are of the view that political, corporate and environmental crime are not only underreported but also inadequately punished by the existing criminal legal system.
Casare Beccaria, the father of classical criminology, believed that certainty, severity, and celerity (or speed) could prevent crime. He said that as certainty of punishment went up, the less likely someone is to break the law. So if criminal knew that they would be punished, they would be more hesitate to committed crime. He believes that the laws need to be clear and must always be enforced. His second principle of deterrence stated that the faster the punishment is set in the less likely crime will happen. Beccaria believed that the less time between the crime and the punishment, the stronger impact it would have on the individual. His last principle addressed severity of the crime. He believe that this was the least important of the...
Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay will aim to analyse both biological positivist and psychological positivist perspectives in hope of showing to what extent they play a role in criminal behaviour. Firstly, the essay will look at Cesare Lombroso's research on physical features and how these ideas have moved on to then develop scientific ideas such as genetics to explain criminal behaviour. Secondly, the essay will focus on external factors which may be able to explain criminal behaviour such as the social influences, life chances and Material deprivation.
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular
...hool of criminology is one of the oldest and most influential principles in the history of criminology. It finally got people to view criminals in a scientific way as opposed to some of the other, less effective methods which had been used previously. While Cesare Lombroso was the first to apply positivism to criminology, it was made possible by the efforts of Auguste Comte, who was the first person to suggest trying to solve problems using scientific reasoning (Adler et al 2012). Also the work of Charles Darwin was able to make society more receptive to the idea of science being an acceptable way to answer questions and solve problems in society. Those three men were able to make criminology a more legitimate and respected field.