Classical And Modern Day Philosophies

Describing and Evaluating the Major Theories of Cause of Criminal Behaviour and the Impact of Crime on Victims and Society

Yet another criticism is their belief in deterrence. Research has shown that there is little correlation between punishment and crime, meaning that there is not a significant amount of information showing that deterrence actually works leading it into a controversial issue. People commit crimes for many different reasons that classicalists fail to acknowledge. Classical criminology was the first big step into what makes up the field of criminology today, dominating around the eighteenth century. A change in the way information was assembled with the emergence of the scientific method challenged the classical perspective and introduced the theory of Positivism.

The beginnings of the counseling profession can be traced back as far as the Greeks with the emergence of psychology. Psychology did not develop into a legitimate profession until the late 1800s. As time went on it spawned numerous other profession, Counseling Psychology being one of them (Landrum). Some of the most prominent Psychologist in the field such as Freud, Erikson, and Witmer, utilized techniques, most notably ”Talk Therapy”, which lead to the formation of the counseling profession ("The history of counselling and psychotherapy").

Each of these theories had led to many new theories used today, such as the Rational Choice theory, Biosocial and Psychological Theory, Critical Theory, Cultural Deviance Theory, Life Course Theory, and many more. The one thing in common with every theory is that they all explain at least one behavioral factor that leads to crime. Today, all these theories, and more, are researched and taken into account when trying to understand why a criminal does what they do.

I believe the theory that best explains why crime happens is the psychoanalytic perspective. I believe this is the best theory because it focuses more on the wants and acts of the criminal rather an their personality or lack of control. The psychoanalytic perspective more accurately describes a reason to why people commit crimes. Not all individuals could be identified from a personality trait or low levels of self control. Therefore, the psychoanalytic perspective would give the best explanation to why crime happens.

As human beings we all see and hear about crimes from a day to day basis. We all question why we have crime and what makes a person commit a crime.

Criminology and the criminal justice system have framed a “taken-for-granted, common-sense” understanding of ‘crime’ and the ‘criminal’ (Tierney, 2010). ‘Crime’ is commonly understood as a violation of the criminal law; originating from religion and the sin of God and then moving towards Classicalism. Classicalism rests on the assumption of free will and recognises rational choice of the individual. It influences much of our system of justice today; especially aspects of due process. It argues that criminality is therefore part of nature; and order is maintained through law and punishments. We can see this through Beccaria’s approach of certainty, celerity and severity (Beccaria, cited in Newburn, 2013, pp116). Positivism, associated with theorists such as Lombroso, offered more of a scientific approach in identifying the causes of crime and could recognise impaired ability such as mental illness. It argues that ‘crime’ is

As noted by both Austin and Pratt, Criminology has had several issues in receiving attention and respect by policy makers. While criminologists have conducted research on topics within criminal justice, little attention is given to the research by policy makers. One would imagine that the best possible social science and profession to consult when drafting law in regards to crime, sentencing, and justice would be criminology and criminologists. However, criminologists are often not consulted by policy makers and instead are shunned by lawmakers. There are several reasons given for why it may be the case that criminology is not taken seriously when it comes to public policy, and both Austin and Pratt have their takes and what the problem is

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

Classical and positivism criminology is an important theory of criminal behaviour. From the very beginning, theorists and scholars sought solutions to crimes and deviations. Over time, the entire social criminal activity escalated. The serial killer was an unknown term at one stage, but in the 20th century people began to murder others for different intention rather than self- defence. People did not used to discuss sensitive crime in public, like child molestation or rape until recently. As access to drugs and supplies of medicines increase, crime rates are on the rise, including drugs approved by the FDA and street drugs. In order to better understand the nature of the crime, why did people commit an act of crime and the reason behind it, and how to

Understandings of crime came from thinkers such as Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. The idea that humans are “insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting.” (Heywood Andrew, 2011: 55.) Thus, making egoism the most dominant characteristic amongst individuals in society. Due to this competition amongst society people would consider pursuing crime to achieve their goals.

In this paper I will be addressing and discussing the two schools of criminology, which respectively are the classical school and the positivist school. I will begin by comparing and contrasting the historical background of both schools using the founders of each school. I will then continue the paper by comparing their assumptions, their findings and their key policy implications. I will do this by explaining each school’s purpose and goal. I will then argue and explain how the classical school is respectively stronger than the positivist school for being straight forward, concise and unbiased.

Contemporary classicism is much more about crime control than seeking to explain motivations of people and is often focused on criminal events, the decisions that lead up to the crime and how to deter people from committing the crime. The theory believes “that it is better to prevent crimes than to punish them.” (Brown, Esbensen, and Geis, 2015; 161)

In contrast to the positivism approach, classical theory has a different way of explanation why crime occur. Classical theory

Upon talking about the history of modern philosophy, one of the most important philosophers, who is considered as the father of the philosophy in this period, is Descartes. He was a pioneer for the movement of the new trend of philosophy and became a break between the medieval philosophy and the modern philosophy. Being educated in the environment of medieval philosophy, specifically in the school of Jesuits, Descartes received the system of scholastic philosophy as his foundation for making a new start into the history of philosophy. In his life, Descartes tried to establish a system of philosophy which was suitable to the development of society and science. To do that, he did not collapse pre-philosophical systems, but somehow he ignored their values. In his Meditations he says “Once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences.” Therefore, he just could begin a new system of philosophy which, he thought, would be a certain and firm foundation to get knowledge. However, to build up the principles for this foundation, Descartes had to use the concept of God in his arguments. The existence of God became an important means for the construction of his new philosophical system. Hence, I will emphasize on the importance of God in this paper by discovering the role of God as a means in Descartes’ main points of reasoning, particularly God with the method of