The school of classical theory does receive criticism from some as it does have some problems (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). One of the first problems some would have with the theory of the classical school is how long the theory has been around (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). It has been argued that some have re-interpreted the theory for personal gains rather than to make the criminal justice system fairer (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). The biggest problem by far with the theory of the classical school is that everyone is treated the same regardless of certain circumstances (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). The classical school theory does not allow extenuating circumstances to be argued as a reason for why the crime was committed (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). The obvious problem with this is that there does exist some circumstances that would justify why a crime was done or at least provide a partial explanation (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Also, this theory does not differentiate between crimes that have comparable characteristics. This is a problem because each crime no matter how similar will have its own unique set of facts and circumstances (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). The theory of the classical school only views the crime committed and does not account for factors such as the age of the defendant, human emotion, level of education or if someone is insane to name a few (Bohm & Vogel, 2011).
Other problems include the “social contract”. Basically, that the classical theory is the popular choice of the citizens for determining criminal acts (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). But, it can be argued that not all citizens would actually favor the principals of the classical theory, at least not in all aspects (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). This is because not everyone in society is equal on an economic or social scale (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). “Classical theory fails to consider that crime may be rational given the individual’s social position” (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. 19.). One of the chief problems I see with the classical theory is that the ability to utilize discretion is removed. This falls into line with zero tolerance policies.
Zero tolerance policies are derived from the theory of the classical school (Saeler, 2015). The classical theory believes in deterring crime
Based on the research, the context of “zero tolerance” policies has been examined. Furthermore, this study identifies whether these policies have essentially created effective solutions or merely increased problems for institutions and children.
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.
Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common under zero tolerance (Dennis, page 37)
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.
Zero tolerance policies have been implemented for a variety of reasons and within a broad range of applications. The two most well known however are California’s three-strikes law and the declaration of schools as gun-free zones. California’s three-strikes law was passed in 1994 and is an escalating scale of sentencing. Defendants convicted of a previous felony, or on their “second strike”, would be sentenced to state prison for double the term normally provided for
With the creation of the zero tolerance policy, it changed the way student are being disciplined. In the 1990’s, in fear of the increasing crime rate, The United States Congress created a law that allowed public schools to enforce strict disciplinary policies for misbehaving students (Mental Health America). The zero tolerance policy states: “[the policy] mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context”
The classical perspective founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham; stated that at people choose to commit crime after they considered the pros and cons that could be associated with a crime, and believed that the pros outweighed the cons (Tonry,2014). The theory relied on deterring criminal acts by assuring that the consequences of crime are absolute, harsh, and quickly administered (Tonry,2014).
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
This study is aimed to investigate zero tolerance policing and the implementation of its policies into society. By focusing on the pros and cons of this type of policing it will answer the overall question on whether or not zero tolerance policing is efficient and effective within society. The theories behind zero tolerance policing can provide specific reasons for why or why not policing needs more or less discretion when performing certain functions. There are certain legal aspects that back up decisions made by officers and targeting the statistical data provides the rates of effectiveness with zero tolerance policing. Zero tolerance policing is data based upon implementation, the needs of the people backed with the results of implementation decide which statistical method of policing is best for society. Based on the finding from the data of societal measurement and effectiveness the decision on whether or not to continue pursuing zero tolerance policing or revert to other methods can be completely valid to specific fact based results.
Zero tolerance policing holds that strict non-discretionary law enforcement that is tough on crime, specifically minor offenses will decrease more serious crime. This policing style is closely related
There are many different aspects of criminal justice policy. One in particular is the different theories of crime and how they affect the criminal justice system. The Classical School of criminology is a theory about evolving from a capital punishment type of view to more humane ways of punishing people. Positivist criminology is maintaining the control of human behavior and criminal behavior. They did this through three different categories of Biological studies, which are five methodologies of crime that were mainly focused on biological theories, Psychological theories, which contains four separate theories, and the Sociological theories, which also includes four different methods of explaining why crime exists. The last theory is
With the exception of probation, imprisonment has been the main form of punishment for serious offenders in the United States for over 200 years. Americans can be said to have invented modern incarceration as a means of criminal punishment. Although Europe provided precedents, theoretical justifications, and even architectural plans for imprisoning offenders, Americans developed the blueprints for the typical prisons of today and devised the disciplinary routines, types of sentences, and programs that prison systems of other countries subsequently adopted or modified (Rafter & Stanley 1999).
The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.
This essay is going to explain the extent to which classicism and positivist criminology conflict with each other and whether they share one another. Also, this essay going to show examples how these theories affect our modern criminal justice system. These theories begin with the human nature of criminals, the definition of crime, the focus of analysis, the causes of crime, the response to crime, the operation of crime prevention and criminal justice systems.
I believe a weakness of this theory is that it does not explain why everyone commits crime. It also shifts the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the factors that may have caused the crime to take place. An example would be instead of the person who steals being blamed for the crime, the blame is then on the environment because it is a low