Introduction 126
The classical theory and psychological positivism theory can still be used to conceptualise crime in the 21st century, regardless of the shift in criminological thinking. Both theories offer a unique perspective as to why individuals engage in criminal behaviour, with one suggesting that an individual acts by their own free will to engage in behaviour while the other argues that criminal behaviour is due to internal factors influencing the behaviour. This critique will examine the characteristics and history of each theory before applying the understanding of both theories to the real life crime case of Katherine Knight. The application of each theory will examine potential reasons as to why Katherine Knight engaged in criminal behaviour, while comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of both theories.
…show more content…
The classical theory incorporates a more legal definition of crime due to the circumstances in which it emerged. Crime is conceptualised as a result of a person acting upon their own free will to engage in the criminal behaviour (SOURCE). However, psychological positivism rejects the notion and instead argues a person who commits crime is engaging in the behaviour due to internal factors that have developed during childhood and adolescences (SOURCE). The difference in understanding can be due to the methods used to approach crime. Psychological positivism utilises a scientific method to theorise about the deviant behaviour in individuals. However, this is often criticised as there is no specific method to measure the internal influences (SOURCE). In contrast, the classical theory ignores the factors that cause individuals to engage in crime, and instead sums the behaviour to be the rational choice of an individual to engage in behaviour that offers the most pleasure for minimal pain
This theory concludes that a crime is not extraordinary or the result of a deranged mind. Each crime has its own set of choice structuring properties that determine an individual’s decision in relation to committing a crime. These structures can be highly based on a number of factors including: accessible targets, previous experience, time to commit the crime, what
Theorists then sought to figure out another alternative way for understanding the commission of crime, as many began to doubt this theory that crime was a simple characteristic of the human nature. In the nineteenth century the Positivist approach was introduced, which brought a whole new way of thinking about criminals and certain
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
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
Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.
When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).
What is crime? What makes people commit crimes and how can we stop it? These, and many other questions similar to these, are asked by criminologists everyday. Criminology is an ever growing field, mainly because there is more and more research occurring and new theories linking people and crime coming out everyday. Below the main field of criminology there are many subfields that have different theories and philosophies on what they believe link criminal behavior. Two of the main criminology perspectives are Classical Criminology and Positivist Criminology. Although these two are both studied in the criminology field, their views are distinctly contradictory from each other. These two theories and many
First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the
The Classical school of criminology can be known as the free will to act at one’s own discretion, where an individual chooses to break the law upon a desirable choice. The Classical emphasizes how the system was organized, punishments for crime, and how authorities should react to crime. On the other hand, positivist school was created to see what influences an individual to break the laws, based on human beings’ behavior. Positivist school is simply trying to analyze who, what, and how crime is initiated. This study will identify the schools’ argument, and if they complement each other, the advantages and disadvantages, and the different approaches or points of view from multiple criminologist regarding the schools and theories.
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.
In positivist criminology, a person commits a crime because outside factors influenced them. For example, a person is more likely to commit a crime if they live in poverty. In today’s society, it is easier for someone to rob or steal rather than to get a job and work for their money. Not to mention, it is harder for those who live in poverty to get jobs since most employers only want the best of the best working for their company. Living in poverty can also affect a person’s mentality. Trying to figure out how to overcome poverty can be stressful, and this can take a toll on people’s mental health and cause them to commit acts that they wouldn’t have committed if they were in their normal state of mind.
Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.
There are many perspectives in which one can analyze and understand why a person decides to commit a crime. Some perspectives are social learning theory, strain theory, classical and rational choice theory, deterrence theory, biological and psychological positivist theories, among others. However, for the purposes of this paper, the biological and psychological theories will be discussed.
Classical criminology is a way of looking at rational behaviour and free will. This approach was developed in the 18th century and early 19th century and they intended to establish a clear and legitimate criminal justice system based on equality for all. Positivist criminology is based on the understanding of crime and criminology, and its basic concept is based on the decision of behaviour. There are two types of positivists who seek to explain crimes and misinterpretations: biologics and psychological positivism. The origins of positivism and the two interrelated developments started in the nineteenth century.
Criminology is the scientific study of crime as an individual and social phenomenon. Criminological research areas include the incidence of crime as well as its causes and consequences. They also include social and governmental regulations and reactions to crime. Nation master.com (2013) highlights that “in criminology the positivist school has attempted to find scientific objectivity for the measurement and quantification of criminal behaviour”. The Positivist School of thought presumes that criminal behaviour is caused by various internal and external factors which are outside of the individual 's control. The scientific method was introduced and applied to the study of human behaviour. Positivism can be broken up into three segments which include biological, psychological and social positivism Nation master (2013)