Differences Between The Classical School Vs. Positivist Schools

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

Crime have existed over many centuries, different eras affect the flow of crime and within those eras. Furthermore amongst individuals, there was different way of thinking into how to reduce and eliminate occurred. The act of crime cannot be eliminated, as different individuals have different perspectives of crime and for theses reasons, have different methods of advocating and eliminating crime. This essay will firstly explore the views of Classical Theory, by looking at Cesane Beccaria, the father of Classical theory and Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarian and explore how there influences are incorporated into laws and regulations, around the world. Secondly, Positivism theory explores the biological, psychological and environment

Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current

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.

During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).

Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches and explanations of crime are arguably some of the most controversial, for the reason that they state that it is the ruling class that is responsible for criminalising the working classes, which goes directly against what official statistics and Functionalists believe. However, Marxism and Functionalism do share a similarity in that both believe structures and institutions of society play a very important role in determining how people behave, criminally or otherwise.

The punishment should be proportional to the crime. For example, if a man exceeds speed limit to get his wife to the hospital he has to be charged with criminal speeding, and equally if a man exceeds speed limit just for fun he has to be charged with the same punishment. So according to classicist both of the offenders should be punished no matter what the circumstances are and everyone has to be charged equally.

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.

In Criminology there are two main approaches when talking about why criminals commit crime: positivism and classical criminology. Throughout the decades there have been many criminologists that debate this subject like positivist Cesare Lombroso who believed that criminals were less evolved than non-criminals and believed they had a more primitive mind. Whereas Bentham viewed all people as rational decision makers and created the pain-pleasure theory. In the Sage Dictionary of Criminology the definition of Classical Criminology is “An approach to the study of crime and criminality which is underpinned by the notion of ration action and free will. It was developed in the late 18th century and 19th century by reformers who aimed to create a

The Classical School of Criminology was developed by two utilitarian philosophers, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the early 17th century. The Classical School of Criminology is an important theory in the framework of criminal behavior, with principle themes that include: criminal acts are of individuals free will and rational deliberation, calculating, and hedonistic beings. Criminals make a rational choice and choose criminal acts due to maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. As well as minimizing crime, the would be offender must be convinced that the likely punishment for the crime would be swift, certain and proportionately (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 11).

Lastly, the moral education theory is related to rehabilitation because the punishment is for the criminals own good, but the moral education theory also respects that criminals are free people who make choices. The moral education theory evidently accounts for the deficiencies of the other three aforementioned theories. It also morally maximizes justification for punishment by demonstrating how forbidden actions are intolerable because they are immoral, not just because there are boundaries set around certain actions.

“Classical Criminology was developed in the eighteenth century in opposition to the use of extreme and arbitrary punishments. Classical Criminology advocated a rational approach that punishment ought to be imposed only to the extent necessary to ensure a deterrent.” (Rowe, 2012: 191)

Classicism is associated with the works of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), the father of the classical school of criminology and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) (Walklate, 2007). Both reformers of the classical school were demanding for more effective, rational and fixed system of justice. Brown, Esbensen and Geis (2012) highlights that, as classicists intended to reform the system and administration of justice, one of the key concepts was Beccaria’s doctrine of Egalitarianism. This refers to equality before the law, where offenders must first be convicted by the court of law to be subjected to punishment (White and Haines, 2004). As all individuals are equal before the law, this led to the rejection of individualised punishment, in which to eliminate judicial discretion; there cannot be individualised punishments (Mantle, Fox and Dhami, 2005).

Two central philosophies anchor the commonly accepted idea of criminal justice. The first is a ardent requirement for increased conviction rates and the second is the perception that the people in prisons deserve punishment rather than rehabilitation. These philosophies have especially grave consequences for the underprivileged and marginalized.

From a criminological perspective several criminologists would agree that many of society’s laws are not neutral. Whilst Marxists recognise that for a society to function efficiently, social order is necessary, “the founders of Marxism thought that crime, same as all other problems of human society, is a direct result of the unjust structure of capitalism” (Marxism and Criminology). Furthermore, Marx argued that one should always ask of the law who benefits from it? And in doing so, one may note that most laws are formulated to protect the interests of the most powerful members in society from those with the least power (Chablis, et al.). It may further be