Classical School vs. Positivist School

Classical vs. Positivist School of Criminology:

Two Clashing Views of the Human, Criminal Animal

Although 18th century classical views of criminology should not be conflated with later, modern notions of classical psychological conditioning like Pavlov's dog being trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, there are certain similarities between the two schools of thought and even some of the methods used in classical criminology to reorient criminals back into society. First and foremost, later forms of classical conditioning and the early classical school of criminality both stressed the ability, through repeated positive reinforcement of socially desirable traits and negative enforcement regarding antisocial traits deemed criminal by society. (Adler, et. al, 2004) For instance, Jeremy Bentham's vision of a 'panopticon' like prison in classical criminology suggested a prison in which individuals were constantly watched, and thus were forced to monitor and reform their behavior accordingly. Eventually, the reinforcement of watching would no longer be necessary, after individuals had been reinstalled with proper notions and more importantly, taught proper methods of behavior that could create a better method of society (Bentham, 1761)

It should also be stressed that the classical school is not necessarily more cruel or harsh than systems than the epistemological views of criminology derived before its acceptance within the law enforcement agencies of the age. In fact, classicism was to be a compassionate reform of a criminal justice system where most crimes, large and small, were punished by death. (Foucault, 1977) The concept of classical criminology stressed the possibility within all souls for reform and the potential for all individuals to change through rationalism and sheer force of will. Thus classical criminology shows at its essence the rationalism and the optimism influenced and fostered by the then-recent Enlightenment's reforming spirit and humanitarianism. The classical theory stressed the importance and ability of criminals to make use of a social contract that all human beings accepted in exchange for dwelling within society. The criminal had broken the social contract, but this did not mean that the break was irreconcilable.

The idea of the social contract and rule of law freely chosen on basis of rational self-interest was critical to notions of rational self-governance for all human beings during the Enlightenment era of political philosophy. Thus to make such theories rational, in an ideologically coherent fashion for theorists of politics and criminology, criminals could not be exempt from such theories as they were still human beings. The concern of this classical school was to balance the good of society with rights of individual. This is why the classical concern was with the administration of penal justice and rather than placing an emphasis on law and order as before. The overall problem of crime, the needs and the reasons for the existence of the criminal was stressed instead, as well as the need to reform the criminal. (Barak, 1997)

In contrast, the evolving school of positivist criminology placed a strong emphasis on individual responsibility and morality. Like the classical school, the positivist school too was concerned about the nature of the criminal him or herself rather than enforcing a society of pure law and order, regardless of individual rights. But rather than a nascent form of psychology and politics, the positivist school of criminology was more based on methodology of natural sciences. The positivist school sought to collect a body of observable facts and data regarding criminal behavior. In direct contrast to the classical school, and more in line with the previous concepts revolving around criminality, the positivist school willingly embraced an acceptance of determinism and external forces, including the biological, as well as economic, psychological, and social forces that drove people to crime.

Like classical approaches, positivist approaches acknowledged that the external environment as well as 'the devil' or moral forces could propel people to crime. Quetelet's social mechanics of crime theory turned Bentham's theories turned upside down, stressing that rather than needing to create a panopticon with a prison, all of society was a kind of mechanism that could propel certain cogs in the societal machine, namely human beings, into the practice of committing crime. But even more influential in positivist approaches were theories of Lombroso's born criminal. This reflected the idea that crime had biological rather than internal or socially environmental roots, as was popular as well with Garofalo's adaptation of Herbert Spencer's social Darwinist approaches to crime. (Spencer, 1857) Thus, during the later, positivist heyday of criminology theory, there was a change of focus from changing the punishments of the law to reform the criminal to a stress that the criminal was responsible for his or her crimes and thus the punishment should fit the criminal. (Barak, 1997)