Classical theory and identity theft in the Brian Frank case

Classical Causes of Criminal Behavior

Man Pleads Guilty

Classical Causes

Vital Components

Foundation and Focus

Causes Contributing to Frank's Crimes?

CLASSICAL CAUSES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Man Pleads Guilty

No crime can ever be defended on rational grounds." (Livius, 1996)

Man pleads guilty in identity theft case," (Hall, 2006) the headline in the North County Times 2004 archived account reads. Brian Joseph Frank, 30, reportedly pleaded guilty to identity theft, along with 19 other felonies. Frank who utilized several victims' identities, along with a false name, made more than $25,000 in fraudulent purchases. If he had been convicted of all 20 counts, Frank could have been sentenced to nine years in prison. Instead, he agreed to a two-year prison sentence. (Ibid) The underlying causes for Frank's identity theft crimes were not disclosed in the newspaper account. No rational reasons were given for his criminal spree. During the course of the trial, the prosecutor noted identity theft to be a major.".. economic disruption to the victim because of the time it takes to repair all the damage done." (Ibid) Components regarding Frank's economic profile, on the other hand, may or may not have been considered as contributing factors to the major disruption his crimes netted him, or to the rational or irrational "grounds" that could be purported to cause his crimes.

Whether on not Frank used a computer during the course of his crime spree was not disclosed in the newspaper's account, however, it is likely as a majority of today's identity thefts are facilitated with computers. According to the British police, cybercrime, one of today's major crimes, is.".. The use of any computer network for crime." ("Cybercrime - High Tech crime," 2006)

Vital Components

The following table comparing classical and positivist Schools of thought illustrates vital components in the classical theory, presented in "Beccaria's Dei delitti e delle pene (An Essay on Crimes and Punishments)," (Ibid, 33) which he began writing in July 1764, a classic on early modern penology.

Comparison of Classical and Positivist Schools (Copied)

ISSUE

CLASSICAL SCHOOL

POSITIVE SCHOOL

Roots

Enlightenment

Modern science

Focus

Criminal administration

Criminal person

Approach

Philosophical - social contract theory, utilitarianism

Scientific, positivism

Laws

Measurements

View of human nature

Free will

Hedonism

Morally responsible for own

Behaviour (sic)

Determined by biological, psychological, and social environment

Moral responsibility obscured

View of justice system

Social contract; exists to protect society; due process and concern with civil rights; restrictions on system

Definite sentence

Scientific treatment system to cure pathologies and rehabilitate offenders; no concern with civil rights

Indefinite sentence

Form of law

Statutory law; exact specification of illegal acts and sanctions

Social law; illegal acts de ned by analogy; scientific experts determine social harm and proper form of treatment

Purpose of sentencing

Punishment for deterrence; sentences are determinate (fixed length)

Treatment and reform; sentences are indeterminate (variable length until cured)

Criminological experts

Philosophers; social reformers

Scientists; treatment experts (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South, 2004, p. 43)

Foundation and Focus The foundation for the Classical Theory to crime focused less on the criminal and targeted more on securing a rational, fair system for controlling and putting punishments in order. Little concern was given to causes of criminal behaviors. Significant words/definitions related to this theory include:

Classicism - The Enlightenment view of crime that stresses free will and rationality and the corresponding rationality of the justice system....

Free will - According to the classical school, people possess reason. This means that they can calculate the course of action that is in their self-interest. This in turn gives them a degree of freedom....

Just deserts - A justification for punishment which insists that offenders should be punished only as severely as they deserve. It was a reaction against the unfair excesses of rehabilitation and the 'get tough' drive from conservatives during the 1970s." (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South, 2004, p. 375-376)

Causes Contributing to Frank's Crimes?

Contemporary criticisms of the classical theory challenge several of its contentions. One specific, "The idea of punishment as deterrent - rational beings will choose not to commit crimes if the punishment fits the crime, (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South, 2004, p. 41) could be challenged in regard to Frank's crimes. Despite textbook principals that propose to validate the values of classical theory and positivism as the origin of today's theories in criminology and crime causations, no clear-cut records supporting this supposition exist. Classical school concepts,.".. By Beccaria... linked to Enlightenment ideas of rationality, free will, choice, progress," (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South, 2004, p. 42) nevertheless, could be utilized to factor into possible determinations for causes contributing to Frank's identity theft crimes. "The view that human beings have 'free wills' - human actions are not simply determined by inside or outside 'forces' but can be seen as matters of free decisions," (Ibid, 41) seems particularly relevant. Also applicable to be considered as a possible causation criteria contributing to Frank's crimes is that the classical model argues that individuals' actions are rooted in self-interest; in a "free" mode. If/when a criminally inclined individual perceives, he/she will be punished, he will be deterred, the classical theory argues. If he/she thinks he/she will not get caught, he will proceed to commit crime. Some critics consider this concept "too simple." (Ibid, 35)

Conclusion As knowledge produced by scientific research is continually being refined, experts contend that no determination is everlasting, that accompanying each theory is the chance to disprove it. All theories are open to not only being invalidated - they are regularly refined by new discoveries and/or findings. During 1993 (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, & Mackenzie, 2002, p. 7), the U.S. Supreme Court,.".. concluded hypotheses about cause and effect cannot be 'proven' conclusively like a jury verdict; they can merely be falsified using a wide array of methods that are more or less likely to be accurate." ("The Uncertainty of Science," p.1-9) Today, as in times past, causation determinations can, at times, be considered rhetoric rather than fact. In fact, "Few modern criminologists would claim that any single theory constitutes a universal explanation of criminality or a valid predictor of future criminal behaviour (sic) in a particular population." (Crime and punishment, 2006) Instead, various theories, including the classical theory, could be construed to compliment each other as they may offer insight into varying criminal aspects - whether they can be defended by rational ground or not.