Classics of Criminology Edited by Joseph Jacoby

¶ … Classics of Criminology edited by Joseph Jacoby is a collection of documents and essays by expert criminologists. Rather than present the different theories and histories of crime and the formulation of law, Jacoby includes the original writings by the men and women who created them. For example, instead of a summarized account of Jeremy Bentham's "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," the entirety of that text is presented in the book. The thesis of the compilation is that "if students read only about and not in criminology, their experience is but secondhand, and their conclusions are determined by textbook authors" (Jacoby 2004). This is why Jacoby does not include his own positions on the essays in the book. He wishes for every reader to view the original documents and formulate their own opinions about what they have read and now understand. There were several interesting and education essays in the collection, each one providing the reader with the author's first-person experiences and his or her own theoretical approaches to crime and the solving of crimes.

One particularly interesting article featured in the book was Jeremy Bentham's "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation." This piece illustrates how some of the initial laws are based upon moral conditions. Laws, even today, are made based upon what is considered morally right or morally wrong as exemplified by the fact that some of the very basic laws of any land are based upon the religious principles of the majority. Bentham wrote "The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society" and that "The general tendency of an act is more or less pernicious, according to the sum total of its consequences: that is, according to the difference between the sum of such as are good, and the sum of such as are evil" (1781). Good and evil, of course, are subjective terms that are determined by the moral majority that governs a given society. What one group says is good and what another believes can be two entirely different concepts. A government is solely concerned with what their individual society believes to be the moral right. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments, but murder is also illegal because society has determined that killing another human being is wrong. Doubtful that anyone would disagree with this statement, but there are subjects which are more contentious and bring up often violent debates. In the United States, it used to be illegal to have abortions, but after the determination of Roe v. Wade, the procedures are currently legal. People on both sides of this debate are vehement that they are in the right and that the law should agree with them. Those who are pro-choice, site the law as being on their side and give this as evidence that the ability to choose is a person's legal as well as moral right. Those on the pro-life side of the equation, believe that abortion is a form of murder and contend that the government has made an immoral choice in making abortion legal in the country.

Rather than hypothesize how laws are made, many of the authors in the text discussed why people turn to crime. In the article "Crime and Deviance over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds," author Robert Sampson (2004), discusses his theory about how juvenile delinquents function. He examined two boys and tested his hypothesis that antisocial behavior in childhood can be a signal that the subject will have problems in adulthood in various areas of their life, including with relation to potential criminal activity. Sampson and his associates then state that social bonds during a person's adulthood will indicate changes in their behavior, both positive and negative. What the researchers have determine through their experimentation is that interaction with people will be a major factor in whether or not a person pursues criminal behavior or if he or she remains law-abiding. As much as external forces can influence a person into committing crimes, Sampson also believes that external forces can influence a criminal into retirement from that lifestyle. Theirs is a sociogenic theory which states "social interaction with adult institutions of informal social control has important effects on crime and deviance" (Sampson 2004). A life is modulated by trajectory and transition. Trajectory is the path a person is currently on and the future he or she will potentially have based on their current pattern of choices. Transitions, however, are specific events that force a person's trajectory to alter and thus, their path changes. Sampson et. al believe that a person's potential for criminality can be predetermined based upon their current life choices.

Another type of criminal is a man or woman who is mentally unable to understand that they have broken the law, or if they have that the law itself is immoral and that their actions were answering a higher moral power. Theoretician Emile Durkheim (1895) believed that criminality was an inevitable part of society. Even in a location where no one committed murder or adultery, there would still be human foibles. Venial irritations would then become the punishable law. Most people, he believes, abstain from criminal actions because they know that society will punish them. Even if a person desires to break the law, he or she will not because of fear of reprisal from the society around them. Criminals then, are people who both understand the potential consequences and yet choose to break the law anyway, or they are people who are unable to understand that their actions would lead to punishment. When the majority of the society makes a determination as to what is lawful and what is not, the criminal component illustrates whether or not they created a necessary law. "Crime was useful as a prelude to reforms which daily became more necessary" (Durkheim 1895). Criminals, per Durkheim, are the catalysts for societal change.

Some theorize about what makes a criminal and other, like Marx hypothesis on what makes an action into a crime. Author of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx believed that it was class conflict which bred criminality (2004). Class, as defined by Marx, is differentiated by the amount of property a person owns. When one person or small group owns a lot and the rest own very little, the person with more property yields oppressive power over those with less. Law, according to Marx, was another way of exhibiting that power over other people. It was the men with property that made the laws and whom held the positions of political and legal authority, making law just another form of power. Therefore, Marx proposed, the only reason that people commit crimes is because either they are standing up to the oppressive government regime and laws which are created by the wealthier classes or they feel that the laws created by the members of the upper echelon should not apply to them because they are not in the same economical or sociological position as the men who are in power. Without the ability to make decisions, the proletariat (lower classes) should not be in the position where they are forced to obey the laws of the bourgeoisie (upper classes).