Classical vs. Positivist Approaches in Criminology

What Is Criminology?

Criminology is a term used to describe the entire study of criminal behavior, under which narrower aspects — including factors, causes, and consequences — are also examined. The subject deals with the personal and social factors associated with criminal behavior. It also sheds light on the impact that criminal behavior has on family life, on the victim, and on those around the victim. There are mainly two broad classifications within criminology that highlight the disciplines involved in the social sciences. The first is the classical approach and the second is the positivist approach.

Positivist criminologists argue that the criminal loses conscious control and fails to interpret his or her own behavior, which causes the criminal act to occur (Jeffery, p. 24). The person essentially has no control over his or her thinking and therefore does not realize the nature of the behavior he or she is engaging in. This approach places blame on internal and external factors that affect the person and consequently disturb the mental state of the individual's mind. The classical approach, by contrast, argues that every person has full capacity to make decisions and is aware of what he or she is doing. According to classicists, no one loses the ability to think rationally, and every criminal act is committed on the basis of a wrong decision — such as when a person is overtaken by extreme rage or a desire for revenge (Samenow, pp. 20–22).

In the modern world, criminology attracts the attention of many scholars and sociologists who seek to understand the factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Criminology has developed into a separate field of study in which researchers aim to understand the root of the problem and examine the mentality and cognitive processes of those who commit crimes. Various interpretations of criminal behavior exist, and each sociologist and criminologist brings a different perspective, advancing their research and experiments to understand the complete phenomenon of criminal activity. Criminology has also become a recognized career path alongside fields such as law, journalism, and policing (Schmallager, 2006, p. 120). The perspective from which a criminal act is analyzed depends on the act itself and the circumstances in which it occurred. The two broad perspectives — classical and positivist — are examined below, with particular attention to where they differ.

The Classical Approach

The classical view of criminology arose during the Enlightenment in the 18th century. It holds that people act according to their own choices and consent. There may be many reasons and factors attached to why a person turns toward criminal behavior, but the essential point is that the person is aware of what he or she is doing (Downes and Rock, 2007). Theories that attempt to justify why a person committed a crime tend to make control theories more difficult to implement. Classical criminologists therefore take a different approach to intervention strategies, and law enforcement operating within this framework generally adopts a firm stance toward criminal acts. The more enforcement is delayed, the harder it becomes to counter the problem and take effective measures. The classical view is addressed proactively, encompassing both legal and social aspects of crime. It favors speed, precision, and certainty in dealing with criminal acts. From a historical point of view, classical criminologists focus heavily on crime prevention and its strategies (McLaughlin, 2007).

It is important that forensic, scientific, and technical resources are aligned with and support the classical approach. This perspective should be combined with modern contexts and applied in ways that account for current social realities. Classical criminologists broadly follow the doctrine of psychological hedonism, which states that every individual is free to choose how he or she acts. They also argue that everyone follows their own behavioral patterns, and that from this vantage point the perpetrator actually thinks about and plans his or her actions before carrying them out (McLaughlin and Muncie, 2006). The person is fully aware of the moral, social, and legal implications of their actions and keeps those potential sanctions in mind while committing a crime. The person may weigh the advantages and drawbacks of a situation before assessing whether the act is worthwhile. Like any rational person, the criminal makes calculations before deciding what to do. The basic thought driving these criminals is the pursuit of pleasure rather than a focus on the effects and consequences of their acts. The main aim in the mind of a criminal is to make the act as beneficial to themselves as possible, even while remaining fully aware of the possible consequences attached to their behavior.

The main argument advanced by classicists is that people commit crimes out of self-interest and for their own motives (Tierney, 2009). A person who commits a murder or a robbery, for instance, may have a personal interest in the outcome he wishes to achieve. Classical criminologists suggest that if punishments were exactly proportional to the severity of crimes, the justice and legal system could be made far more efficient. Criminals who commit acts with the hope of escaping consequences might reconsider before harming others and violating legal and social norms.

Cesare Beccaria and Proportional Punishment

Cesare Beccaria, an influential Enlightenment philosopher, made considerable contributions to the classical approach. He argued that in earlier times, punishments for crimes were far harsher than the actual severity of the acts themselves warranted. He suggested that this pattern needed to change, and he proposed new ways in which legal systems could be improved and criminal acts prevented. His central contribution was the introduction of theories and methods for implementing punishments more effectively. He argued that punishments should follow a hierarchical structure in which the level of punishment varies with the intensity of the criminal act (White and Haines, 2008). This proved far more successful than earlier legal traditions in which everyone received the same punishment regardless of the act committed.

Under the classical approach shaped by Beccaria, punishment was calibrated to the seriousness of the offense. This was the fundamental underlying concept of the classical school. Further clauses and refinements were added to this method over time, and it proved quite successful in maintaining social order and peace (Morrison, 1997).

References

Coleman, C. & Norris, C. (2000). Introducing Criminology. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, p. 91.

Downes, D. & Rock, P. (2007). Understanding Deviance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, p. 24.

McLaughlin, E. et al. (2007). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd ed. Sage, p. 77.

McLaughlin, E. & Muncie, J. (2006). Sage Dictionary of Criminology, 2nd ed. Sage, p. 54.

Morrison, W. (1997). Theoretical Criminology. London: Butterworths, p. 72.

Samenow, E. S. (1984). Inside the Criminal Mind. New York: Crown Business, pp. 20–22.

Schmallager, F. (2006). Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction, 4th ed., p. 120.

Tierney, J. (2009). Key Perspectives in Criminology. Oxford: McGraw Hill/Oxford University Press, pp. 231–236.

White, R. & Haines, F. (2008). Crime & Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 135.

Young, J. (2003). "Thinking Seriously About Crime: Some Models of Criminology," pp. 35–39.