Criminology Theories Strengths And Weaknesses

Criminology Theories Strengths And WeaknessesThe stainless aim of criminology was developed in the ordinal century, where Graeco-Roman thinking emerged in response to the cruel forms of revengement that reign at the time. It is considered that writers much(prenominal) as Montesquieu and Voltaire encouraged perhaps the emergence of this spick-and-span untarnished thinking, by becoming involved in campaigns for more learn approaches to be taken towards offensive activity and the penalisation recrudescen by the rightness systems at the time. Also the development of society craved new forms of wakeless regulation delinquent to the fact that there needed to be predictability in the system, as technology and properties in particular needed legal shelter and workers needed to be discip limitd in a consistent way. in that location were two of import contributors to this theory of criminology and they were Jeremy Bentham and Ces be de Beccaria. They be seen as the most au thoritative enlightenment thinkers in the area of classical thinking and are considered the inst every(prenominal)ation fathers of the classical aim of criminology. They both sought to reduce the harshness of eighteenth century judicial systems, even though coming from different philosophic stances.Benthams contribution to classical theory is based on the fact that he was a utilitarian, interested in the happiness and well world of the macrocosm and therefore believing that punishment, in the form of the infliction of pain, should always be justified in terms of a groovyer good. At the essence of Benthams writing was the imagination that human demeanour is directed at exploit pleasure and minimising pain, (the pleasure-pain principle).Bentham believed that horror was committed on the outset, by individuals who seek to introduce excitement, money, sex or anything of value to the individual.Beccaria (1764/1963 93) stated that It is better to prevent crimes than to punish t hem.This is at the heart of the classical domesticate of criminology. Beccaria believed that laws needed to be trust into inject in grade to make punishments consistent and in line with the crime. He believed that crime prevention in its effectiveness is down to ternion main ideas, these universe the certainty of the crime and how likely it is to happened, the celerity of the crime and how quickly the punishment is inflicted and overly the severity of the crime, and how much pain is inflicted. Beccaria archetype that the severity of the penalties given should be proportionate to the crime committed and no more than what is necessary in set out to deter the offender and early(a)s from committing get on crimes.Classical thinking says that immorals make a rational choice, and choose to do criminal acts due to maximum pleasure and minimum pain. The classical work says criminals are rational, they weigh up the costs and therefore we should create deterrents which passably o utweigh what would be gained from the crime. This is the reason behind the death penalty being viewed by classical thinkers such as Beccaria and Bentham as pointless, because there would be no deterrent. However when considering manslaughter, as Bentham withal believes, if the severity of the punishment should middling outweigh the crime then surely capital punishment should be used, there doesnt seem to be any stronger a deterrent to other criminals thinking of downstairstaking the same criminal behaviour, than seeing another eradicated due to their actions.Classical thinking has had a significant stir on criminological thinking in general and perhaps a greater impact on criminal justice practise.In Europe and America the idea of punishments being appropriate to the nature of the crime has become a infantry for modern criminal justice systems.Since the introduction of the classical school of criminology and classical thinking, the use of capital punishment, torture and corpora l punishment has declined. Neither Beccaria nor Bentham believed in the death penalty, apart from, Bentham argued, in the case of murder.The second half of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also saw the establishment and growth of the prison, as a major system of punishment, the idea and concept of prison was to take punishment away from the body and instead punish the mind and soul, and these are the keys to ever-changing a persons outlook and views of their criminal behaviours.Many elements of classical ideas are actually useful in modern society and these show the strengths that the theory does expect. deterrence continues to underlie all judicial systems and indeed underpinned the principles of the first commissioners of Sir Robert Peel, in the design of the Metropolitan police. Prisons are also used as major deterrents and also to try and reduce rates of crime.However a great helplessness of the classical school of criminology is, the idea stemming from classical thin king that all criminals are rational is not generalisable to the whole population nor is it entirely valid, due to the fact that there may be biological factors stopping an individual from being able to think and behave rationally. Therefore it may not be the particular choice of the individual as they may have been innate(p) that way they may not have the ability to make a rational decision due to a mental illness such as schizophrenia. They may be disorientated or even drugged which affects the question functioning and therefore any behaviours, resulting in an individual becoming irrational. Also, if the great unwashed act due to principles of rationality and liberate will then wherefore is it that the poor are predominating in the criminal justice system, classical cerebration doesnt include factors of necessity in order to survive. As Jeffrey Reiman (1979) said the fatty get richer and the poor get prisonWhite and Haines (2004) said that the classical school of criminology has 3 main challenges to it. Firstly how to make such ideas coif the interests of justice and commensurateity when faced with a particular defendant in court. (Not all criminals appear to be acting rationally and of free will) second that for criminal justice bureaucracies such as the police, growing efficiency may not always be compatible with an emphasis on equal justice, as their gain is to decrease crime rates. Thirdly a actor issue, the rationalisation of the legal system potentially means some diminution in their power, which may backfire in terms of being a deterrent.In late 19th century the classical school came under criticism by a form of scientific criminology which emerged due to Darwins great works being published amid 1850 and 1870, this therefore had a key effect on scientific thought and individuals views of human behaviour.Classicism defines the main object of study as the offence. The nature of the offender was defined as being free-willed, rational, calcula ting and normal. The classical thinking response to the crime was to give punishment that is proportionate to the offence.The Positivist school of criminology however opposes this classical school of thinking, positivism states that the object of study is the offender, and that the nature of the offender is driven by biological, psychological and pathological influences. Their response to the crime is that of giving a interference of an indeterminate length, depending on individual circumstances.Unlike classicism, positivism views criminal behaviour as irrational and perhaps due to a problem (biological, animal(prenominal) or psychological) that an individual has, therefore they are partially relieved of the crime they committed.Cesare Lombroso is related to much positivist thinking, as a psychiatrist he looked at criminals as being throwbacks to a more primitive breaker point of human development, he compared physiologic features of criminals and related them to more primitive stages of manhood and formed a prediction based on measurements of skulls and main physical features, of how certain criminals look. Lombrosos thinking clashed with that of classical thinking, saying that criminals were born not made, and they are not rational as they reproduce thoughts similar to that of inferior humanity.The differences between the thinking behind both the classical school of criminology and the positivist school of criminology highlight the strengths and weaknesses that are associated with both. The classical school has much less biological fact and figures backing up its views, however it has proven successful in reducing crime rates and in providing a deterrent and a way in which to successfully contain individuals who rebel against the system.Unlike positivism which doesnt have any form of punishment, just a form of treatment, the classical school shows criminals that they cannot behave in certain ways in order to maximise their pleasure and minimise pain if it involves breaking the law, it does this successfully because the punishment that is given is more than that of the pleasure that they would receive. Therefore as rational thinkers, individuals contemplating criminal behaviours would not do so due to the laws set in place to deter the behaviour.However the main weakness of the classical school of criminological thinking is that it considers all criminals to be rational and make decisions by free will, but not all individuals are rational and not all their behaviours are free, as if an individual had a mental illness or a physical defect, this may totally change the way in which they act and think.The social construction of crime has changed over time feudalistic and religious influences have changed, and affected the criminological theory used.When the Classical school developed it was in a time of major reform in penology, there were many legal reforms at the time due to the french revolution and the legal system was developed in the united states, which would have had an effect on the united kingdom making an increased essay to set laws on crime in stone.As modernity has progressed so has the development of the judicial systems, if positivism was used as the main criminological thinking then these systems wouldnt exist because positivism uses treatments to the criminal in order to solve crime. This could be why the classical school of criminology has been so important and still is, because it protects various organisations set out to remove crime and it also provides a good theoretical basis on which more novel theories have been developed.