3.6 Conclusion
The two traditional and primary paradigms in the field of criminology, the Classical School and the Positivist School, have roots in 17th and 18th-century Europe, but they have continued to influence justice systems around the world and in the United States (figure 3.15). Some early theories in these schools of thought have been debunked, while others have been built upon and continue to be tested by modern criminologists. As we discuss throughout this book, it is important to always keep in mind the origin, context, and use of these theories. Wealthy, educated, well-connected, white men in power largely founded the field of criminology and were the ones who determined what was criminal, undesirable, and punishable. The next chapter will dive into the early biological and psychological theories of the positivist school of thought and how the field now uses and views such approaches.
Chapter Summary
The origins of criminology are found in two traditional schools of thought: the classical and positive schools. Theories in the classical school of criminology all assume that people are rational, self-interested, and carefully choose whether or not to commit criminal behavior. The classical school takes more of a philosophical approach to preventing or responding to crime. The goal is deterrence, but when crime happens anyway, the response is punishment. Cesare Becarria said any response to criminal behavior must be certain, swift, and severe (proportionate to the crime) in order to have both a general and specific deterrent effect. Jeremy Bentham argued through his rational choice theory that the benefits of committing a crime could not outweigh the punishment because people weigh the pleasure and pain associated with their actions when making decisions and choose the option that maximizes pleasure.
Theories in the positive school of criminology assume that criminal behavior is due to forces beyond an individual’s control, such as their biological or psychological makeup. Because this paradigm was influenced by the positivist philosophy, criminologists applied the scientific method, even if it was less rigorous than today’s standards, to the study of crime.
Some of the early classical and positivist criminological theories were poorly constructed, rooted in prejudice, or not empirically tested. Consequently, not all of the early theories are considered valid anymore. However, others have been updated, tested, or reconfigured to apply to modern society and criminal behavior. Nonetheless, learning about the origins of the field is important to understanding how it has—or has not, in some cases—evolved and impacted our current criminal justice system.
Discussion Questions and Supplemental Resources
Discussion Questions
- Look back at the activity from Chapter 1. Do you have a better understanding of these differences now? How might your answers differ after reading this chapter?
- Do you think that people possess free will or that their behavior is due to forces beyond their control, such as their biology or environment? What implications does this have for the way society treats people who have broken criminal laws? How do your own perspectives and biases contribute to your understanding of criminal behavior and society’s reaction?
- What impact have Cesare Beccaria’s ideas had on the criminal justice system in the United States? What about Jeremy Bentham’s ideas?
- Do you think the concept behind the panopticon is effective at deterring unwanted/bad behavior? Why or why not?
- From the positivist school perspective, how might we be able to manipulate or change human behavior? What about stopping criminal offending? What ethical considerations are relevant?
Supplemental Resources
If you want to dig deeper into the topics covered in this chapter, check out the following resources:
- Crimesolutions.ojp.gov [Website] provides a way to search for crime prevention programs and practices that are rated as “effective,” “promising,” or “no effect.” You can search for keywords, such as deterrence, to see how criminological concepts, perspectives, and theories influence crime prevention policy.
- For an example of how police agencies incorporate theories like routine activity theory into their law enforcement practices, see North Miami Beach Police [Website].
Licenses and Attributions for Conclusion
Open Content, Original
“Conclusion” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Figure 3.15. “Diagrams of theories under the classical school and positivist school of criminology” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
the study of crime and why it happens
one of the two major traditional paradigms in criminology that emerged during the Age of Enlightenment; theories within this paradigm assume that crime is the result of humans’ free will and rational decision-making.
legal term describing the violation of a criminal law
in relation to crime, the prevention of criminal behavior due to the threat of consequences
a statement that proposes to describe and explain why facts or other social phenomenon are related to each other based on observed patterns
one of the two major traditional paradigms in criminology that emphasized the scientific method and was grounded in the positivist philosophy; theories within this paradigm assume that crime is determined or predisposed, to some degree, by one’s biology, psychology, or environment
a framework of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that shapes the types of questions we ask and how we answer them
the system that deals with crime and its consequences
an architectural design for a prison with a central guard tower surrounded by a circle of cells that allowed for actual - or perceived - constant supervision and deterrence of bad behavior