In the first, the public, in moving toward a more conservative and punitive mode, embraced the concept of deterrence and clamored for harsher sentences. The assumption, of course, is that tougher sentences will deter would be criminals from committing crimes and make those caught and convicted reconsider their behavior. Deterrence has been the favored approach to the crimes of drunken driving and drug dealing.
One of the problems with deterring criminals is that our criminal justice system does not proceed quickly. The federal system and many states have attempted to solve this by enacting speedy trial laws.
In the second renewal of interest in deterrence, many scholars have been engaged in research to see if deterrence works.
Three of the favorite research topics have been the death penalty, drunken driving, and drug use. We now have rational choice theories and theories of punishment called "just deserts.
That is, they assert that, given the situation and the circumstances, offenders make informed decisions to commit crimes. Just deserts punishment theory returns to the Classical concept of retribution and argues that because offenders make the choice to offend, punishment is deserved. The "just" portion of the theory restates the classical notion of equitable punishment no more or less punishment than what is required to correct the harm from the crime.
One might argue that the theoretical strands of the Classical School have become a Little weak by now. The ideas of human nature and rationales about how to treat people on which much of current policy and conceptual activity is based are simply part of our culture. The reason that these ideas are part of our culture, however, is that the Classical School put them there. For example, some judges have publicly questioned recent sentencing guidelines which propose mandatory sentences for drug users as unfair.
In another case, the issue of cruel punishment is today's latest topic, with questions about hanging, gas, and lethal injection as forms of capital punishment. But the neoclassical criminologists, who were mainly British, began complaining about the need for individualized reaction to offenders, as they believed the classical approach was far too harsh and unjust. Perhaps the most shocking aspect of these harsh penal codes was that they did not provide for the separate treatment of children.
One of the changes of the neoclassical period was that children under seven years of age were exempt from the law on the basis that they could not understand the difference between right and wrong. Mental disease became a reason to exempt a suspect from conviction, too. Mental disease was seen as a sufficient cause of impaired responsibility; thus, defense by reason of insanity crept into the law. Any situation or circumstance that made it impossible to exercise free will was seen as reason to exempt a person from legal responsibility for what otherwise might be a criminal act.
The most important thinkers of new classical theory Benigno Di Tullio: Di Tullio was a Professor of criminal anthropology in the university of Rome, in he published a book which appeared in Rome in it he established his new theory on the so-called "criminal constitution or predisposition".
In Di Tullio point of view ,the crime is the result of interaction between the human soul as an internal factor and the circumstances encountered by the man in the external world, experience indicates that there are individuals who possess a tendency or inclination to delinquency, which doesn't exist in others, and that the external circumstances which provoke their criminal tendency and leads them to delinquency, does not produce the same effect on the part of ordinary persons.
He separated between the constitutional delinquents and occasional delinquents , whose delinquency is due more to the external factor than to the internal one. On the other hand, In Di Tullio point of view also , the occasional delinquents does not attain a pathological nature. Namely it does not deserve the quality of a disease. Because of that he distinguishes between the constitutional and occasional delinquents.
As regards the mentally disturbed delinquents, Di Tullio separates between the delinquent and the insaneness delinquent. The first his delinquent because of his insanity, in such a way that his delinquency could be eliminated by his treating him from insanity. The second is a delinquent because of a constitution which is previous to his insanity and which aggravated the latter.
In order to cure him must treat his criminal constitution at first. In Di Tullio point of view also ,the criminal constitution is characterized by the fact that its symptoms appear at an early age and leads to grave crime implies the desire of repeating the crimes finding delight and pleasure in committing them.
Although the neoclassical school was not a scientific school of criminology, unlike the classical school, it did begin to explore the causation issue. The neoclassical theorists made exceptions to the law and implied multiple causation. The doctrine of free will could no longer stand alone as an explanation for criminal behavior.
Even today, much modern law is based on the neoclassical philosophy of free will tempered by certain exceptions. There has been growing support for a ''neoclassical" sentencing rationale that would emphasize penalties proportionate to the gravity of the criminal conduct.
This movement has had its great impact in Finland, where "neoclassicism" has come to be official policy. Several modifications of classical theory were therefore introduced, and their proponents became known as the neoclassical school. They believed that freedom of will could be affected by pathology, incompetence, insanity, or other conditions. There were mitigating events that interfered with the free will, it was contended: these could be physical environmental sociocul- tural ,or mental psychological Along this line, children were believed to have only limited responsibility for their actions, in spite of the doctrine of free will, and the same was true of mental defectives or "lunatics.
If the ability is full, the free will exists and consequently the criminal liability of the offender will be full. On the contrary, if such ability lacks altogether, free will shall be deemed lacking and no liability will follow and also they think of the purpose of deterrence. A criminal has committed a wrong and consequently deserves to be punished.
It is irrelevant then whether society will benefit from the infliction of the punishment or not. At the same time, new defenses, causes of exemption and attenuation are introduced.
For instance, children under the age of seven were exempt from criminal liability, so were those who suffered from mental diseases or acted under such circumstances as to negate their free will. The harsh legalism of the classical school has thus been tempered. Nonetheless, the particular concept adopted by the neoclassicists of free will has been criticized as much as diminished will is concerned. On the one hand, extensive use of diminished liability - when the free will is only curtailed but is not totally lacking - will necessarily yield use of short-term prison sentences on a large scale.
This in turn would be source of trouble for penal policy, as those punishments subject those convicted of them to promiscuity in prisons and do not allow for any real rehabilitation. On the other hand, mitigated liability linked to the weakening of the ability to resist evil motives leads sometimes to illogical results.
Accordingly, his liability according to the logic of the neoclassical school should be mitigated. This is a consequence that cannot be easily admitted, for it runs counter to a sound penal policy which aggravates punishment for recidivists and treats primary offenders more leniently. Consequently,the neoclassical School was characterized by : 1 Neoclassical Theory introduced the idea of Premeditation as a measure of the degree of free will.
The group of thinkers we consider from this school Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo, and Enrico Ferri made the study of criminals self- consciously scientific.
They did this by emphasizing the importance of the controlled investigation of criminals and non-criminals. This is not the same as saying that their investigations were well- controlled or, in this and other ways, scientific. Indeed, it seems that they often were not. However, the positivist school of criminology had provocative things to say about the causes of criminal behavior, and by-saying them with at least a claim to scientific standards, this group of thinkers initiated a whole new tradition of criminological work that today prides itself on its scientific standing.
In this sense, the positivist school of criminology may have been more significantly an aspiration than an achievement. Nonetheless, the aspiration proved to be important. The notion that crime could be studied through the methods of science was established early in the nineteenth century by two authors whose work earned them an honored place in the annals of criminology. Working independently, Adolphe Quetelet and Andre Michel Guerry compiled the first criminal statistics and used them to make predictions and comparisons about crime.
Others soon followed suit, and these early ventures into social statistics became a model for the later work of Emile Durkheim. The objections to positivism are varied, but primarily they consist of the argument that the so-called ''objective'' depiction of "concrete facts" in the world obscures a reality that is socially constructed by the participants in it.
The pioneers the thinkers of the positive school The Italian School of criminology originated with the work of Cesare Lombroso , whose principal work L'Uomo Delinquente The Delinquent Man was published in The other pioneers of these theories are Garovallo, and Ferri.
Blacer , "Menstruation and crime: A critical review of the litera- ture from the clinical criminology perspective. Cloninger, S. Sigvardsson, and A.
Von Knorring ,"Predisposition to petty criminality in Swedish adoptees: I. Genetic and environ- mental heterogeneity.
Sue Titus Reid, op. Lombroso rejected the classical doctrine of free will, but he was strongly influenced by the contemporary writings on positivism of Au-guste Conte, usually referred to as the founder of sociology, and the work of Herbert Spencer, another influential early sociologist. Lombroso served as an army physician and conducted systematic observation and measurement of the physical differences of soldiers.
Later, as a prison physician, he was in a position to examine thousands of prisoners and had access to all of the data on crime in Italy and to the Italian prisons. Actions of one species of animal towards the other also towards man- are cited; even to the classic example of the cat stealing the fish. This theory was upheld after three incidents which contributed in Lambroso,s point of view. The second incident Misdia : Mesdia was a solider who , suffered from epilepsy.
During one of his epileptic episodes he killed fifteen of his colleagues , after his death Lambroso make postmortem examination at his corpse and he founded discovered the same dimple or cavity in his skull The Third incident Versini : whose was a bloody criminal , he killed 20 woman by cold- blooded or cruel means , and he used to drank the blood of the victim after finishing every murder offinice , after his death Lambroso make postmortem examination at his corpse and he founded discovered that there was dimple or cavity in his skull Lambroso concluded from this results that the criminal is qualified as a primitive monster in which reappears by means of heredity characteristic that go back to the prehistoric ages of mankind.
In Lombroso point of view there are some organic trouble or psychological defect in the body of the criminals , and he stated that there is a strict relation between the delinquency and the this organic trouble or psychological defect in the bodies of offenders or criminals.
According to Lombroso, the delinquent or the criminal is a primitive creature a , or primitive monster which can be compared with animals. A major problem with Lombroso's studies was his sample selection. Most of the criminals he examined were Sicilians, and he failed to contrast them in physical characteristics with other law- abiding people from the same area; rather, his comparison group was the Italian population as a whole.
Lombroso's name is today most frequently associated with his work on the biological makeup of the offender. A physician by profession, he was influenced by the positivism of the natural and physical sciences and by contemporary theories on the origin and evolution of species, as well as by the biological ambience surrounding the European intellectual world in the decades following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in That Lombroso was the founder of the positivist school of criminology is hardly disputed.
In the first place, Lombroso evidently still takes up the standpoint faturalaw. He is a complete stranger to the notion that moral conceptions are never fixed, but change according to time and place. To take only one instance: infanticide occurs fairly frequently among the most primitive peoples nomads ; and is not considered by them as immoral. This is to be explained by the difficult circumstances under which they live, and which may force them to adopt this course of action.
If they acted differently the whole group to which they belong might perish. There is no question of any inborn hard-heartedness at all, or even, of a lack of love for the children.
Other writers proved that primitive peoples have great devotion and parental tenderness for any of their children which they are in a position to rear. An analogous case is the killing of the aged or their suicide among nomadic peoples. Both these moral -conceptions and practices disappear completely as Soon as these nomads become settlers, and take -to agriculture, whereby they are enabled to rear more children and maintain their aged.
Various facts mentioned by him relate to other groups than the one to which he who committed the act belonged, and therefore rank with acts of war, and not with crimes at all.
Within the group itself crime is a rare exception, and mutual care and devotion attain a very high standard. Here, he presents us with the following amiable picture of the human child: ' He then cites a number of instances of children's mendacity, cruelty, jealousy, etc. Without the slightest notion of ethnology, with an utter lack of critical sense, and often from the worst possible sources of, information, a few facts are dragged in to prove that primitive man was a born criminal thief, rapist, murderer , and primitive woman a prostitute.
There is no point whatever in attributing to children an inborn knowledge of the content of moral dicta; but this failing has no more sinister meaning in regard to their morality than lack of knowledge as n regard to their intellectual endowments.
Besides, children are impulsive-functioning primarily-owing to lack of experience of life, which is just as little proof of their moral inferiority; and as every one knows they are often just as impulsive in acting altruistically. Cruelty m children is, more often than not, entirely unconscious; they inflict pain, for instance on animals, without knowing it, and they change their conduct as soon as they understand what is actually happening.
There are, of course, children-but they are very rare- who resemble the picture drawn by Lombroso; but in these cases one has to do with moral idiots or imbeciles, and not with children of sound mental propensities. The conclusion which he drew from these examinations was that, in the criminal, peculiar anthropological features are in evidence. Thus, for example, the capacity of the skull especially in the case of thieves is held by Lombroso to be smaller than that of normal persons, ; while, in addition to this ,there are supposed to be several other anomalies about the criminal's skull.
In the brain, too, Lombroso notices deviations from the normal, which remind him of aniras1 formations-although he was unable to point to any specific 'criminal' deviations. Farther, their physiognomy was also supposed to differ from the normal: large jaws, crooked faces, receding foreheads, etc.
Finally, low sensibility, and tattooing as among primitive peoples were frequently found to exist. The conclusion to which Lombroso came was that in the majority of cases the criminal is an entirely separate species of human beings genus homo delinquents.
Although he wasn't believe in the effects of the external factors social , economical , geographical political ect. Lombroso took into consideration the state of a criminal who was well-known as perpetrator of violent and blood crimes, and he deduced from it that the crime is due to nervous "acts of epilepsy" that lead to violence. Thus the figure of the criminal in the opinion of Lombroso, evolved from the primitive monster to the psychological lunatic and finally to the nervous epileptic 2- The emotional criminal : whom commit his crime or criminal offence under the influence of temporal emotions factors.
So He said that did not restrict himself to the physical and organic states of delinquents. In fact he examined their psychological conditions. And he Lambroso did not assert that physical defects were Distinguishing marks of delinquents, but he meant that they are more diffused and acute among criminals than among non- criminals.
And he also said that Lombroso added that inclination could be acquired after birth. Now, modern child psychology has made way of this representation of the child as being either Little devil or an angel. He studied law, was interested in criminal law reform, and served as a professor of criminal law and procedure during part of his career. He also was a member of the magistracy. He died in Garofalo was born a member of the Italian nobility and went on to become a magistrate, a professor of criminal law, and a prominent member of government.
It therefore is not surprising that Garofalo took a great interest in the criminal law and its reform. Drawing indirectly on the work of Lombroso, Garofalo came to a set of conclusions that provide a fascinating contrast with the ideas of the classical thinkers considered earlier.
Garofalo's major work in criminology was a book, Criminology, which appeared in in Italian. The second edition appeared in , and the English translation in He rejected most of the philosophies of the classical school.
He saw the need for empirical research to establish theories of criminal behavior. Although he was close to Lombroso in some of his ideas, Garofalo was critical of others. This definition is based on a distinction between "natural crime," to which Garofalo attaches great importance, and "police crime," a residual category to which Garofalo attaches less importance. Garofalo was more concerned with the former category because he regarded the crimes in it as more serious, because he believed the category itself to be based on a unifying principle, and because he regarded this as the area in which criminal law played its most important role.
It is to the latter ideas about criminal law that we turn next. Although Garofalo found Lombroso's theories inadequate as an explanation for the "natural crimes" of "true criminals," he still wound up concluding that criminals have "regressive characteristics" indicating a "lower degree of advancement," and this premise was essential to Garofalo's ideas about criminal law.
Robert W. Millar Boston: Little, Brown, , p. The solution to this evolutionary problem. In this way, the social power will effect an artificial selection similar to that which nature effects by the death of individuals inassimilable to the particular conditions of the environment in which they are born or to which they have been removed.
Herein the state will be simply following the example of nature. Thus where the classical theorists focused on the symbolic value of punishments as a means of deterring crime in the general population, Garofalo and the positivists were constrained by their belief in evolutionary principles to focus more specifically on the incapacitory function of punishments—including life imprisonment and the death penalty.
In other words, the positivists were led to conceive of the relationship between crime and law in a quite different way from the classical criminologists. Enrico Ferri was one of Lombroso's students. In , he was judge in the court of Naples and a disciple of Lombroso, came up with a new theory according to which the delinquent was not an abnormal human phenomenon but rather an abnormal psycho who lacks mercy and honesty.
The lack of mercy leads to crimes of persons and the lack of honesty leads to crimes against property. He asserted that the penalty must aim at the punishment of the criminal namely to prevention and not at intimidating of public, namely the general prevention.
These last steps paved the way for the uprising of the modern Italian school of criminology and penal law, namely the positive school headed by Enrico Ferri, Fern exerted his school's influence on the different penal legislation of the world. Ferri's classification of criminals, as compared to that of Lombroso, reflected this greater concern with the environment.
In Ferri point of view, the crime was primarily produced by the type of society from which the criminal came. He postulated his law of criminal saturation, which means that "in a given social environment with definite individual and physical conditions, a fixed number of crimes, no more and no less, can be committed.
Crime then can only be corrected by making changes in society. This modern positive theory of Enrico Ferri, exerted its influence on the legislative systems all over the world especially because it ascribed the function of social defense against criminality to punishment instead of the function of social retribution of the delinquent's sin.
It drew the attention of legislators to the necessity of providing a security measure to be pronounced by the judge as regards the crimes of the mentally unstable. Although Enrico Ferri was a disciple of Lombroso, he achieved the task of his teacher by showing the importance of the social environment in the genesis of crime. The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: Wiley, Terry, Eds. Examining Deviance Experi- mentally: Selected Readings.
Port Washington, N. He defined crime as the result of interaction between the criminal's inner personal factors, on one side and the external material factors of the natural geographic environment and social spiritual factors in social relations on the-other. In such an interaction the proportion each factor differs according to the different crimes and criminal!.
This interaction between the three factors gives birth.. The same theory drew the legislators attention to the necessity of: 1 The prevention of the factors that lead to delinquency. In short it promoted what is called the individualization of the penal sanction in the fields of Legislation, judgment and execution. Classification of the positive school The Positive School is characterized by a consensus perspective.
All the theories developed under its mantle assume the existence of a core set of values in society that can be used to determine and treat deviance. John Hagan , op. In fact, their assumption of consensus was so strong that they rarely ever questioned their own actions, even when "exterminating" groups of people designated as socially harmful. Other than the consensus perspective, the wide range of positivist theories makes any attempt at categorizing them very difficult.
Positivist theories can be either structural or processual, so no definitive classification is possible. However, we can state that sociological theories have, as a rule, been structurally oriented and macro theoretical, while biological and psychological theories have been processual and micro theoretical.
Embracing the scientific method, Positivists took a deterministic stance toward behavior and left behind the Classical School's insistence that humans are rational beings with free will. In the process, the notion of punishment for deterrence began to make less sense. If an individual's behavior were not predicated on rational decisions, then how could that individual be deterred?
The thing to do, obviously, was to find those factors that cause the criminal behavior and remove or treat them. Further, it would be useful to be able to predict which individuals would be likely to become criminal and to treat them before they could harm themselves and society. Positivists left behind the legal focus and concerns of the Classical School. Gabrieixi, Jr. Mednick, T. Moffitt, and S.
Stack, eds. Legality simply got in the way of treatment because behavioral categories did not necessarily fit legal categories. If behaviors were socially undesirable, the individuals exhibiting them should be treated and returned to normalcy.
Civil rights were of no concern if the real purpose of treatment was that of help. After all, how can one object to being helped; when a physician treats us, do we feel our civil rights have been violated?
Thus, early Positivists reasoned that criminals have no need to object when they are being treated by correctional experts. In fact, most of the theories of criminology throughout the s were positivistic in nature.
As a general perspective, then, positivism has had an enormous effect on the way criminological theories have been constructed and the way that research has been conducted. Samenow , The Criminal Personality. New York: Jason Aronson, p Humans live in a world in which cause and effect operate. Attributes of that world exhibit order and can be uncovered through systematic observation.
Social problems, such as crime, can be remedied by means of a systematic study of human behavior. Through the application of science, human existence is perfectible, or at the least the human condition can be made better.
Criminal behavior is a product of abnormalities. These abnormalities may be within the person, or they may exist as external social forces. Abnormal features can be found through comparison with those that are normal. Once abnormalities are found, it is the duty of criminology to assist in their correction.
Abnormalities should be treated and the criminal reformed. Treatment is desirable both for the individual, so that he or she may return to normal, and for society, so that members of society are protected from harm. The purpose of sanctions against criminals is, then, not to punish but to provide for treatment.
Comparison of the Classical and Positivist Views The classical view has encouraged fair and orderly legal procedures due process of law , has mitigated the severity of punishment, and has advocated limits on the arbitrary use of judicial authority.
The positivist view helped to introduce the scientific method into the study of crime and developed the experimental method of research in the field. The multiple-factor theory helped to demonstrate the effect of biological, environmental, and social origins of criminal behavior. The positivist view supported the expansion of programs and constructive activities as a component of punishment. The classical view is crime oriented, while the positivists place emphasis upon the criminal.
The classical, neoclassical, and positivist schools of thought did not originate the major punishment philosophies of incapacitation, retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the variations of these philosophies, although they set the stage for the emphasis placed on some of them. Genetic and environmental heterogeneity. Still on the same line as Bentham, when legal sanctions are combined to a moral aspect, the social control becomes more efficient and strict on limiting the delinquent behavior.
In this view, the classical school is a favorable heritage to the general theory of crime because the authors align with it to find explanations from the nature of crime. On the other hand, the positivist theories believe that it is not the nurture of a person but her nature that results in propensities of crime. The understanding of crime is possible, according to positivism, through the study of the characteristics of the criminal himself.
Gottfredson and Hirschi detail several positivistic disciplinary point of views from which they found inspiration but point out their limits. In the biological, psychological and sociological positivism, the authors point out the contradiction with positivistic science according to which causes must precede the effects.
The problem that the authors note of the positivist school is the absence of examination of free will in the equation of crime and criminality. In this section, basic theories and authors, such as Lombroso, Merton and Sutherland were strongly criticized. Thus, we can comprehend that the projection of the general theory of crime is in discontinuity with its heritage.
The general theory of crime is not aligned with its heritage although the authors use both schools of criminology to fund their theory. The competition is viewed in their goal of bringing up a general theory that would explain all crimes at all times while diminishing any other previous work. The only aspect that has been slightly integrated in the general theory of crime was a part of the heritage from the classical school of criminology as viewed above. Finally, the general theory of crime is a formal theory.
It is a complete theory of general notions that seeks to examine and explain general concepts like crime, criminality and that could be applied to sub-branches. The authors use a formal deductive reasoning method since they do not conduct any empirical work but use a fair amount of studies to be able to link self-control with the results.
Through these techniques, the authors insured that their theory would be used in other works and discipline, because of its generalization. Their thesis is seeks to enlighten the world about the fact that criminal acts will be predominantly committed by persons with low self-control.
To explain their theory, they divide their book into five part of explanation on: crime, criminality, the applications of the theory and the research and policy in the field. According to the authors, people with low self-control will tend to respond to certain stimuli provoked by crimes or criminal acts. This concept is directly related to the importance and the impact of socialization.
The most important one noted by the authors is the school. Several advantages are illustrated when compared to the family. Secondly, teachers are more at ease when the time to recognize a deviant behavior comes. Thirdly, the school is most likely to be a place of discipline and order which allows it to control more easily disruptive behavior. Fourthly, the school is equipped with the necessary tools to be able to punish certain behaviors through its authority.
That is why child-rearing is a very important concept, directly related to the level of self-control leading or not to the involvement in criminal activities. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, criminal acts provide immediate gratification of desires. They provide excitement by being risky and thrilling. Since they provide few or meager long-term benefits, they require little skill from the individual. The major benefit comes from the relief of momentary irritation. They mostly involve the risk of either or both violence and physical injury and they also lead to pain for the victim!
The theory states that people will high self-control will be less likely involved in such acts. The concept of crime emphasizes on two aspects: stability and versatility. These two aspects form the first explicit proposition of the theory.
According the Gottfredson and Hirschi, the notion of stability in their theory denies the possibility of change after a successful socialization to prosocial norms. Subsequently, low self-control is predictable at an earlier stage of life. The second explicit proposition of the general theory of crime is that people with low self-control, when driven by the presence of an opportunity, are more likely to be impulsive toward crime.
Therefore, the authors assert that it is possible to study crime itself by focusing on the deviant behavior caused by low-self control. A third explicit proposition proposes that an individual with low self-control will have weaker social bonds which are also linked to a weaker socialization to prosocial norms. In nowhere in this book could we find a definition of the concept which makes it an operational presupposition. The authors are generally very clear in their explanations.
However, they use many refutations in their argumentation which lead to confusion but generally speaking; their concepts are defined and explained except the pillar concept of the theory.
It is also a pragmatic presupposition in the sense that many researches are combined and used to demonstrate the link between low self-control and any crime. Theses researches go from statistics of specific crime tendencies to longitudinal studies of criminal patters. Nevertheless, the only method of demonstration accurately used by the authors is their argumentation.
Therefore the demonstration is incomplete, since the authors point out the lack of empirical validation as a weakness of other cited theories in their book. Language and perspective The general theory of crime is constructed around the acquired and learned.
Self-control, whether low or high, is formed through the socialization in the child-rearing phases of life. Whether it is through school or the familial institution, it is either acquired with success or with failure. Ironically, the theory seeks to explain crime, criminality and criminals yet the only focus is on the low self-control of the individual which classifies it as microscopic. Through this probabilistic logic of explanation, the authors explain the high probability of being involved in crimes when individuals have a low self-control.
0コメント