Classical Criminology Theory, Essay Example

Central Concepts

What we think of today as “classical” theory of criminology is, relatively speaking, a modern discipline, yet one only minimally in use today. Prior to the 18^th century, predominantly accepted views on crime and its causes were at best little more than variations on medieval thought. Superstition, fear and ignorance largely supplied the basis for opinions and were vastly instrumental in the means devised to deal with criminals. It was, ultimately, not a matter of psychology in the average view, but of evil.

By the 19^th century, more enlightened modes of thinking had taken hold, if only in that a general understanding that criminology as such was a behavioral study. Crime was divested of ancient attitudes holding to it and viewed with a far more pragmatic eye. Consequently the classic concepts were embraced, and it is interesting to note how very much in the other direction they went.

Classic criminology precepts are marked by an almost Puritanical ethic. In essence they hold that all criminals are acting on free will and deliberately engaging in criminal behavior to attain undeserved and/or hedonistic rewards. This free will element in place, the solution reveals itself: “It stands to reason that criminal behavior could be eliminated or controlled if the would-be law violators could be convinced that the pain of punishment exceeds the benefits of crime” (Siegel 6).

This concept sets the foundation for theories of deterrence, the most identified aspect of classical criminology. It is in fact at the heart of Cesare Beccaria’s virtual introduction of classical criminology of 1804. An unfailingly consistent and calculated application of punishment, in the classical view he espoused, was the perfect and utilitarian answer: “…Punishment obtains sufficient effect when its severity just exceeds the benefits the offender receives from the crime…” (Beccaria, Newman, Marongiu xiii). With free will motivating crime, it was reasoned, the same free will and exercise of independent thought could not fail to anticipate the established consequences of the crime. Deterrence would inevitably be the result, an active force always in place within the society which adhered to its measures of punishment.

In defense of the classical theory and its evident shortcomings in regard to what we know of criminal behavior today, it must be stressed that this utilitarian mode of thinking was largely reactive. Born in an era when torture was still applied to extract confessions and completely arbitrary judicial decisions enjoyed virtually unlimited scope, it was a needed insistence on rational thought. Barbaric and superstitious responses to crime were clearly not effective, nor were there any standards by which a civilized culture would wish to be identified. It was a theory prompted by the Age of Enlightenment, and Beccaria was greatly influenced by that pioneer of reason, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Based upon the belief in an innate sense of morality operating within humans, it seemed to the classical theorists that the very laws of nature would serve to validate the principle of deterrence when public and judicial response to crime was reliably and skillfully adapted to the formula of making the punishment severe enough to eviscerate the lure of the crime.

Classical Criminology Theory Today

Despite centuries of accumulated experience in the many and complex psychological factors contributing to crime, the theory of deterrence remains a widely held one, both with the public in general and in the legal system. This alone most strikingly survives from the classical criminology concepts, even as the rationales behind it have been at least ostensibly discarded, and the reasons for this are not unlike those which fueled the origins of classical theory itself.

On a fundamental level, the concept that free will and the power of choice motivates crime is enormously attractive to a society. It acknowledges a scenario even the most non-criminal mentality can understand, for it is based on the elementary principle of cause and effect intrinsically known to and accepted by the the majority of people. It is in essence the only palatable manner by which the ordinary person can comprehend crime: “It assumes offenders make choices and decisions…which are restrained only by time, ability, and relevant information”

(Sieh 251).

Unfortunately, we know better. The range of crime is virtually limitless and, to our increased perplexity, so too are the motivations behind it. Much criminal activity is indeed the result of planning and calculation, usually with some form of tangible gain as the goal. For these crimes deterrence theory applies, at least to some extent. As an example, the crime of drunk-driving has been greatly diminished by the enforcement of severe penalties only in effect within the past few decades, and this happens because the sober person has a rational understanding of the consequences he will more likely face if he violates the law in this regard.

That convenient case aside, however, we are left with the legacy of the conundrum brought about by classical criminology theory; it works occasionally but only in very specific circumstances, and only when reason and some basic components of relatively ordinary human behavior is at play within the criminal. The theory simply collapses when attempts are made to apply it to more disturbing scenarios in which violent motives, seemingly motivated by no direct goal, are the impetus. Quite literally, it does not speak the same language.

The most striking argument to be made against employing classical theory in modern criminology lies within the case of psychopathology. This is itself a highly controversial and inadequately defined condition, often viewed as incorporating other mental deviations such as sociopathy within it. No matter the precise categorizing, however, the disorder exists and is a substantial factor in crime, particularly of the violent variety. Most tellingly, it cannot be remotely addressed by classical criminology theory: “Psychopathy only overlaps with criminality; it is not identical with it” (Roberson 65).

Whether or not the legal approach is to classify crimes committed by the psychopath or sociopath as born of mental illness, the fact remains that the crimes occur, and in increasing numbers. In no manner does classical criminology address this, simply because the entire theory is dependent upon a rational plane of existence whereupon the criminal is fully sensible of everything he is doing. This is not to assert that classical theory fails here because it does not concern itself with mental illnesses that engender crime; rather, as sociopathy alone is by no means accepted as a mental illness, it means that the theory simply fails to include a substantial element of criminality, period. More interestingly, it cannot be otherwise than that sociopathic individuals committed crimes in the age of Rousseau and Beccaria. We can only conclude that these inconveniences to the theory were dismissed as irrelevant because they were the acts of “madmen”. Unfortunately, we are by no means as confident of this assessment today. We know only that the deterrence model of classical theory is utterly ineffective with this substantial form of crime.

Current Evidence of Classical Theory

Deterrence is not a thing we like to let go of and, as noted, it has its usefulness. It alone stands as a valid application of classical theory, provided it is applied only when and where it can be counted upon to be effective.

“The targeting of ‘hot spots’ by an influx of specialized police units…is one practice that has evolved from fusing routine activities and rational choice” (Winfree, Abadinsky 60). In these modern situations, police make their presence acutely known in areas where street crime is anticipated, and this has the effect of either aborting the criminal activity or, less desirably, diffusing it; the crime simply moves on to a less patrolled neighborhood. While this clearly demonstrates that deterrence may be effective, and certainly when overtly manifested, it also points to inherent limits of deterrence. The concept, even when valid, is one which shifts in potency as both legal repercussions and more direct legal presences vary.

Conclusion

Classical criminology theory served an essential purpose when it was devised, for it removed societies from previously savage and irrational modes of dealing with criminality. That accomplished, it nonetheless could not properly address the many and varied, and often irrational, reasons why crime was and is committed. Deterrence theory survives as its only partially valid legacy, and is one which must be exercised with full knowledge of just how limited its effectiveness can be.

Works Cited

Beccaria, C., Newman, G. R., and Marongiu, P. On Crimes and Punishments. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009. Print.

Roberson, C.  Juvenile Justice: Theory and Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2010. Print.

Siegel, L. Criminology. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Sieh, E. W.  Community Corrections and Human Dignity. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006. Print.

Winfree, L.T., Jr.,  Abadinsky, H., and Winfree, L.T.  Understanding Crime: Essentials of Criminology Theory. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.