Classical Criminology PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Classical Criminology PDF

Description

4 fundamental ideas of classical thoughts and classical criminology: 1. People have free will -

-

Contrast with deterministic view of human nature (that our choices are already predetermined for us) Destiny is already predetermined or subsequently other consequences of this modernisation project but on a different trajectory more along the lines of the Lombroso trajectory which was very much consistent with the development of scientific thinking in scientific methods we've seen greater emphasis on biological and genetic factors in terms of their influence in shaping behaviour but also, cultural factors thinking about the cultural context that people grow up in or are part of an structural factors as well so things such as inequality which are also very important now why does this matter

From a criminological standpoint: key point think about when it comes to classical explanations of crime is that there is an assumption underpinning these theoretical approaches that people who commit crime choose to do so that is they make a choice to break the rules to break the law to offend. and that is to say that they are therefore not compelled to do so that is they make a choice to break the rules to break the law to offend and that is to say that they are therefore not compelled to do so by external factors so responsibility as a consequence both and empirical sense in terms of how we would try to understand their behaviour but also an immoral sense in terms of how we would judge them for this behaviour sits with these individuals. when it comes to things like sentencing and determining penalties for individuals under such circumstances accordingly there is very limited concern for the extenuating circumstances in people’s lives which may help to provide an explanation for why they did something wrong if they're not perhaps necessarily habitual offenders or people of questionable character or decision making so this is the first idea then this is the idea that people have free will

2. People are rational and calculated -

rational means that if the anticipated benefits of a given action or a decision that someone might take outweigh the potential costs or consequences any rational person would commit the act or make that decision

so for classical criminology drawing on classical thought more generally this same assumption is applied to crime and decisions about whether or not someone would offend and so that is to say that crime is viewed not as some kind of deviant or irrational activity but rather as something that is rational in certainty and indeed something that is calculated and or rather something that is you know occurs because people make calculated decisions to commit crime -

-

so by implication, offending is viewed not as some kind of deviant behaviour that is limited to a select few morally defective individuals but rather something that is actual actually normal that as its normal human behaviour (now we're not talking about normal in a moral sense, not justifiable behaviour to i.e. rob a bank or to lie on your tax returns) not saying it's normal in that sense but rather that this is something that normal people would do in the right circumstances if they made a determination that again the benefits outweigh the potential risks or consequent potential consequences of committing this action so again it's not condoning it but it's recognizing that from an empirical perspective anyone of us is a potential offender in that regard and so that's the key point to kind of think about when we start to recognise the idea that crime is normal behaviour

everyone can kind of think of something that they've done there was something that you I guess something that you know shaped your decision and probably maybe knew what you were doing was wrong but in those circumstances you made a decision or you made it a choice to go ahead -

everyone is a potential criminal.

3. People are hedonistic, they act out of self-interest -

-

in the words of Jeremy Bentham who is one of the fathers of classical criminology nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign Masters pleasure and pain they govern us in all we do all we say and all we think now the implication of this according to classical thought is that people seek to act in ways that maximise pleasure and minimise pain not just about material gain with the obvious rewards and risks, but there also may be other factors that may motivate a person to make a choice to commit crime and so we might think about this in terms of the emotional satisfaction that someone gains from committing a crime perhaps it provides them with a vehicle for gaining cultural status or credibility within a certain social group there may be other forms of gratification that people made arrive out of committing crime it may be about power and ego …

-

-

-

but in any case, the fundamental argument of the classical approach regardless of what the specifics of the motives might be is that people are seeking to maximise pleasure and minimise pain when we adopt or accept the idea of an expanded understanding of what people perceive costs and benefits to be an recognise that this is actually quite subjected to individuals, I think it makes it easier for us The idea of rationality can be and that is that we can rationalise perhaps anything to ourselves if it's something that we want to do important to think about this subjective nature of rationality an the extent to which this may differ between different individuals depending on their values beliefs circumstances and perhaps capacity to exercise judgement (don’t apply this idea of rationality in a rigid way but at the same time the counterpoint that is well if anything can be rational and what does it actually mean to be rational)

4. Punishment will deter people crime -

-

-

-

if people are governed by this calculation of costs versus rewards they act rationally if crime is potentially rational it's a normal behaviour. the idea then is that punishment itself is necessary for deterring people from committing crime so the problem or the argument of classical theorists is that if there are no natural consequences for anti-social or illegal actions and the argument is that really there is no natural justice. you could do horrible things and live a great life there's plenty of people who do this if there is no natural consequences then whats to stop people from doing the wrong thing and acting in their own self-interest as opposed to the wider social good i.e. Mass grocery hoarding - no rule against it and in the absence of the rule it was very hard to promote social behaviour that advanced the public good or the social good as opposed to the individual good going back to the classical approach the idea is that without implementing this rule you know you're not actually going to be able to stop people’s behaviour when we're talking about crime as opposed to just kind of low level rule breaking the argument is that we actually have to create significant consequences in the form of punishment so that people can make determinations about the potential consequences of their behaviour but also said that these can shape peoples determinations so this is to say that if the anticipated costs are paying via punishment are greater than the anticipated rewards this is to set to decrease the probability or the likelihood that a rational person again there issues with defining that but decrease the likelihood that are rational person would choose to offend

-

so this is essentially the argument behind deterrence theory which is an important element of the classical criminalogical paradigm now as we'll see momentarily however classical theorists have emphasised that punishment must be administered in particular way in order for it to be an effective deterrent and that is to say just because you have a really harsh punishment there doesn't mean that it will stop people from behaving in inappropriate very illegal ways...