What is the nature of criminology PDF

Preview

Summary

80/100 awarded ...

Description

What is the nature of criminology? Criminology can be simply defined as an academic study of crime, yet in itself, this definition is open to both interpretation and complexity. Grunhut (1959) defined criminology as an empirical scientific study that looks at various forms and causes of crime, whilst also finding ways to measure and control it; however, this is not an exclusive definition. The nature of criminology, and the way we study crime, has undeniably been forced to adapt and change alongside shifting attitudes and trends in crime. Over time criminology has developed from an early belief in rationality, as a part of Classical thinking, to the evolution of criticism, leading to the principles behind Positivist thinking, such as the belief that the probability a person may commit a crime can be determined physiologically, exploring anthropology and physiognomy (Lombroso, 2006). Such thinking has resulted in further developments and debates within the nature of criminology which has shaped how we measure, explain and punish crime today. Experts agree that criminology entails looking at motives and reasoning behind trends in crime, and what it is that motivates people to commit an offence. It was the ideas of rationality from Beccaria (1764), paired with the acceptance by the French despots, who were driven by the will to end arbitrary punishment, that saw the rise of Classical thinking (Jones, 2017, p76). Classical thinking ultimately argues that free-will, in which people are driven by a measure of pain and pleasure, ultimately drives a rational decision over the benefit of committing a crime. It was Jeremy Bentham in 1789 who applied his concept of ‘utilitarianism’ to the criminal justice system, suggesting that individuals would only commit a crime if they believed they would acquire greater happiness (Case, Johnson, Manlow, Smith, & Williams, 2017, p327 - 328). The belief that everyone is rational, as discussed by Beccaria, forms the biggest criticism of Classical thinking. The acceptance of Beccaria’s writings and their development by Bentham, saw the punishment of children, the mentally infirm and cognitively impaired citizens. Although under Classical thinking this may have been seen as fair punishment, many in society saw the punishment of such individuals as cruel and unfair (Case et al, 2017). With regards to the nature of explaining crime today, both Bentham and Beccaria’s work has meant that criminologists have to examine personal situations, societal pressures, as well as trends in crime rates within social classes and financial burdens, in order to work out why individuals commit crimes, as well as the likelihood that someone might commit an offence.

It wasn’t until 1876, when Classical thinking for the reason of unfair treatment, was beginning to be replaced by Positivist thinkers, such as Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso, accused but not convicted of plagiarising the work of Charles Darwin (Jones 2017), did not believe that everyone was rational, instead concluding that no individual had free-will when it came to crime. This developed the idea of Anthropological Criminology from Social Darwinism, moving with Darwin's ideas to conclude that criminals commit offences due to the progression of evolution, and are in a more primitive stage of life than law-abiding citizens (Jones, 2017, p84). Lombroso after carrying out post-mortems of criminals, believed that society could detect the ‘born criminal’, identifiable by physical differences compared to the ‘born normal’. These characteristics included; a sloping forehead, ears of unusual size and asymmetry of the face (Joshi, 2017). Positivist thinkers have been heavily criticized for their reductionist view and failure to recognise any cognitive rationality behind why people offend. Lombroso’s work has been discredited by academics, including British scientist Charles Buckman Goring, who heavily criticised Lombroso for his anatomico-pathological method and for directly observing with a lack of measuring instruments. For Goring this meant Lombroso’s results had a low rate of reproducibility (Driver, 1957). Despite his findings, Joshi (2017) found that modern technology, coined ‘The Fuzzy Logic’, which uses face detection software to map out the face of a person, can be used to prove Lombroso’s findings from 1879, whilst also being accredited in a journal article. Overall what this means for the nature of criminology today is that when looking into the reasons people commit crimes, it is important to be able to determine the level of free-will an individual may have before possible conviction. Although Lombroso's ideas of Anthropological criminology have been many times disproved, it is still essential for criminologists to be able to make a judgement over the degree of free-will someone has, whilst looking at the chances of someone being born criminal, and the possible ways in which the individual cBentham and Beccaria both argue that punishment should not be down to the discretion of a judge and that set crimes should have set punishments, as Beccaria argued that if two crimes have the same punishment, but punish society unequally, then people will not be deterred from committing the greater crime if seen as more advantageous (Beccaria 1797/1996, p9 - 113). This means for criminologists, the most benefit way to control crime is to present the rational mind with an outcome that is unbeneficial to the individual. Such outcomes include; harsher sentences, increasing the risk of being caught, such as the introduction of closed-circuit television (CCTV). According to Classical thinkers, this makes the nature of criminology one of preventing crime through influencing the rational mind to deter from criminal behaviour. an be ‘cured’ and treated.

Further to the idea of treatment, the nature of criminology is also focused on how society can control crime in accordance with Grunhut’s definition (1959). Due to the conflicting nature of Classical and Positivist thinkers, the way we control crime today could be identified as a hybrid of rehabilitation, looking at the ways we can scientifically treat criminals, as well as deterrence. Moreover, positivist thinkers as previously mentioned believe that if someone is born criminal or has a predisposition for criminal behaviour then the individual can be treated medically. For criminologists today, this is reflected in the success rates of rehabilitation and links to mental health treatments such as those on antidepressants and the links that can be drawn to criminal behaviours. Recent research has shown that for certain crimes, adopting Positivist thinking is more effective than that of Classicism, such as drug-related crimes. Research by the US Justice Department showed that two-thirds of drug offenders leaving prison will be re-arrested within three years, compared to offenders who went through rehabilitation. In fact, rehabilitation showed a nearly two-thirds decline in overall arrests and over a 50% drop in drug possession arrests (Mcvay et al, 2004). For the nature of criminology this demonstrates that it is not as straightforward as to being able to incarcerate someone in order to protect society and simultaneously benefit the individual. Instead, it involves a careful judgement and balance of the most likely outcome of punishment. It therefore follows that if an offence is committed as a result of rational thought, then rehabilitation and treatment is going to be a far more effective method of crime control than deterrence and incarceration. In conclusion, the nature of criminology is ultimately formed from its rich history and evolution. Whilst it remains hard to define the nature of criminology, it still stands as the measurement, study of and explanation of crime. As discussed, different critical thinkers, such as Beccaria and Lombroso, will measure and study crime differently in order to form different explanations. Over time this has led to the nature of criminology being defined sociologically, as well as scientifically and psychologically. Overall, it is crucial to examine criminology as a broad study, considering both explanations and alternatives, which is reflected in today's society and criminal justice system.

References Beccaria, C., (1767/1995 ) Crimes and punishment and other writings, edited by Richard Bellamy and translated by Richard Davies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Case, S., Johnson, P., & Manlow, D., Smith, R., & Williams., K, (2017). Criminology. New york, United states of America: Oxford University Press. Driver, E.D., (1957) Pioneers in Criminology XIV--Charles Buckman Goring (1870-1919). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, volume 47 (Issue 05). Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=4531&context=jclc Grunhut, M.A. (1959). The Nature and scope of criminology, Volume 1 (Issue 32), p7 - 12 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X5903200103 Jones, S. (2016). Criminology (6th edition). Oxford: Oxford University press. Joshi, Gauri (2017, 05 May). Physiognomy of Criminals. International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR), Volume 06 (Issue 05). Retrieved from http://ijsetr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IJSETR-VOL-6-ISSUE-5-788-791.pdf Lombroso, C., & Lombroso, C. (2006). Criminal man. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Mcvay, D. (2004). Treatment or incarceration? (National and State Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment), Retrieved from https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/jpi/04-01_REP_MDTreatmentorIncarceration_AC-DP.pdf...