|
|
|
|
|
capital punishment
|
|
|
A COMPARISON OF THREE CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES AND HOW THEY HAVE AIDED OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF CRIME. By Roger Perera CRIM211 Crime is a many and varied phenomenon. The search for answers to the problem of crime is not new nor an easy one. What is it that makes some individuals resort to criminal behaviour while others do not? It is intended in this essay to discuss and compare three criminological theories: Classicism – Positivism and Sutherland’s differential association theory, and how they have aided today’s understanding of crime. Prior to classical criminology’s evolution in European society, the explanation of human behaviour was approached in one of two different ways. One was spiritualistic and the other was naturalistic. The spiritualistic explanation was one of other world powers or spirits controlling objects or persons and effecting their behaviour. Therefore criminal behaviour was caused by the individual being possessed by demons. On the other hand the naturalistic theory postulated that the explanation must be found within the world of physical and material fact (Vold, 1979). The classical school was the first of the naturalistic theories. Led by an Italian mathematician and economist Cesare Bonesana Marchese De Beccaria (1738 – 1794) it viewed man as free, rational and hedonistic who based his actions on the costs and benefits. Society by increasing the costs and reducing the benefits reasoned the individual would choose legitimate options over illegal ones (Vold, 1979). Around the 1820’s, a new view developed by the positivist criminologists declared that mans behaviour was beyond his control and was determined by biological or cultural factors. Cesare Lombroso (1835 – 1909) claimed that some people were born criminals. He believed that criminal types could be identified by the shape of their skull and were throwbacks to a more primitive human being. Lombroso saw most criminals as biologically defective, although conceded that the influence of socialisation could affect the development of criminal behaviour (A Giddens, 1993). The twentieth century brought forth many new theories with the advancement of the sciences. Edwin H Sutherland (1883 – 1950) put forward the idea of differential association. It was his view that crime was accepted in some societies and cultures, therefore some individuals could be socialised into criminal activities by others who were “carriers of criminal norms” (Giddens, 1993). So to attain the accepted needs and values, some were socialised into illegal activities while others chose to use the law-abiding avenue. To compare these theories one needs to remember the time in which they were formulated. The classical criminological theorists drew much of their information from philosophists Montesquieu, Socrates, Bacon, Voltaire, Rousseau and Descartes to name but a few. They held the view that mans intelligence and rationality were the basis of human behaviour Therefore by careful education and socialisation man could be master of his own destiny. The classical school theory was based on the premise of punishment as a deterrent. Beccaria among others, like Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) an English jurist and philosopher were very influenced by these great minds.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
