Criminology is the study of human behavior that seeks to define human behaviors and traits that direct individuals towards criminal behaviors and actions. In the study of criminology, different theorists have come up with different schools of thought to help explain the concept of criminology and punishments associated with specific criminal behavior. One of the key schools of thought developed on criminology is the classical approach to criminology developed in the 18th century as part of examining human behavior contributing to criminal behavior. The basic premises in which the classical school of criminology was developed reflected on the idea that man is a very calculating animal and has the free will to make decisions, some of which may be criminal in nature (Carnis, 2004). However, the classical school of criminal seeks to suggest that punishment may act as a deterrent of crime only in the event that the proportion of the punishment matches the proportion of the crime committed.
Principles of the Classical School of Criminology
A close review of the classical school of criminology suggests that this particular approach to criminology revolves around five key principles that govern punishments for specific crimes. The first principle is rationality, which revolves around the fact that every individual has the free will allowing him or her to make rational decisions depending on one’s expectations (Adams, 2009). That means that every individual is governed by the concept of choice considering that individuals tend to make their individual choice depending on the expected outcomes. However, it is important to take note of the fact that some of these choices may be criminal in nature attributed to their general outcomes, which seem to contravene the set out laws.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The principle also suggests that every individual’s rationality creates a reasoning process in which individuals evaluate the advantages and disadvantages associated with engaging in criminal behavior. In the long-term, this means that engagement in any form of criminal behavior is by choice, as every individual has the right to make a choice on whether or not to engage in crime. The second principle governing this particular approach to criminology is hedonism, which suggests that the main motivation towards how human beings behave is pain and pleasure (Carnis, 2004). That means that individuals reflect on the pain and pleasure that they would gain from a specific action or activity, which, in turn, defines whether individuals believe in such activities. The key aspect of focus for this principle, specifically focusing on criminal behavior, is that individuals seek to maximize on pleasure while minimizing on pain.
When engaging in criminal behavior, that acts as a source of pleasure for the individuals involved with the punishment for such behavior acting as a source of pain. Thus, this seeks to highlight the need for individuals to weigh in on their approaches to pain and pleasure, as this would define their possibility in terms of engagement in criminal activities. The third principle is punishment, which, basically, means activities that seek to help in changing of one’s behavior (Adams, 2009). In criminology, one of the key areas of focus is ensuring that individuals engaged in crime change their behaviors and attitudes towards crime. The classical school of criminology suggests that punishment is the best way to deter occurrence of crime, as it helps in ensuring that individuals are able to weigh in on the outcomes of their behaviors. Usage of punishment has long been associated with criminology as part of ensuring that individuals, who engage in crime, receive punishment proportional to their crimes.
The fourth principle that governs the classical school of criminology is human rights, which reflects on the need for ensuring that the rights of those engaged in criminal behaviors are protected regardless of their crimes. That is seen from the notion that punishment must be proportional to the nature of crime committed, thus, meaning that the criminal justice system has the mandate of ensuring that criminal behaviors are countered by matching punishments. The application of this principle is evident in the debate on death sentencing with opponents to this punishment arguing that it goes against an individual’s right to life. That means that criminology must also be of value in protecting the rights of individuals regardless of the fact that they have committed a wide array of criminal behaviors.
The last principle that governs the approach associated with the classical school of criminology is due process, which means that the process to determine whether an individual, accused of a crime, is guilty of the crime. The classical school of criminology suggests that every individual must be taken through the due process, as this would be of value in ensuring that every individual is given a fair platform for defense. On the other hand, this means that individuals would be in a better position to present their facts of the case, which would help in determining one’s guilt. The classical school of criminology pushes for the need to incorporate the due process in the criminal justice system as one of the key elements that seeks to build on efficiency in delivery of justice. That means that no punishment would be passed for any individual unless he or she is found guilty after going through the due process as prescribed within the criminal justice system.
Contributors of the Classical School of Criminology
When reviewing the classical school of criminology, one of the key areas that one would consider is the contributors of this particular approach to criminology. The two main contributors to the classical approach to criminology were Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria of which both of them were utilitarian and social contract philosophers. The main aspect that shows a similarity to their contributions is the fact that they both seek to portray man as a very calculating and manipulating animal, which has the ability to make choice depending on evaluation of pros and cons. That means that every individual has the authority to make a decision on whether to engage in a crime depending of his understanding of the existing pros and cons associated with such behavior.
Jeremy Bentham
As part of his contribution to the classical school of criminology, Jeremy Bentham sought to build on the "felicitation principle" of utilitarianism. The key focus for this principle was that any action must seek to provide the greatest platform for happiness for the largest possible number of persons within a given community or society. That means that an action would only be considered as being morally accurate depending on whether the action produces the greatest levels of happiness for the largest group of people. In his view, one of the best actions associated with criminology was punishments, which sought to create a positive approach from which individuals would not engage in any form of criminal behavior.
However, Bentham, being a utilitarian, believed in the fact that although the main idea of engaging in punishment was to inflict pain that would help in change, he believed that the punishment must consider the greater good of the society. In other words, the greater good of the punishment ought to ensure that the individuals accused and convicted of different crimes change their behaviors for the betterment of the society. Bentham believed in the fact that individuals engaging in crimes sought to gain from their actions whether in terms of excitement, money, or any other thing that brought happiness. Thus, this meant the punishment accorded for specific crimes must act as a direct reflection of the crimes that one has committed towards achievement of maximum output.
Cesare Beccaria
Cesare Beccaria published a book on criminology by the name Dei Delitti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments") from where he sought to change the way the criminal justice system viewed a crime. From his understanding, one of the key aspects to note was that the criminal justice system viewed crime from the perspective of the impacts of the behavior to the victim. However, Beccaria sought to change this perception by introducing a new tenet to the view of crime from the perspective of the harm associated with criminal behavior on the society (Howes, 2017). From this perspective, Beccaria argued that it would be much easier to propel individuals towards change depending on the punishments from the perspective of the harm to the society.
Beccaria believed that this would also be of value in ensuring that those accused and convicted of criminal behaviors reflect on their actions from the perspective of the society rather on their victims. That means that embracing punishment would work as the most formidable approach to ensure that these individuals change their criminal behaviors, thus, highlighting the effectiveness of the classical school of criminology. Beccaria’s contribution to the classical school of criminology helped in the codification movement, which sought to introduce sentencing tariffs for different crimes (McCarthy, 2002). The sentencing tariffs are used within the criminal justice system as part of ensuring that the punishments accorded to those accused of crime is proportional to the nature of their crimes. The long-term effective of this contribution is that it has helped in changing different aspects about the criminal justice system while ensuring that the justice system reflects more on the idea of reforming criminals.
Significance of this Theory
When studying the theory on the classical school of criminology, one must take note of the significance associated with this theory in shaping the modern criminal justice system for better outcomes in dealing with criminal behavior. The significance of the theory is that it creates a platform from which the criminal justice system is accord a rationale of defining crime from the perspective of the criminals and the society. When compared to other theories on criminology, the main advantage of this theory is that it creates the need for the criminal justice system to reflect on the society as part of defining the crime. That means that a crime would only be considered as a crime depending on its impacts on the society, which would help in governing the mode of punishing criminals for different crimes.
According to Howes (2017), the American criminal justice system, which is in use today, was founded on this theory with the founders believing that this approach to criminology creates a rather broad understanding to crime. In areas such as sentencing, the American criminal justice system embraces the basic tenets associated with this theory, as it reflects more on the idea that an individual must be taken through the due process before sentencing. On the other hand, the American criminal justice system seeks to suggest that the sentences handed to criminals after conviction must reflect on the nature of their actions while ensuring a protection of their rights. In the long-term, this has helped in enhancing capacity for correction of criminal behavior for criminals within the criminal justice system. That means that after their reintegration back into the society, they would focus more on changing their ways, thus, producing greatest happiness for the entire society.
Criticism of the Theory
However, it is important to consider the fact that theory has experienced notable criticism not only from scholars in criminology but also from theorists with most of the opponents arguing that the theory does not embrace the idea of reforms for human behavior. The key area that has experienced immense criticism is on the fact that the theory seeks to indicate that the blame for criminal behavior is solely on the individual while absconding the society from any form of blame with regard to the criminal behavior. According to the theory, every individual has free will and choice on whether or not to engage in criminal behavior, thus, meaning that one’s decision to engage in such behavior lays the blame squarely on the individual.
Critics argue the society must bare part of the blame for such behavior considering that individuals only act depending on their exposure within different societies. That means that when an individual is exposed to an environment that roots for his engagement in crime, then that would mean that the individual is more likely to engage in crime. That means that although every individual in the society, including children, understand the concept of right and wrong, not every individual would engage in crime due to free will or choice (McCarthy, 2002). From this perspective, one would argue that the theory is weak in its approach to understanding how and why individuals engage in specific criminal behaviors. That means that the understanding of criminal behavior would require further analysis using other theories in criminology, which would support different perspectives to human behavior and its impact towards criminology.
Conclusion
In summary, criminology is one of the key areas associated with evaluation of behaviors associated with crime, as well as, examining some of the key aspects that would be of value in dealing and deterring criminal behavior. One of the key schools of thought developed on criminology is the classical approach to criminology developed in the 18th century as part of examining human behavior contributing to criminal behavior. The five main principles associated with the classical school of criminology are rationality, hedonism, punishment, human rights, and due process. The two main contributors to the classical approach to criminology were Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria of which both of them were utilitarian and social contract philosophers. Bentham, being a utilitarian, believed in the fact that although the main idea of engaging in punishment was to inflict pain that would help in change. Beccaria argued that it would be much easier to propel individuals towards change depending on the punishments from the perspective of the harm to the society.
References
Adams, M. S. (2009). A delinquent discipline: The rise and fall of criminology. Academic Questions, 22 (4), 491-503
Carnis, L. (2004). Pitfalls of the classical school of crime. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7 (4), 7-17.
Howes, L. M. (2017). Critical thinking in criminology: critical reflections on learning and teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22 (8), 891-907.
McCarthy, B. (2002). New economics of sociological criminology. Annual Review of Sociology, 28 (1), 417-442.
