Today, the US criminal justice system places immense emphasis on reformation and rehabilitation. Instead of seeking to cause offenders to suffer harm, the system aims to transform the offenders and release them back into society where they can become productive and law-abiding members. It is true that the system is far from perfect. However, commendable progress has been made in ensuring that offenders are redeemed and offered an opportunity for productivity. The situation today marks a significant shift from the state of the criminal justice system in previous years. There are various approaches that are used in the design of the system. Among these approaches are the classical and the positivist perspectives. An examination of these approaches reveals that they reflect conflicting perspectives regarding the causes of crime and the proper punishment.
Differences and Similarities of Perspectives
One of the issues that the positivist and the classical approaches address is punishment. There are differences and similarities in how the two approaches view this issue. While the two approaches are widely different, various similarities between them can be observed. The purpose of punishment is among the questions on which the two perspectives agree. On the one hand, the classical approach holds that punishment is designed to discourage criminal behavior (“Classical School of Criminology”, n.d). The classical perspective contends that individuals who commit crimes are driven by free will. Essentially, this perspective posits that offenders choose to commit crimes. Jeremy Bentham is among the philosophers who are credited with laying the foundation for the classical perspective. He believed that punishment is an effective crime deterrent because it yields unhappiness (“Classical School of Thought”, n.d). On the other hand, the positivist approach confirms that crime prevention is the primary purpose of punishment. Whereas it is true that this approach differs with the classical perspective on the causes of crime, it agrees that punishment should be designed with the goal of deterring crime. Another issue on which the two perspectives adopt a common position is how punishment should be effected. The positivist approach holds that offenders should be isolated from society. Through isolation, it is hoped that the offender will suffer unhappiness which will force them to abandon crime. An evaluation of the classical approach reveals that it also recognizes that isolation is the primary tool used for punishment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
From the discussion above, it is evident that the classical and positivist approaches share similarities. However, these perspectives are mostly different. The key difference regards the severity of punishment. On the one hand, the classical approach insists that the punishment should be in line with the severity of the crime (Vito & Maahs, 2015). This means that offenders who have perpetrated grave crimes should suffer severe punishment. On the other hand, the positivist approach contends that while handing out punishment, it is important to consider the larger social and cultural context (Vito & Maahs, 2015). Those in support of the positivist approach believed that involvement in crime is deterministic and that offenders do not choose to commit crimes. The second difference between the two approaches lies in the object of punishment. Whereas the classical approach called for punishment to be meted out against crimes, the positivist perspective held that the punishment should be imposed on criminals (Neese, 2017). Essentially, the classical perspective linked punishment to crime while the positivist approach drew associations between punishment and an offender.
Social Arguments
There are a number of social arguments that underlie the classical and the positive approaches. The mandate of the state to protect individuals against offenders is among the key arguments that serve as the foundation of the classical approach (“The Traditional Criminological”, n.d). Proponents of this perspective believed that the state had a duty to protect personal property and the interests of society against crime. That individuals are entirely responsible for their actions is yet another social argument that the proponents of the classical approach presented to support it. On the other hand, the positivist approach was mainly supported by the argument that social influences shape human behavior (“The Traditional Criminological”, n.d). Therefore, individuals cannot and should not be made to account for their actions. Basically, this perspective placed blame for crime on external influences instead of the offender. As opposed to the classical approach which asserted that all individuals understood right and wrong, the positivist perspective posited that society and genetic forces were the primary influences to blame for criminal behavior. That it is possible for individuals to adopt internal frameworks for restraint is another argument that supports the positivist perspective (“The Traditional Criminological”, n.d). It was believed that the fear of punishment could dissuade individuals against engaging in criminal activities.
Personal Position and Social Issues
I find that the two perspectives offer intriguing insights on crime and punishment. However, I also think that they are flawed and that they fail to fully account for how crime occurs and the impact that punishment has on the behavior of offenders. This said, I find that the positivist approach offers the most comprehensive and fairest account of crime. As already noted in the discussion above, this approach acknowledges that criminal behavior does not happen in a vacuum. Instead, it holds that there are various forces which influence criminal behavior. While I agree that individuals should be held accountable for their actions, I feel that it is important to consider the unique circumstances that offenders face. For example, I understand that there are individuals who are inspired to engage in crime by violence and rampant crime in their neighborhoods. It would be unfair to punish these individuals severely. This is not to say that crime should not be punished. It simply means that when developing punishment, it is only fair to account for the situations that offenders face. Another reason why I feel that the positivist approach is better than the classical perspective is that it makes it clear that individuals hold different positions regarding right and wrong. Thanks to my personal experiences, I find this to be true. I understand that in some cultures, certain offenses that we consider criminal are sanctioned and even encouraged. For example, there are some communities that practice female genital mutilation. In these communities, this practice is a critical component of their culture and it plays a crucial role in defining their identity. While I find that the practice is dangerous and outdated, I think that this practice underscores the fact that views on right and wrong vary from one community to another. Therefore, I feel that it would be wrong and against the spirit of justice to punish an individual whose culture does not recognize what we regard as criminal. Whereas I agree with most of the positions of the positivist approach, I think that it possesses various flaws. For example, this approach contends that such physical features as the shape of an individual’s head can be used to predict criminal behavior. I find this to be untrue and lacking scientific support. While it is flawed, the positivist approach is still the better perspective.
In conclusion, human thought on crime and punishment has undergone significant evolution. The classical and the positivist approaches represent the infancy of perspectives on crime. Whereas the classical approach blamed individuals for their behaviors and actions, the positivist perspective placed the blame on society and genetics. The two perspectives also deferred on the severity of punishment. However, they agreed that deterrence is the primary purpose that punishment should serve. Since these perspectives are deeply flawed, it is important for mankind to develop a fresh perspective which offers a more accurate and comprehensive reflection of crime and punishment.
References
Classical school of criminology. (n.d). Oxford Reference. Retrieved August 18, 2018 From http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095615832
Classical school of thought. (n.d). Retrieved August 18, 2018 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QmECZPnLPhVkJYbGdrRmw4ZUU/view
Neese, B. (2017). Classifying crime: major schools of criminology. Southeastern University. Retrieved August 18, 2018 from https://online.seu.edu/schools-of-criminology/
The traditional criminological theories on crime and its causes. Retrieved August 18, 2018 From http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltCrimJl/1979/3.pdf
Vito, G. F., & Maahs, J. R. (2015). Criminology. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
