Table of Contents
Brief Context:
This is an approximately 2,500 word essay I submitted as part of my degree at University. I studied law, but took a criminology module. I’m not at liberty to reproduce the essay question as it is owned by the University, but it asked us to outline the main pillars of classicism and then make a value judgement on what conribution, if any, it made to modern criminology.
As a law student I was trained naturally to use OSCOLA as a referencing system. Here, I had to use Harvard, and I have to put it out there that I thoroughly hate it. It’s far less clear, interferes with the body of the text, and is generally an eyesore.
I also never loved the 2,500 hard word limit. We didn’t get 10% discretion over that, and I found 2,500 just hit that sadistic sweet spot where you had to include substantial detail but barely had room to substantially elaborate, leading sometimes to clipped sentences and slightly hurried points. I know they’re trying to test a skill, but for readers accustomed to the rest of my blog, it’s not a style of writing I am warm to.
I was given a score of 76/100 for this, putting it comfortably into the First Class Honours band. Feedback credited and interesting essay demonstrating good knowledge, good reading and research, and clear, concise arguments with strong analysis. Areas for improvement were given as “Bibliography”(as I called it) was “References” for the purposes of Criminology, some points would have benefitted from elaboration, tighter referencing in some areas, and a warning to watch presentation and contractions.
That said, here is my essay. It has not had any content edited at all, and is published exactly as I wrote it.
Without defining Criminology, it is hard to say what contribution has been made to it. Sutherland suggested it is the study of “crime and delinquency as social phenomena”, including the process of making, breaking, and enforcing laws (Sutherland, et al., 1992:3). Bonger seems to disagree with the latter part, saying the legal formulation of crimes are ‘of indirect interest to the criminologist’ (Bonger 1936:1). Bonger says criminology is the study of ‘criminality’, which includes “crimes […] and the persons who commit them.” (ibid.)
Both definitions seem to look at crime from a social perspective, with some emphasis on studying the individual too (explicitly so from Bonger). However, Bonger seems to regard the law with lesser interest, arguably mistakenly, since crime is really just a creation of law, without which the conduct would not be prohibited (therefore not be a crime), so there would be fundamentally nothing for criminologists to study. It also seems to disregard that the foundation of criminology is owed to legal reformers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.
It might, then, be acceptable to suggest that Criminology is the study of “crime and delinquency as social phenomena”, including legal aspects of creating, breaking, and enforcing laws, (Sutherland et al., 1992:3), along with the study of the ‘persons who commit [the crimes]’, (Bonger 1936:1) Simply, it could be said criminology should study crime from three broad perspectives: the individual, society, and the law, by which metric classical criminology (or classicism – (“criminology” wasn’t used until late 1800 (Wilson 2015: 62-63)) arguably has had a profound, though not absolute influence on modern criminology.
Classical Tenets:
Beccaria and Bentham are widely regarded as the founders of classical criminology, writing after a time where criminality had been poorly understood, and harsh punishments were exacted arbitrarily and unfairly (Paternoster and Fisher 2018: 174-175), often for petty crimes. Classicism was largely concerned with legal reform in its day and held as the first humanist account of crime and punishment, independent of ideas of Demonology and possession by sin.
The foremost tenet of classical criminology is the belief in free will (Newburn 2017: 124). It is an abstract philosophical rational actor theory, borrowing Adam Smith’s idea that humans make rational choices to further their own interests (Smith 1776). This process is inherently hedonistic which Bentham explains thus: “nature has placed mankind under […] two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain.” (Bentham, 1970 originally 1789: 11 as quoted in Burke 2019: 41)
Crime is one of the ways people act in the furtherance of self-interest. Beccaria labels this propensity as the ‘despotic spirit’, suggesting everyone has it (Burke 2019: 40). Despite classicism being the first naturalistic explanation of crime (Jenkins, 1984: 1), this still seems to bear some influence from pre-enlightened philosophy, that people were possessed by sin, and for that, it seems a little deterministic.
Beccaria believed in the Social Contract (unlike Bentham) – the idea one is bound to society by their consent, and that is necessary to maintain social order (Burke 2019: 40). Implicitly, the individual loses some liberty in this agreement, but that is balanced by the state protecting the freedoms that remain, including by punishing others who violate them (ibid).
The purpose of punishment is to serve as general (preventing society) and specific (preventing the individual) deterrence to crime. Beccaria and Bentham argued punishment should be used for deterrence, not revenge (Burke 2019: 40), and be swift and certain to be effective (ibid.). They also held it should be a proportionate response to the crime, not the criminal. The severity of the crime is measured by the harm it causes to society (consistent with the consequentialist nature of utilitarianism). Sentencing should be decided by the legislator, not the judge, making it consistent, and it must be rationally justified as a deterrent or to help reform the offender (Cullen and Wilcox 2010a: 8). Beccaria argued that both the law and the punishments should also be widely known, to help deter crime.
Due to utilitarian roots, classicism holds that “everybody is to count for one” (Mill, 1879 originally 1861). This is paradoxically advantageous and disadvantageous. While nobody’s interests are more important than another’s (so all are afforded the same protection by the law), all are equally responsible for their conduct (and that responsibility is absolute because of free will), yet clearly that is incorrect in reality, looking at children and mentally disabled people.
One criticism of classicism is levelled mostly at Beccaria’s lack of originality, arguing most of his On Crimes and Punishments (1764) was borrowed from French, British, and Scottish philosophers, rendering Beccaria little more than a translator (Paternoster and Fisher 2018: 175-176) while oppositely the originality of positivist scholars like Adolphe Quetelet is widely praised (Beirne 1987: 1142). Some sources disagree that Beccaria’s work was unoriginal (Venturi 1970). Whether true or not, originality is not tantamount to influence, and it seems Beccaria’s contribution is of ‘distinct and considerable importance’ (Draper 2000) given that it directly gave rise to the subject of criminology and is still talked about in most accounts of it (Jenkins 1984: 112).
A more credible critique can be found in the claim that classicism is wrong to focus entirely on working class crime (Jenkins, 1984: 113), not acknowledging upper class crimes. There is very little explanation given by either theory about the difference in criminality by class, race, or gender, either, beyond a bold claim that the ‘despotic spirit’ is within us all (Burke 2019: 40), or the Lombrosian idea of lesser evolution (Gallagher 1978: 246), neither of which seem to address the nuance of any of these issues. Neither does classicism distinguish between first-time offenders or reoffenders, or between matured adults and non-mature children, or mentally disabled people, because it responds to the crime, not the criminal (Burke 2019: 43-44) and none of these above factors affect blameworthiness for crime because everyone has equal free will, so crime is always a choice.
Notably, Beccaria and Bentham were both more interested in legal reform, and less about understanding the reasons for crime which some academics criticise (Paternoster and Fisher 2018: 2). Arguably, Beccaria took the ideas of thinkers before him and just “focused them solely on the issue of criminal law and penal reform rather than society more generally” (ibid). Though seemingly intended as a criticism, this can be interpreted as their strength. Part of Sutherland’s definition of Criminology explicitly includes the realm of law (Sutherland et al., 1992: 3), and to that, classicism directly contributed. Much of Classicism focuses on ideas around the state creating good laws being a way to deter criminals for the greater good, and with its ideas that punishment should be sure, swift, and proportionate.
Positivism:
Another problem with classicism is its theoretical nature. For the most part, classicism was not scientific, but deductive, formed in premises leading to logical conclusions (Cullen and Wilcox 2010a: 3). By contrast to classicists, positivists believed observational scientific methods applied to natural sciences could and should be applied to the social world too (Bottoms 2000) with ‘substantive’ and ‘methodological’ research (Weatherburn and Findlay, 1985: 2). This became the dominant school of thought in criminology for a century (ibid.) Pioneered by Cesare Lombroso, positivism is by contrast to classicism more concerned with the criminal than the crime (Collins and Wilcox 2010b: 5; Collins and Wilcox 2010c: 3). He thought physiological or psychological factors could explain criminality, something which he tried to document in physical abnormalities of criminals, which he thought showed they were less evolved in the evolutionary chain (Lombroso-Ferrero 1911 as referenced in Gallagher 1978; Cullen and Wilcox 2010b:7).
Positivists view criminals as compelled to behave criminally, different from non-criminals at a fundamental level (like psychologically or physiologically), by their “innate organic nature” (Cullen and Wilcox 2010b) and respond to such individuals usually with treatment, the nature and length varying by case (White and Haines 2004). They are less interested in deterrence due to the deterministic nature of their beliefs (Cressey 1955; Gallagher 1978: 247).
Despite his recognition as a Father of Criminology, Lombroso’s ideas have nearly all fallen out of favour now (Newburn 2017: 133). Beccaria and Bentham’s, however, have not, so arguably classicism’s contribution to modern criminology is strong and enduring, perhaps in part because of its empowering and humane belief in free will.
However, despite Lombroso’s questionable findings, he was a necessary catalyst for change in Criminology, filling in gaps that Classicism left – notably, by studying the individual and social factors. This more focused view balances the wide, legal view that Classicism took to the study. Neither positivism or classicism adequately address social influences for crime though, such as poverty, familial, or political unrest. While Lombroso did acknowledge social influences, particularly in trying to document correlations between marital status, environment, profession, and criminality (Cullen and Wilcox 2010b: 7), he dismissed social influences as secondary to the biological, arguing most criminals were innately so (ibid), later giving rise to the idea of the born criminal (Ferri 1880 as referenced in Cullen and Wilcox 2010b). The born criminal was thought to be “constitutionally morally insane” and bore characteristics of a “primitive stage of humankind” (ibid.: 8). Lombroso thought society had a right to punish such a character to protect itself but doing so was useless as far as reformation or deterrence (ibid).
As far as its contribution to modern criminology, Positivism gave some focus to the ‘nature of […] the criminal’ (Bonger 1936: 1) and while largely dismissing its influence, also to the social influences of crime (Sutherland et al. 1992: 3). For that, its contribution is noteworthy, and, like classicism, it helped to form a stronger foundation for criminological study, which later theories benefitted from. Despite this, neither biological positivism nor classicism effectively address the social influence on crime. While sociological positivism does acknowledge this, it is still rather deterministic with suggestions like people from ‘broken homes’ are more likely to commit crime. Seemingly an observable correlation, like physical abnormalities were in criminals for Lombroso, correlation does not necessarily equal causation, and it seems too absolutist to suppose these facts are so closely related as to be like cause and effect as some sources seem to suggest (Smith 2007) and that this is something the individual – who does have free will – can’t overcome. Positivism also gave little attention to the law or sincere attention to society, which were both important elements of Sutherland’s and Bonger’s definitions of criminology, arguably rendering its work limited in its contribution to the subject.
Rational Choice Theory (RCT):
RCT builds on classicist ideas, suggesting that individuals perform a cost versus benefit analysis of an action before taking it. In recent years, RCT has informed intelligent crime prevention strategies by acknowledging the idea that most crime is opportunistic. Therefore, if the opportunity is gone, so is the incentive. Painter and Farrington (1999) showed that streetlights had a remarkable effect on crime reduction. The idea is that the risk to the criminal is greater than the reward because of the increased likelihood of capture. The opportunity for crime is mitigated, and so is the occurrence. It is through modern adaptations like this that the wisdom of classicism endures by motivating deterrence.
Neo-Classicism:
Neo-Classicism also builds on classical school thought, and implies RCT to an extent, following the idea that crime is largely opportunistic. Neo-Classicists Rossi, Joly and Garraud tempered the absolutism of their classical influences on free will, and instead held that while ordinary adults of reasonably sound mind were responsible for their actions because they had complete free will, recognised that the young, elderly, or mentally ill had less capacity to exercise it (Burke 2019: 44). This is not only consistent with public consensus and law in the modern day (for example, Insanity) but also manages to expand the remit of classical school contribution to modern criminology by considering the nature of the criminal, something classicism largely neglected.
Arguably, “modern criminology is the product of two main schools of thought: the classical school originating in the 18th century and the positivist school originating in the 19th century” (The Early Schools of Criminology and Modern Counterparts 2006). It might be that classicism had the benefit of being institutionalised (Beirne 1987: 1145) from the start (interestingly, this seems to be a positivist source and yet concedes indirectly that classicism founded the subject of criminology) but we still see its influence strongly today because it has merits that justify that endurance.
While Positivism contributed something valuable in trying to understand causes of crime from an individual level, and in recognising social influences on crime even if it focused more on the biological, its conclusions never escaped being too deterministic, which strips individuals of their agency and dignity and seems to create a criminal ‘type’ that risks giving rise to sentiments of guilt by association. Both issues arguably fundamentally undermine the principles of the legal system which determine guilt based on blameworthiness and hold that one is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ respectively. New Criminology opposes the positivist idea criminal behaviour is explainable by referring to physical characteristics, arguing “only by overthrowing this narrow mindset can a ‘truly social’ explanation of ‘deviance’ be given” (Taylor and Walton 1973, as quoted in Weatherburn and Findlay 1985: 3).
Referring to the introduction, that criminology should study crime from three broad perspectives: the individual, society, and the law, it seems that classicism has contributed the most to this endeavour. Its origins in legal reform give it a strong lead, as positivism largely ignores this aspect. Socially, classicism recognises the existence of influences like ‘broken homes’ and poverty on an individual’s propensity to commit crime, but regarding the individual, its belief in free will maintains the dignity and agency of the criminal (The Early Schools of Criminology and Modern Counterparts 2006), rejecting a victimhood mentality which views them as nothing but a passive entity in life that needs ‘treatment’ for its ‘illness’ or, worse yet, can’t be saved at all. Implicitly humanistic, while holding criminals responsible for their conduct, it leads to a general endeavour to use punishment preventatively and proportionately, while also removing the opportunity for crime to mitigate offence rates. Classical influence on modern criminology is still very strong in nearly every facet of the legal system. More so than anyone else, modern accounts of criminology largely focus on the work of Beccaria (Phillipson 1970 as cited in Jenkins 1984: 1) and through the years classical principles have been modernised and re-stated in rational actor theories like RCT which informs effective crime prevention strategies, and Neo-Classicism, which concede the varying ability of children and people with mental illnesses to utilise their free will in a manner that reflects reality sympathetically, maintaining their dignity. While the noteworthy influence of positivism means it is not absolute, nevertheless, these facts undeniably seem to give classicism a profound and enduring influence on modern criminology.
Bibliography
Beirne, P. (1987) ‘Adolphe Quetelet and the Origins of Positivist Criminology’ American Journal of Sociology Vol. 92(5)
Bonger, W. A. (2015 originally 1936) An Introduction to Criminology Routledge, 1st Edition
Bottoms, A. (2000) ‘The Relationship Between Theory and Research in Criminology’ Doing Research on Crime and Justice pp. 25-27
Burke, R.H. (2019) ‘An Introduction to Criminological Theory’ Routledge 5th Edition.
Cressey, D. (1955) ‘Changing Criminals: The Application of the Theory of Differential Association’ American Journal of Sociology Vol. 61: 116-120
Cullen, F. T. and Wilcox, P. (2010b) Lombroso, Cesare: The Criminal Man. In: Francis T. Cullen and Pamela Wilcox Editors, 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 561-565 Available at: <https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n155> [Accessed 16 Nov 2022].
Cullen, F. T. and Wilcox, P. (2010c) Garofalo, Raffaele: Positivist School. In: Francis T. Cullen and Pamela Wilcox Editors, 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 353-355 Available at: <https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n97> [Accessed 16 Nov 2022].
Cullen, F. T. and Wilcox, P. (2010a) Bentham, Jeremy: Classical School. In: Francis T. Cullen and Pamela Wilcox Editors, 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 89-94 Available at: <https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n24> [Accessed 16 Nov 2022].
Draper, A. J, (2000) ‘Cesare Beccaria’s Influence on English Discussions of Punishment, 1764 – 1789’ History of European Ideas Vol. 26: 1
Gallagher, J. F. (1978) ‘The Life and Death of Liberal Criminology’ Contemporary Crises Vol. 2
Jenkins, P. (1984) ‘Varieties of Enlightenment Criminology: Beccaria, Godwin, de Sade’ The British Journal of Criminology Vol. 24(2)
Mill, J. S. (1879 originally 1861) Utilitarianism Longmans, Green and Company, p.93
Newburn, T. (2017) Criminology Routledge 3rd Edition
Painter, K. and Farrington, D. (1999) ‘Improved Street Lighting: Crime Reducing Effects and Cost-Benefit Analyses’ Security Journal Vol. 12
Paternoster, R. and Fisher, D. (2018) ‘The Foundation and Re-Emergence of Classical Thought in Criminological Theory: A Brief Philosophical History’ The Wiley Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Criminology 1st Edition
Smith, A. (1977 originally 1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations University of Chicago Press
Smith, I. D. (2007) Being tough on the causes of crime: Tackling family breakdown to prevent youth crime Available online at: https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/causes_of_crime.pdf [accessed on 16th November 2022]
Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., and Luckenbill, D. F., (1992) Principles of Criminology Altamira Press
The Early Schools of Criminology and Modern Counterparts (2006) p.70
Venturi, F. (1970) Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment Cambridge University Press pp. 100–102
Weatherburn, D. and Findlay, M. (1985) ‘Positivism, Empiricism and Criminological Theory’ Legal Studies Vol. 5(2)
White, R. D. and Haines, F (2004) Crime and Criminology Oxford University Press
Wilson, J. R. (2015) ‘The Word Criminology: A Philology and a Definition’, Criminology, Criminal Justice Law, & Society Vol. 16(3)
