Before the 18th Century, the reason for criminal behavior was not known. People believed good and evil came from the supernatural. If you were a criminal, you were believed to be possessed by the devil. In the eighteenth century, these thoughts of demonological theories started to vanish as the classical school and positivist school were introduced. These two schools are the basis of today’s thoughts on modern criminology and help us have a better understanding of criminal behavior.
The classical school of criminology was first introduced in the 18th Century, also known as the Enlightenment period. Marchese di Beccaria known as the father of classic criminology published On Crimes and Punishment in 1764. The objective of Beccaria’s book was to reform the criminal justice system by making it more humane. The ideology that Beccaria brought to criminology is that people who commit the same/similar crimes should be punished equally. Beccaria also believed that one judge should not be the determinant of what the criminal is charged. Instead, a group of citizens should assist the judge because Beccaria felt judges should not interpret laws but rather determine punishment that is based on the legislation.
In Beccaria’s work, he did not go into detail on what makes or motivates a criminal but he did discuss how to decrease criminal activity. Beccaria believed that in order to counteract crime, the threat of punishment “had to be certain, swift, and severe.” (Walsh & Jorgensen, 2017, p. 66) By certainty, the punishment had to be feared by the criminal who committed the act. Swiftness claims that the faster the punishment is distributed, the more useful it becomes as a deterrent. Severity is where punishment must be harsher than the crime committed to achieve its purpose.
Jeremy Bentham was another leading figure in the classical school of criminology. Bentham is known for his writings to reform perceptions on slavery, the death penalty, and punishments against homosexuals. Bentham came up with the “principle of utility,” stating that human nature is motivated by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. In his theory, Bentham claims that humans are hedonistic, rational, and have free will. Essentially, if humans participate in crime, they are weighing the costs versus the benefits where the benefits of committing the crime exceed the costs of the punishment. Bentham agrees with Beccaria by claiming that the pain (punishment) must exceed the pleasure of the crime if we want crime to be discouraged.
From this school of criminology, theories derived. From the classical school are the neoclassical theories of the 1980’s known as rational choice theory and routine activities theory. In rational choice theory, people choose their behaviors and do what they believe will maximize pleasure and minimize pain in response to incentives and motivating factors. For example, from the book by Victor Hugo Les Miserables, if I steal a loaf of bread for my starving family, get imprisoned, and then have to deal with life on parole with minimal opportunities, would the benefit of feeding my family outweigh that cost? The routine activities theory is based on the activities occurring in specific neighborhoods. An example of this would be if I lived in a neighborhood surrounded by guns and drugs would I be more likely to choose a life of crime than if I lived in a neighborhood with weekly food markets and festivals that are geared toward a working community?
Criminal justice systems use these theories to determine policies and to deter crime. In the rational choice and routine activities theories, we have to “arrange the environment” in a way that criminals will think committing a crime is too risky. Examples are alarms and surveillance cameras, which make the criminal feel that the risk is not worth the benefit of the crime. Another example is adding police surveillance in hot spots to deter individuals in high crime rate areas.
In the nineteenth century, the view of crime and human behavior took a more scientific methodology. Scientists could not measure actual causes of crime because free will and rationality of human nature create no opportunity for investigation. There are other inputs of the general population such as biological factors and mental illness that do not make all human beings rational. Criminologists came up with the positional view of determinism. Determinism claims, “if X is present, then Y has a certain probability of occurring.” (Walsh & Jorgensen, 2017, p. 68) These scientific views on criminology resulted in the positivist school being created. The term positivist derived from the fact that criminal behavior was not necessarily free will but rather based upon factors such as biological, physical, social, psychological or physiological problems.
Caesar Lombroso is considered the father of criminology. He focused on the way criminals appeared and based criminal behavior off physical features despite the fact this was contradictive to the classical point of view. Lombroso said criminals were born criminals or also known as atavism, a term referring to criminals having the physical features of ancestral humans that is a result of genetic recombination. This was a huge difference in the way the classical school and positivist school viewed criminals. The classical school believed all criminals and non-criminals are the same people, just different choices of free will while the positivist school was distinguishing criminals based on physical appearance, personality and social circumstances. Positivists attempt to treat the criminal instead of punishing them while classical view attempts to show the criminal that their choice of criminal activities will have a greater consequence of punishment. Other reformists for the positivist school included Rafael Garofalo and Enrico Ferri. In 1885, Garofalo was the one who defined the word “criminology” and “crime”. Garofalo said the crimes were mala in se “wrong in themselves”, or mala prohibita “wrong according to law”. In contrast to the classical school, Garofalo believed punishments should vary depending on the unique offender characteristics and circumstances.
Positivist school theories, social disorganization theory and anomie/strain theory are derived from the belief that society creates the crime in which “human nature is socially constructed”. (Walsh & Jorgensen, 2017, p. 101) Social disorganization comes from where some areas are poorer than others, so people have less of an opportunity and are expected to commit crime. For example, if you live in an area with a high crime rate, you and your generations will have an increased expectation to commit a crime. With the anomie/strain theory, there are many sub-theories but the primary point is that there are factors that affect people to be motivated to commit a crime. For example, if you lost your job you may be more likely to steal due to the stress of having to provide for your family.
In comparison with the positivist school theories, in the 1980’s a shift in perspectives on the causes of crime from poverty and inequality to people making bad moral choices. In other words, the community and government should help those who are not able to be financially stable or have means to succeed. Giving the people the opportunity to succeed by providing adequate resources regardless of their socioeconomic background will be a crime deterrent.
In retrospect with these theories, the issue of the gun control debate in America is being disputed today as people are living in fear of shootings by firearms. Gun control has a multiple opinions regarding whether society should allow guns in the hands of citizens, or it should be more controlled and only for use by militia means. This is very controversial in relevance to the second amendment, which bears our rights to arms. American policies makers tend to be in favor of the positivist school of thought by blaming the mass shootings on those suffering of mental health. In trying to find a solution to the gun control debate, using research of what is more effective and helpful to society while resolving the issue, can help understand if America should accept stronger gun control or more lenient gun laws based on what works best with society and the safety of the people.
A drawback in the United States today is our statistics of high rates of violent crimes that is often done by an offender with a gun. (Blanco, 2016) our gun deaths are 12 to every 100,000 people currently. (CITE CDC) Many monumental violent crimes of mass shootings have caught public attention and have made gun control laws much more favorable by a majority of society such as Sandy Hook elementary school, the Miami club, Vegas concert, and many more. This is still a debate given political party ideology whether a person being republican or democrat. The second amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (CITE1) With the constitution, it is written by means of interpretation, so what we may think it is saying could be thought in a way differently from someone else.
Gun control has given different gun levels in the United States. The main reason for the different gun levels is to make sure people cannot obtain illegal guns or legally buy them that are “high-risk subsets of the population, such as convicted criminals, mentally ill persons, alcoholics, or drug addicts.” (Kleck, Kovandzic, & Bellows, 2016) Arguments that are in favor of the second amendment and want less gun control in carrying guns, have four reasons why gun control laws should not be heavily regulated and their solutions for carrying firearms. These include: having a reasonable gun ownership for things such as hunting, to have strict enforcement and implementation, to be able to carry firearms for defense purposes, and to hold innocent civilians more vulnerable. (Blanco, 2016)
There have been some substantial statistics that have been repeatedly shown what the carrying license does for a society and the state that permits the gun. A study done by researchers Lott and Mustard on the issue “…found that laws permitting people to carry their guns concealed reduced murders by 8 percent and rapes by 5 percent.” (Lott & Mustard, 1997) Many peer-reviewed studies have also studied this finding and also found it to be true. Another finding by Plassmann and Whitley (2003) (CITE 4) found that the murder rate goes down annually 1.5% and 2.3% with gun carry laws in place.
In countering the anti-gun laws party, many people want more regulated laws because of the public attention gun violence is getting, making the owning of guns very alarming to society. They are not saying completely abolish guns out of the country, but in owning by strict means. Pro-gun law activists want certain regulations in tact for owning firearms. These regulations include: having a license for having a gun only in the home, military only allowed to use guns in uniform, having stricter gun laws will help empower the police and military helping them protect the people, grant amnesty to those carrying guns and incentivize them, give a harsher punishment to those carrying illegal firearms, and universal background checks. (Blanco, 2016)
Much research suggests we can close the loophole of violent offenders receiving guns by doing the universal background check, which is not something all states require. (Wintemute, 2013) One study done after the Newton shooting was that 89% of Americans and 84% of gun owners actually wanted a universal background check to be done before someone obtaining a gun. (Barry et al, 2013) Bills were introduced to federal and state systems but did not all get the same results. Some states such as Colorado and Delaware were able to obtain these laws while the federal level was having a harder time.
President Obama tried to get a law passed for people at gun shows to have a background check before purchasing a gun. It did not go through. This is a very interesting but it leads us back to the fact of pro-gun owners taking the constitution seriously in having a right to bear arms. Pertaining to the issue of the federal government not passing these laws is demonstrating that owning a firearm was linked to the Republican’s party beliefs of the conservative ideology making it hard for the federal system to pass laws in relevance to the second amendment. (Horwitz and Anderson 2009; Stimson 2004)
After the Sandy Hook shooting, in Newton, Connecticut the population wanted more to be done about mental illness since the media pressed hard on that being an underlying issue of violent shootings. A public poll done said 59% of the population wanted more action taken about mental health care.( Barry et al, 2016) Some studies have shown that it is not guns that need to be regulated; it is the issue of mental illness itself for these mass shootings. The media also has been pressing hard about the most recent shooting in Las Vegas shooting. The media is posting numerous stories whether the shooter Stephen Paddock had a mental illness, which triggered him while it has yet to be determined. Recent studies however, claim that the issue of mental illness which the media has pressed as this being the cause for these violent shootings, has very little to do with knowing why people use guns in violent means opposed to the rest of the population being dangerous as well. (Swanson & Felthous, 2015)
Currently today’s policies on gun control come in approaches of the two different views whether everyone can own a gun unless they are a convicted felon, minor, or a risk to the environment for things like mental health, or that gun owners should only be people of enforcement agencies like the police or military. America rules in favor of the more pro-firearm option. America has chosen this because of the political ideology of the Republican Party that gives us the right to bear arms. In fighting with the republican ideology, it has been hard have stricter gun laws here in America even something as simple as having universal background checks at gun shows.
In relevance to these policies in relation to gun control we refer back to the positivist school of thought. If people are committing gun crimes, we are looking at the human elements as to why they commit the gun crime for example mental health. The most recent shooting which happened in a Texas church killing 28 people, the president is making claims that it is a mental health issue, not guns.
Overall, the gun debate is a very controversial one especially in today’s age for all the media coverage mass shootings are getting, how frequent they are happening and America wanting to know why the shooter violently killed. We need to be able to set aside political ideology and realize that stricter gun laws does not mean we have to completely get rid of them, but make them harder to acquire in the market with limited use along with setting up more reforms for mental illness that has been a growing factor in mass shootings. America and policy makers need to set aside their communication gap and take research done of violent gun crimes, to make a safer solution so America will not have to fear anymore.