When focusing on what crime is, it is regarded ‘’as an act that breaks the law’’. As criminologists, we focus on why certain actions committed by individuals result in them being criminalised. Tappan’s definition of crime is ‘‘an intentional act in violation of the criminal law committed without defense of excuse and penalized by the state as a felony or misdemeanour’’ This assignment will focus on the biological and psychological approach to crime and what the positivists and classicist theory behind why people commit crime – and focusing on the external effects that also can influence an individual to commit crime.
Looking at the classicist criminology, they are a ‘’set of ideas which argues that crime is the results of an individuals’ voluntary decision to offend’’ . Classicism tend to argue on the basis that criminal justice punishment has a major impact in influencing a person to commit crime (or not). Bentham’s theory of classicism fits perfectly with his ideology of ‘utilitarianism’ , he argued that punishment should aim to achieve happiness for the people within the society and to ensure that the pain of punishment outweighed the pleasure gained by committing the crime. However, classicism is ignorant to the fact that offenders could be very different from one another – therefore, this means that the differences could be the reason as to why the individual commits crime rather than it being a rational choice. Beccaria’s approach emphasised that everyone was equally responsible for their crimes irrespective of their age – this could be harsh especially to those individual’s whom have no control over their actions committed (i.e. mentally ill). Furthermore, he also failed to acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of ‘moral calculations’ – whereby some crimes are accidental or in the spur of the moment rather than them being premediated.
Alternatively, biological positivist criminology is a ‘’set of ideas which claims to explain why crime is committed by identifying certain biological characters’’ . Analysing the biological theory of crime, it is vital to acknowledge that it was the first theory that enabled the ‘’appliance of science’’ which explained that theorists could then analyse the reason behind ‘why’ individual’s commit crime and how these crimes could be prevented. The biological approach is indeed intriguing to analyse as the biological positivists focus on the characteristics rather than the wrongdoer and their offences. The analysis of offenders who were driven to commit the crimes they had committed by narrowing it down to their internal factors (beyond their control). They also believed that ‘offenders were different from non-offenders’. This emphasised how they merely focused on the differences between an individual who committed a crime from an individual who did not commit any crime and focusing on the differences between their characteristics.
Positivists also argued that a person’s action(s) could depend on their biological or physical factors. Lombroso believed that criminals were ‘primitive’, this meant that they had physical abnormalities which segregated them from the rest of the society. He also believed that the physical and biological characteristics which made them primitive had also drove them to commit crimes (atavism). Lombroso claimed these individual’s that he observed to be the ‘’faces of thief’s’’ and ‘’a mug of murderers’’ , this led him to develop four categories for these criminals which are as follows; their physical abnormalities, suffering from mental illnesses, their physical characteristics led them to commit crimes and criminals of passion who offended due to an irresistible inner conscience. He also observed criminals who had sharp physical features such as, ‘’large jaws, excessive hairiness and abnormal teeth.’’ Lombroso believed these were the key features that enabled individuals to offend. It can be clear that Lombroso’s theory derived from the anthropological theory that enabled somewhat of a label on humans and their physical characteristics. Lombrosso believed in the Roman maxim ‘’Poca Barba e niun colore, sotto il ciel non vi ha peggiore’’, which translates to ‘’there is nothing worse under the sky than a scanty beard than a colorless face’’ – which supports this theory as Lombrosso focused on physical and biological characters including illnesses that certain individuals suffered from, which enabled him to categorise ‘criminals’.
Furthermore, Charles Goring criticised Lombroso’s theory that criminal’s physical appearances differentiated them from the non-criminals. He stated that ‘’…he did not look beyond prison walls…physical features he attributed…prisoners…found throughout…entire population’’ . Lombroso’s reliance on physical and biological characters including illnesses certain individuals suffered from, enabled him to categorise ‘criminals’ – this could be over-simplistic. As well as this, Lombroso’s research was mostly based on individuals from one place, Sicily – which meant his theory would have been narrow, biased and vague as his research was not extended.
Goring had compared three thousand criminals with a similar sized group of non-criminals, i.e. students and soldiers. He found no physical nor mental characteristics which were only unique to soldiers – but he concluded that criminals tended to be less intelligent and were physically smaller in comparison to a non -offender, ‘’If we select… the one who is the smallest in stature, the most defective in intelligence…compare him with criminals we find that he approximates more closely to our criminal population.” Goring’s research was narrow in itself – and lacking a wider research therefore making his research biased and outdated. He did not examine all the environmental factors which could have rationalised each criminal behaviour instead of focusing solely on their family traits. Goring also failed to acknowledge that some of his ‘non-criminals’ could have be un-convicted criminals – therefore making his theory less reliable and unsound.
Psychological criminology is ‘’a set of theories which focus on the personality…within an individual’s mind…why crime is committed’’ Sigmund Freud’s work of psychoanalytical theories examined how the conscious and subconscious mind from a traumatic experience would lead towards aggressive behaviour i.e. Peter Sutcliffe’s killing spree in the 1970s. Freud divided the mind into three parts, 1) the subconscious id – this controlled the basic and instinctual behaviour and aimed to seek pleasure, 2) super-ego (source of guilt and conscience) and finally, the conscious ego – which balances the id and super-ego. Freud therefore concluded that deviant behaviour was due to the super-ego not being fully developed and therefore giving the id too much in an individual’s mind – this is seen in Peter Sutcliffe’s behaviour due to his traumatic experiences and his ego, it resulted in him committing multiple crimes.
On the other hand, John Bowlby merely focused on maternal deprivation and how throughout a child’s early stage, they were either rejected/physically separated from the mother – influencing the urge to commit crime as there was no guidance. Psychoanalytical theories can be criticised as they cannot be fully empirically tested by research, as they focus on the unconscious desires within one’s mind as a cause of crime and their success depends upon the judgement and skill of the individual’s psychoanalyst who analyse the cause of crime, which once again, is hard to measure in research terms – therefore this goes against the principles of the positivist theory.
In comparison to the biological criminologists, psychological criminologists focus on the environment in more depth. B.F. Skinner is one of the key theorists who evaluated the environmental factors and how it triggered individual’s behaviour. Behaviourism focuses on the balance between the rewards and the drawbacks of committing crime. C.R. Jeffery applied Skinner’s theory to crime, this was by merging with Sutherland’s differential association theory where a criminal is learned from associating with individuals who have already commit crimes . Jeffery argued that social and cultural elements linked into crime. Jeffery’s theory on differential reinforcement, further developed by Ron Akers, who identified four aspects of how differential reinforcement can lead to crime. They are as follows; 1) differential association – focusing on the frequency of someone associating themselves with people who commit crime i.e through media or physical presence, 2) social definitions – where an individual learns to attach meanings to their own behaviour, 3) differential reinforcement – whereby the individual behaves according to the consequences of behaviour – therefore acknowledging whether or not the crime is reinforced and finally, 4) imitation – whether or not the individual decided to imitate an individual’s criminal behaviour which is observed, this can be seen with the serial killer Pedro who murders his father amongst many other victims, because of what he witnessed throughout his childhood – therefore imitating his father. Schuessler stated, ‘’…theory of differential association was an attempt to explain criminal behaviour’’ Cressey in ‘Other People’s Money 1953’ stated that ‘’differential association was…seen as a general organising principle rather than a theoretical explanation…’’ This emphasised how positivist theories occur a core assumption and this prohibits the validity of their arguments. Their theories overcame the difficulties that measured the psychoanalytical cause of crime, but do not escape from the problem of determinism – the ideology that people are driven to act in a specific way i.e. to commit a crime under certain circumstances.
Concluding, people committing crime is going to be argued as there are many theories and ideologies that derive from one another. Adherent that crime is committed due to multiple factors, there is an understanding that crime may reduce. Crime would never fade away as societal ideologies constantly adapt as it influences change in attitude when crime is committed.
2019-5-2-1556755430 – A
...(download the rest of the essay above)