Classical Criminology School and in the Positivist Criminology School

Criminology is the study of crime that deals with the questions of the crimes’ prevention, social and physiological aspects of the commitments. It also studies the investigations and the effectiveness of punishments. As far as the motive of the crime is the beginning of the process, it is considered to be one of the most important issues of the criminology. There are two main criminology schools, and consequently the approaches to this problem differ according to definite ideas of schools. (Akers & Ronald, 2000) The points of the Classical Criminology School

The Classical Criminology School is named so because the relatively full system of criminological outlooks was firstly formed in its frames. The Classical School in criminology is typically an orientation to the eighteenth-century effort by the social and utopian contact theorists Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria at the time of the Enlightenment. Their ideas are in the organization of criminal justice and penology, not directly they are revealed through the scheme that a person is a circumspect creature, in the reasons of illegal behaviour.

The Classical school of consideration was based on the thought that community has liberated motivation in creation of choice. (Carrabine & Iganski, 2004) The other idea was that sentence can be prevention for offense, so long as the sentence is relative, correspond to the crime, and is carried out at the appointed time. The representatives of the Classical Criminology School were sure that a criminal can be distinguished with the help of his appearance. They worked out the physical features that were peculiar to them such as particular qualities of skull and face.

Neo-classical criminologists believed that the categories of criminal activities most excellent clarified by the classical model and what categories of criminal activities the model is insufficient to enlighten. Some of the protests that were pointed out by neo-classical philosophers contained exceptions long established by criminal justice systems. These comprised standard criminal defenses such as self-protection or error of fact. Also, long accepted was the detail that not all people were totally responsible for their actions.

For example, young people The ideas of the Positivist Criminology School The Positivist School of Criminology argues with the Classical School’s idea that all offense effect from a preference that can potentially be done any person. Although the representatives of this school share the Classical School persuasion that most offense can be clarified through individual nature, they say that the most significant offenses are committed by persons who are primitive, i. e. the persons who develop to a completely human and cultured status unsuccessfully.

As a result, offense consequences not from what criminals have in common with the other members of society, but from the characteristic physical or mind imperfections of the criminals. (Siegel, 2003) The representatives of the positivist criminology school state themselves as scientists. At the same time as the classical philosophers were anxious about officially permitted reorganization and building surroundings where offense was observed to be not in an individual’s self-interest, the positivists thinkers worried about systematically separating and recognizing the formative grounds of illegal performance in individual offenders.

Numerous criminology theories were developing during the last centuries. The progress in the other sciences such as sociology, psychology contributed to criminology, though two schools remain the base for the appearing of new theories. Chicago theory Chicago theory was created in Chicago when the sociologists R. Park, E. Badges and R. Mackenzie researched the city as a living organism. They researched the interactions between people and nature. At that time the problem of organized delinquency took place.

(Messner & Rosenfeld, 1994). The main ideas of this theory are the following: the highest level of delinquency is in the central commercial and industrial districts of the city, though the remote districts where people with low income or mainly immigrants live are also at high risk; minor offences might be concentrated in the place of criminals’ domicile, more serious offences take place at some remoteness of this domicile. In the frames of this theory the historical aspect of the delinquency ecology is studied too.

In the ancient and medieval times the delinquency was country, because there were walls around the cities. It was suitable for criminals to rob the travelers at that time. Since seventeenth century criminality became urban. So, Chicago theory is close to the studying of the classical criminology school. The strain theory The scientists who share the strain theory consider that committing offences is a normal and even useful event. They say that the dead-level of the society members’ behavior means that there is no development in such society.

That’s why it is a positive feature when there is a deviation of a private consciousness from a collective one (Agnew, 1999). Delinquency may perform as the factor of society’s integration and as the strengthening of social connections. Negative reaction to the offence commitment increases the collective consciousness and clarifies the boundary between moral and legal norms. The main concept of this theory is that a person is always wants more than he or she has, because it is impossible to be satisfied with what a person has. It just stimulates to further wishes. R.

Merton developed this theory and defined the strain theory as a fracture in culture that appears as a result of strong divergence between cultural norms and aims from the one hand and the social opportunities for realizing these norms and aims from the other hand. (Agnew, 1999). Different kinds for adaptation to such situation exist. People can achieve the aims by legal means, low the measure of their desires when there is no strained state, reject the cultural norms and use illegal methods, reject the aims and consequently the means of its achievement and finally they can reject the goals and the methods by changing them to new ones.

Psychiatry and primarily psychoanalysis contributed a lot into criminology within the psychological-psychiatric viewpoint. Psychology, mainly that division of it with the most application for criminology, abnormal psychology, came into its own throughout the twentieth century. The suggestion that the grounds of criminal behavior are in the personality is common for all of them. (Farrington, 1994) Personality is observed as the compound set of affecting and behavioral characteristics that are inclined to stay comparatively steady as the personality shifts from state to state.

These facts result a conclusion that the scientists adhered to the strain theory were one of the first whose study shared the attitude towards crime of the positivist criminology school. Psychological theory The fundamental thought of psychotherapy, and the one that Freud primary set forth, is the unconscious. The thought was around before Freud, however he was the one who completed the most out of it, disputing that shocking knowledge in early infancy left their spot on the human being’s despite the fact that a person was not conscious about these knowledge.

The scheme of unconscious willpower of actions contrasted with the thought of free will, and it was not accepted by positivistic criminology. The subsequently vital thought is conflict, and Freud assumed the existence of a character that consists of three parts (a thought goes back to Plato): id, ego, and superego which function in steady disagreement with one another. For the most part this disagreement is between the superego and id and it creates the essential crisis of guilt which demands the employ of one or more protection mechanisms.

(Shoham, 2001) The thought of character disagreement as a reason of offense turned out to be rather accepted among both scientists and the wide-ranging community. The id is a fraction of the unconscious that holds the desires, together with the libido, a type of widespread sexual energy that is employed for the whole things from the instincts of survival to positive reception of fine art. The id is also type of obstinate, for it reacts only to what is called the pleasure principle. What about ego, it is the single division of the conscious individuality.

It is what the human being is alert of when he or she considers about him or herself, and is what he or she typically attempt to plan toward others. It is frequently demanding to arbitrate the needs of the id and bans of the superego. The superego is a fraction of the unconscious that is the influence of conscience (when a person does what is right) and the foundation of self-criticism. It reproduces the ethical standards of society to a number of degrees. The superego has a huge quantity of regulations, or bars, that are subjected typically unconsciously in the shape of instructions or “don’t” declarations.

The superego is as well somewhat complicated, in that it will attempt to represent what it needs the human being to perform in bright conditions, what was named the ego-ideal, which happens because of the person’s first immense feeling of love. (Gabor, 1990) It is regularly a parent one. The supposition is that kids that are raised by parents understanding love in the short term (when they act something accurate), and the young person internalizes this understanding as a sequences of actual or anticipated hypercritical declarations.

By means of this id-ego-superego representation, the crucial reason of felony is oversocialization, directing to an exceedingly ruthless superego, which suppresses the id so strictly that stress constructs in the id and there is an angry outburst of acting-out performance. This stress build-up in the id includes both silenced and introverted urges as well as a sort of disturbance called fault for spontaneous actions that did direct to slip out. Guilt is an extremely widespread difficulty since all the urges and forces that result from the id and all the bans and codes in the superego.

There is a diversity of ways when a person grips guilt, and these are named defense mechanisms. Of the defense mechanisms, psychotherapists have put forward displacement as their number one choice for explanation crime. It’s not an ordered hypothetical part, but the psychological work of Yochelson & Samenow (1979) and by Walters (1990) does construct on the idea of impulsivity. Though this exacting approach doesn’t distinguish infancy or socialization troubles as additional areas of psychology does.

As a substitute, it distinguishes criminals as underprivileged conditioners and group that just think in a different way. Underprivileged conditioning means that delayed sentence increases criminality, and thinking in a different way means that criminals have known how to tell themselves different justifications and excuses that formulate it all right for them to commit offense. So, from the one hand the representatives of the psychological theory state that a person who commits an offence does it unconsciously and that it is not his or her free will.

This opinion confirms the ideas of the classical criminology school. However, from the other hand psychological theory gives special attention to inner state of criminals and studies it in order to correct their possible criminal actions. This feature relates psychological theory to the positivist school. Social learning theory A central thread within modern criminological hypothesis unites sociological and psychological aspects in social learning theory. This model is explained with the fact that people usually copy ways the others behave.

We can watch how the others act and analyze the successful or unsuccessful results of their deeds. So, we make conclusions and act the same ways. “Social learning efforts the inserting positive behavior, because we function as individuals who are always try to accomplish their aims with the help of definite models of behaviour. ” (Lanier & Henry, 1998, p. 208). Though, there are more than a few situations that can guide to unconstructive conclusions. Some kids are brought up in families where aggression is employed as a means of accomplishing aims.

The parents that use abuse of power are the examples for such children and they think that such model of behaviour is satisfactory enough. For example, when a boy can see his father being aggressive, he thinks that it is normal for all men. What about girls, they often misunderstand that it is habitually to be a victim of violence. Correspondingly, children frequently alternate peer for close relatives as their most important position models during the teen years.

Since young person maleness is frequently revealed in deeds rather than intellectual behavior (therefore bright young people are tagged as “nerds”), they repeatedly act out and discover themselves content by other males and by answers from teenager girls. (Radzinowicz, 1999) When boys grow up they sublimate their aggression into the actions that fit to the society demands concerning their careers or sport achievement. A difference of the social learning model centers on medium representations that serve as role models or instructors rather than actual individuals.

Significant discusses enclose this issue, and hard work to organize media violence keeps on. Copycat crimes are worth to be taken into consideration especially. There was an experiential investigate that dealt completely with copycat crime until the eightieth years of the twentieth century. (Greek & Cecil, 1997) An Australian research employed a three-year timeframe to evaluate police information on bank and other prepared burglaries with local weekly narratives about burglaries throughout the same time.

Burglaries were measure up to two seven-day periods directly after and before the time of any broadsheet narrative covering a successful burglary. There was no confirmation of any copycat consequence following broadsheet narratives or after potential word-of-mouth announcement about the payment of high-value bank burglaries. Investigate outcomes did not hold up the thought that broadsheet information of doing well bank burglaries motivate copycat burglaries of banks or other objects. Each social learning model comes out to be rather deterministic, their ancestry makes known in behaviorism.

At the beginning, ways of thinking of human beings while observing the actions of close relatives or couples formulate a conclusion to reproduce it or to prefer the others shapes of behaving. Kids make a decision whether they repeat the behavior models of their parents or act in another ways. The degree of difference connection hypothesis of Edwin Sutherland was utilized as the foundation for contemporary social learning theory. In comparison to social learning theory’s center on the instant family element and couples, sociological learning models enlarge the range of apprehension to the larger group of people and the society as a whole.

Sociological models were jointed with social learning theory by authors such as Ronald Akers (1985). The research that is worked out in on order to understand better the nature of the crimes and to define whether a person who is under suspect is the criminal is based mainly on the social learning theory. (Radzinowicz, L. 1999) It is applied by law machinery and draws up the social image of criminal. It includes researches in the sphere of criminal’s personality. The image of the suppositional criminal is based on the evidence.

His or her suppositional social (the level of the education and culture), physical and psychological characteristics such as psychological type, the existence of mental disorder are mentioned in this image. Conclusion In conclusion it can be said that the definite composition of economical, ideological, social and biological factors results the reaction of committing crime. The reason of the delinquency is the synthesis of different events of social and biological character. Inside criminology the classical school’s significance reduced as positivist clarifications of criminal behavior came into view and turned out to be leading.

The extensive learning of human individuality gave birth to further development of the theories that are based on the positivist schooling. Delinquency is the definite social problem that is connected with the definite antisocial behavior of people. In order to explain such behavior, reveal its reasons and find the effective ways of prevention crimes it is necessary to make an extensive study of the factors that characterize criminal as an individual. Nevertheless, the majority of contemporary criminal justice systems never declined free will clarifications of criminal behavior.

In the United States and other constitutional democracies, the standard model was dissatisfied more by the organization in which it is entrenched than by positivist criminology school. The classical model was re-emerged in criminology and American jurisprudence as the justice model and rational choice explanations. References 1. Lanier, M. M. & Henry, S. (1998). Essential Criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 2. Akers, R. (1985) See Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Third Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 3. Akers, R. & Ronald, L.

(2000) Criminological Theories – Introduction, Evaluation, & Application. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. 4. Agnew, R. (1999). A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime Rates; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency – Vol. 36, No. 2. London: Sage Publications 5. Siegel, Larry J. (2003) Criminology, 8th Edition. Canada: Thomson Learning. 6. Messner, S & Rosenfeld, R. (1994). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont: Wadsworth 7. Radzinowicz, L. (1999) Adventures in Criminology. London: Routledge. 8. Farrington, D. (1994) Psychological Explanations of Crime. Dartmouth: Aldershot.

9. Shoham, Shlomo G. Micro-Macro Criminology. International Journal of Comparative Sociology – Volume 87, Issue 2. 2001. 10. Gabor, T. Crime Displacement and Situational Prevention: Toward the Development of Some Principles. Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 32, Issue 1. 1990 11. Yochelson, S. & S. Samenow. (1979). The Criminal Personality. NY: Jason Aronson 12. Walters, G. (1990). The Criminal Lifestyle. Newbury Park: Sage. 13. Carrabine, E. & Iganski, P. (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. New York: Routledge. 14. Greek & Cecil (1997) Copy-cat crimes. Pasadena, CA: Salem Press.