After a century of criminological theory, why does crime still exist Essay

After more than a degree centigrade of criminological theory, a central question remains why does offensive still exist? To dissolve this question one must firstborn come to a clear definition as to what evil minuteu entirelyy means. In essence abomination puke be considered a fond concept a unique(predicate) word attri moreoveres an individualistic to a specially undesirable group. This allocations is based upon an event some part of equipment casualty-doing or deviance from the norm which results in well-disposed, physical, mental, property or financial harm.The fact is, in that respect is no singular definition to crime- there are multiple views and opinions yet none stands as a concrete definition. From a formally legal perspective, crime can be defined as by the evoke that is if a specific act is defined by deplorable law and is subject to penalization than it can be considered a crime. Conversely from a labelling perspective, crime can only exist if a particu lar event has resulted in a social response. It is this social response which instigates the felon label and frankincense if there is no label, there is no crime.The ambiguity in the definition of crime altogether provides grounds for its unceasing existence. After all it seems only logical that we can non rid of something that is not universally agreed upon. In attempts to divulge the cloak of crime, various theories have been put forward which seek to clarify what is unclear. Of particular interest is the unpolluted approach to crime and the brain of incontrovertibleness and individualist behaviour. The innocent theory of evility locates the source of criminality within the individual and describes it as a rational choice (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990).Positivism on the other excrete punctuates causation and determinism, it contractes on both the external and internal factors which drive individual behaviour (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Both of these theories lea d opposing views about the causations of crime however they both seek to give reason to the existence of criminal behaviour. By focusing on these theories we whitethorn receive some clarity as to why crime still exists. Classical TheoryAccording to the classical theory criminality is seen to be derived from the individual and their powerfulness to reason. This theory encapsulates crime as a matter of choice and intent on the part of the offender. out-of-pocket to crime being represented as a choice of the offender, responsibility for that crime is thus attributed exclusively to the individual. Classical theory views all individuals as having equal opportunity to reason and be rational thus making us accountable for our actions. The basis of such(prenominal) a view stems from the assumption that there is popular consensus among members of society individuals surrender particular rights to state in exchange for its protection thus forming a social contract.Because we are all viewe d as having equal opportunity to reason, the classical view holds that any rules or laws substantial by consensus should be viewed as reasonable and binding to all this is the social contract. The classical theory thereby defines criminality as someone who acts irrationally or makes a bad choice which violates the social contract. The dickens leading figures behind the development of the classical theory are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. According to Beccaria (1764) and Bentham (1970) the basis of all social action should be viewed as the utilitarian concept which results in the greatest happiness for the greatest be of people in society. Beccaria stated that crime should be considered as an injury to society as a whole and as such punishment should be used as a deterrent.This concept alone is the core is the core policy classical theory adopts when responding to crime deterrence. Punishment is in essence the take out which maintains the existence of a social contract betw een the state and individual (Carlsmith and Darley 2002). Classical theory states that all crimes should be associated with some sort of punishment. However the purpose of this punishment within the law is to deter individuals and not to seek vengeance. Deterrence should be directed at both the individual (direct deterrence) and at society as a whole (general deterrence). As such punishment should fit the crime but still outdo the attraction of individual(s) to commit that crime Beccaria (1764) and Bentham (1970). The Persistence of crimeTo answer the question as to why classical theory has failed to rid society of crime we must further examine the work of Jeremy Bentham. According to Bentham (1970) spirit has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters pain and pleasure. Bentham outlines how all mankind behaviour can be linked to a self-interested pursuit of pleasure adaversion of pain. thereof according to this crime can be considered as behaviours seeking to satisfy some underlying universal desires.In that smell people can be seen as rational when they commit crimes and when they do not. Furthermore it implies that people act first in the interest of the self and are free to choose a course of action, be it legal or illegal. thereof classical theory hasnt failed to rid society of crime because it neer attempted to do so the theory merely accepts the fact that crime will co-exist alongside free-will and as such classicism seeks to minimise it.According to Blumstein, Cohen, and Nagin (1978) a review of seminal studies conducted from 1960-1970 depicted that certainty of punishment and severity of punishment correlated highly with lower levels of crime. Furthermore Shepherd (2002) demonstrated that cross-sectional studies and surveys hold up the previous findings in that perceived certainty of punishment has a untroubled inverted association with criminal offending.Strengths and WeaknessesThe strongest point classicism holds is its em phasis on equality. In the eyes of the law classicism enforces that everyone be viewed and enured the same. Whilst in theory this notion may seem appealing as it rids the legal system of slash judgements such as lifting the laws for the rich, it also has a dark side. classicism ignores the specificity of the defendant.Some people such as mentally ill or children are clearly not rational yet classicism overlooks this. Classicism incorrectly assumes that people are equal in terms of life chances and it does little to address the causations of crime. Thus although the deterrence policy adopted by classicism has been proven to work, the theory refuses to acknowledge external factors which may influence crime. Even though classical systems of crime are still used today, such suppositional models became Brobdingnagianly unfavourable in the mid-19th century when a new paradigm of human behaviour became dominant (Tibbets 2012). This view became known as school of positivism. Positivis mPositivism was first proposed by Auguste Comte (1968) his theory sought-after(a) to quantify, classify and acknowledge humanities individual differences when dealing with criminal acts. The core concept underlying positivism is that individual behaviour is shaped by both external and internal factors. The focus of positivism is of the individual and not the crime. Conversely to classicism, positivism asserts that individuals vary and that no two people are alike. As a result rehabilitation is core policy positivism adopts when dealing with criminality.Positivists emphasize that attention should be skeletal to the offender and the offenders characteristics as opposed to the criminal act itself. Furthermore punishment is not viewed as means to a valid solution in resolving crime. Offenders should receive intervention and this treatment should be individualised to fit the unique characteristics of the offender. Defining CrimeSimilarly to classicism, positivism agrees that there is a moral consensus which exists in society in relation to what constitutes deviant and normal behaviour. However the differences move up when examining what drives criminal activity. Specifically positivists attribute three strands which underlie criminal activity biological factors, psychological factors and biosocial factors. Biological FactorsCesare Lambroso (1968) was the first to put forward the idea that criminals may differ from normal individuals. He did this through his idea of turnabout criminals could be identified from a physical stigma which portrayed them as primitive. Although this is quite obviously wrong he did set in motion the idea that biological makeup may influence criminality. Fishbein (1990) suggested the idea that a person may be born criminal due to genetic dispositions. Similarly Fishbein (1990) and Anderson (2007) emphasise that biological factors are crucial in determining individual behaviour but also that the purlieu may largely affect these factors. In other words criminals can be seen as the harvesting the environment they are exposed to. Good support for both of these ideas can be seen in meat abuse crimes such as alcohol fuelled violence and high crime rates in specific geographic areas. Psychological FactorsPsychological positivism focuss internally on the personality types and typologies which alleviate individuals. Gibbons (1977) exemplifies that looking at psychology behind deviant behaviour involves exploring the unconscientious mind and the way it shapes our experiences. Biosocial costBiosocial positivism refers to the acceptance of both biological and psychological factors influencing behaviour as opposed to making a distinction between the two. From this point of view behaviour can be seen as the product of record vs. nurture, Eysneck (1984) suggested the idea that behaviour can be explained by the combination of biological and environmental influences. Strengths and weaknessesA strong point of the positivist a pproach is that it transcends the notion that people are always and indefinitely in guard of their actions. Furthermore it acknowledges the existence of individual difference and emphasises the need for individualised treatment. A problem with the theory is that large amount of power is placed at the mercy of selective experts whose perceptions of intervention may vary greatly.An usage of this arises when attempting early intervention with those who are predisposed to crime. If intervention should take place before deviance the questions which arise are how early should we do this? Who is to do it? And should we trust them? Dyzenhaus (2004) exemplifies this by drawing on positivism as a political tradition which rejects the connection between common law and morality. He states that when positivist adjudicate are forced to operate with the parameters of common law they are forced to constrain themselves and as such impair their judgement.Why does crime still exist?Positivists emph asise the role of external and individual forces in shaping our behaviour. In essence the positivist perspective argues that individuals are not actually in control of their behaviour but rather at the mercy of the various biological and or psychological determinants influencing them. Thus positivism cannot rid society of crime because it acknowledges that we are vulnerable individuals who cannot necessarily control our actions or our fate. inductionPositivism rears the source of criminality within the idea that people are basically self-seeking. Positivism places its focus on the importance of external and internal determinants of crime and criminality. Both theories provide plausible explanations for crime but none are able to readily remove it from society. This is primarily due to the fact that these theories are mere attempts to understand and define crime as opposed to resolving it.