Introduction
This essay provides an introductory exploration of the Classical and Positive Schools of Criminology, two foundational perspectives that have significantly shaped the study of crime and punishment. The Classical School, emerging in the 18th century, emphasised rational choice and deterrence, while the Positive School, developing in the 19th century, shifted focus to scientific explanations of criminal behaviour. Drawing on academic sources, including insights from legal scholarship, this essay will outline the core principles of each school, followed by a detailed examination of their arguments, approaches to punishment, and key criticisms as discussed in legal education resources such as Law Teacher. The purpose is to offer a balanced understanding of these theories, highlighting their contributions and limitations within the field of criminology and penology. By critically engaging with these perspectives, the essay aims to inform a broader discussion on how historical theories continue to influence modern criminal justice systems.
The Classical School of Criminology: Core Principles
The Classical School of Criminology, primarily associated with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, emerged during the Enlightenment period as a response to the arbitrary and often brutal punitive practices of the time. This school posits that individuals are rational actors who make decisions based on free will, weighing the potential benefits and costs of their actions (Hollin, 2013). Beccaria, in his seminal work “On Crimes and Punishments” (1764), argued that crime could be prevented through a system of laws that are clear, certain, and proportionate to the offence. The central idea is deterrence: punishment should be sufficient to outweigh the pleasure derived from committing a crime, thus discouraging potential offenders (Beccaria, 1764).
Bentham further developed this concept through his utilitarian philosophy, suggesting that the purpose of punishment is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number. His principle of utility meant that penalties should be designed to prevent future crimes rather than to exact revenge (Bentham, 1789). Generally, the Classical School assumes that all individuals are equally capable of rational thought, and thus, the law must apply uniformly to all, without regard for personal circumstances.
Arguments, Punishment, and Criticism of the Classical School
According to legal education resources such as Law Teacher, the Classical School’s primary argument is that a well-structured legal system, based on rationality and proportionality, can effectively control crime. The theory advocates for codified laws and transparent judicial processes to ensure certainty and fairness, rejecting the discretionary and often inhumane punishments of the pre-Enlightenment era. Punishment, in this view, must be swift, certain, and severe enough to deter, but not so harsh as to be cruel or disproportionate (Law Teacher, n.d.).
However, criticisms of the Classical School, as noted by Law Teacher, highlight its oversimplified view of human behaviour. The assumption of universal rationality ignores the influence of social, psychological, and economic factors on decision-making. For instance, individuals in desperate circumstances may not act with the rational calculation that the theory presumes. Furthermore, the emphasis on equal application of law often disregards mitigating factors such as poverty or mental illness, which can drive criminal behaviour (Law Teacher, n.d.). Critics also argue that the deterrence model lacks empirical support in some contexts, as not all offenders are deterred by the prospect of punishment, particularly those acting impulsively or under emotional strain (Hollin, 2013). Indeed, the Classical School’s failure to account for individual differences remains a significant limitation in its applicability to modern criminology.
The Positive School of Criminology: Core Principles
In contrast, the Positive School of Criminology, which emerged in the late 19th century, rejected the notion of free will and instead sought scientific explanations for criminal behaviour. Led by figures such as Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo, this school argued that crime is determined by biological, psychological, and social factors rather than rational choice (Rafter, 2009). Lombroso, often called the “father of criminology,” proposed that criminals are born with inherent traits—physical and mental—that predispose them to crime, a theory rooted in his study of anthropometry and phrenology (Lombroso, 1876).
Ferri and Garofalo expanded on this by incorporating social and environmental influences, suggesting that crime results from a combination of individual characteristics and external conditions, such as poverty or poor education (Ferri, 1901). The Positive School, therefore, advocates for a deterministic approach, viewing criminals as products of their biology and circumstances rather than as moral agents exercising free will. This marked a significant shift towards a more rehabilitative and individualised approach to criminal justice.
Arguments, Punishment, and Criticism of the Positive School
As discussed in legal education resources like Law Teacher, the Positive School argues that understanding the root causes of crime—whether biological, psychological, or social—enables society to prevent offending through tailored interventions. Rather than focusing solely on punishment as deterrence, this school advocates for treatment and rehabilitation, proposing that penalties should be based on the offender’s characteristics and the risk they pose to society (Law Teacher, n.d.). For example, Lombroso suggested that dangerous individuals might require indefinite detention, not as punishment, but as a protective measure for society (Lombroso, 1876).
Punishment under the Positive School is thus less about retribution and more about correction or incapacitation. However, criticisms, as highlighted by Law Teacher, point to several flaws in this approach. Lombroso’s biological determinism, for instance, has been widely discredited due to its lack of scientific rigour and its stigmatising implications. His assertion that criminals could be identified by physical traits, such as a receding forehead, is now viewed as pseudoscience (Rafter, 2009). Additionally, the focus on determinism raises ethical concerns about personal responsibility: if individuals are not accountable for their actions, the justification for punishment becomes problematic (Law Teacher, n.d.).
Moreover, the Positive School’s advocacy for individualised sentencing can lead to inconsistency and potential bias in the legal system, as decisions about rehabilitation or detention may depend on subjective assessments of an offender’s character or risk (Hollin, 2013). Arguably, this approach also risks overemphasising biological or social causes at the expense of addressing systemic issues, such as inequality or inadequate legal frameworks, which may equally contribute to crime.
Conclusion
In summary, the Classical and Positive Schools of Criminology offer contrasting perspectives on the nature of crime and the purpose of punishment, each with distinct strengths and limitations. The Classical School’s emphasis on rational choice and deterrence introduced a more humane and structured approach to criminal justice, though its neglect of individual differences undermines its relevance in complex modern contexts. Conversely, the Positive School’s scientific focus on causality paved the way for rehabilitative approaches, yet its deterministic stance and questionable methodologies invite significant criticism. As explored through legal education resources like Law Teacher, both theories have shaped contemporary criminal justice systems, with elements of deterrence and rehabilitation coexisting in current policies. The implications of these schools extend beyond theory, prompting ongoing debate about how best to balance punishment, prevention, and fairness in addressing crime. Future criminological inquiry must therefore continue to critically evaluate these foundational ideas, ensuring that policies remain responsive to both empirical evidence and ethical considerations.
References
- Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by H. Paolucci. Bobbs-Merrill.
- Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
- Ferri, E. (1901) Criminal Sociology. Little, Brown, and Company.
- Hollin, C. R. (2013) Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology. 2nd ed. Routledge.
- Law Teacher (n.d.) Classical School of Criminology. Law Teacher. [Note: Specific URL unavailable; source commonly referenced in legal education materials.]
- Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal Man. Translated by M. Gibson and N. H. Rafter. Duke University Press.
- Rafter, N. H. (2009) The Origins of Criminology: A Reader. Routledge.
