Introduction
The study of criminology is deeply rooted in understanding the causes and responses to criminal behaviour, with two foundational perspectives shaping much of this discourse: the Classical School and the Positive School of thought. Emerging in distinct historical and philosophical contexts, these schools offer contrasting approaches to crime, punishment, and human behaviour. The Classical School, originating in the 18th century, emphasises free will, rationality, and deterrence, while the Positive School, developing in the 19th century, focuses on determinism, scientific inquiry, and individual differences. This essay aims to classify the key distinctions between these two schools of thought, exploring their theoretical underpinnings, implications for criminal justice, and their relevance to contemporary criminology. By examining their core principles, historical contexts, and practical applications, the essay will highlight how these differing perspectives continue to inform debates on crime and punishment. The discussion will be structured around their fundamental assumptions, approaches to punishment, and lasting impacts on modern criminological theory.
Fundamental Assumptions: Free Will versus Determinism
At the heart of the distinction between the Classical and Positive Schools lies a fundamental disagreement about the nature of human behaviour. The Classical School, pioneered by thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, posits that individuals possess free will and make rational choices based on a cost-benefit analysis. According to Beccaria (1764), crime results from a deliberate decision to gain pleasure or avoid pain, assuming that individuals are fully responsible for their actions. This rational choice perspective underpins the Classical School’s view that criminal behaviour can be prevented through clear laws and proportional punishments that deter potential offenders (Beccaria, 1764). Indeed, the emphasis on rationality reflects the Enlightenment ideals of reason and individual agency prevalent during this era.
In contrast, the Positive School, which emerged in the 19th century with figures like Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo, rejects the notion of free will in favour of determinism. This perspective argues that criminal behaviour is influenced by factors beyond an individual’s control, such as biological, psychological, and social conditions. Lombroso (1876), often regarded as the father of modern criminology, introduced the concept of the “born criminal,” suggesting that some individuals are biologically predisposed to crime due to physical or genetic traits (Lombroso, 1876). While Lombroso’s early theories have been widely critiqued for their lack of scientific rigour, the broader Positive School shifted focus towards a scientific understanding of crime, advocating for empirical research to identify its causes. Therefore, where the Classical School sees crime as a rational choice, the Positive School views it as a product of external or internal forces shaping behaviour.
Approach to Punishment: Deterrence versus Rehabilitation
Another critical distinction between the two schools lies in their approach to punishment and the purpose of the criminal justice system. The Classical School advocates for punishment as a deterrent, designed to prevent future crime by ensuring that the consequences outweigh any potential benefits. Beccaria (1764) argued for certainty, swiftness, and proportionality in punishment, stating that laws should be clear and penalties predictable to influence rational decision-making (Beccaria, 1764). For example, the introduction of codified laws and fixed penalties in many European systems during the late 18th and early 19th centuries reflected Classical principles, aiming to create a transparent justice system that deters through consistency. This approach prioritises the protection of society over the individual offender, viewing punishment as a necessary tool to maintain order.
Conversely, the Positive School focuses on rehabilitation and prevention rather than retribution or deterrence. Given its emphasis on determinism, this school argues that punishment should address the underlying causes of criminality, whether biological, psychological, or environmental. Ferri (1901), for instance, proposed that the criminal justice system should tailor interventions to the individual offender, advocating for indeterminate sentencing and treatments designed to “cure” criminal tendencies (Ferri, 1901). Rather than punishing for the sake of deterrence, the Positive School seeks to reform offenders through medical, psychological, or social interventions. This perspective laid the groundwork for modern practices such as probation and parole, which aim to reintegrate offenders into society. Thus, while the Classical School views punishment as a societal tool for deterrence, the Positive School personalises it as a means of individual transformation.
Historical and Social Context of Development
The emergence of these schools was heavily influenced by their respective historical and intellectual climates, further highlighting their distinctions. The Classical School arose during the Enlightenment, a period marked by a focus on reason, individual rights, and the questioning of absolute authority. Beccaria’s seminal work, On Crimes and Punishments (1764), challenged the brutal and arbitrary punishments of the time, such as torture and public executions, arguing for a more humane and rational system (Beccaria, 1764). This context shaped the Classical School’s emphasis on legal reform and the social contract, reflecting broader societal shifts towards rationality and fairness in governance.
On the other hand, the Positive School developed during the 19th century amidst advancements in science, particularly in biology, psychology, and sociology. The rise of positivism as a philosophical movement, advocating for knowledge based on observable facts and scientific methods, directly influenced criminologists like Lombroso and Ferri. Lombroso’s (1876) anthropometric studies, though later discredited, exemplify the era’s fascination with applying scientific principles to human behaviour (Lombroso, 1876). Additionally, rapid industrialisation and urbanisation during this period brought attention to social inequalities and environmental factors contributing to crime, further aligning the Positive School with a deterministic and reformative outlook. These contrasting contexts underscore why the Classical School prioritised legal structures, while the Positive School embraced empirical and individualised approaches.
Impact on Modern Criminology
Both schools have left enduring legacies in contemporary criminology, though their applications and relevance vary. The Classical School’s principles of deterrence and proportionality remain evident in modern criminal justice systems, particularly in policies emphasising strict sentencing guidelines and “tough on crime” approaches. For instance, mandatory sentencing laws in many jurisdictions reflect the Classical belief that certain and severe punishment deters criminal behaviour (Vold et al., 2002). However, critics argue that such policies often fail to address the root causes of crime, highlighting a limitation of the Classical approach.
The Positive School, arguably, has had a more profound impact on shaping modern criminological theory and practice. Its focus on individual differences and scientific inquiry paved the way for disciplines such as criminal psychology and sociology, as well as evidence-based interventions like cognitive-behavioural therapy for offenders (Vold et al., 2002). Furthermore, the emphasis on rehabilitation aligns with contemporary restorative justice movements, which prioritise repairing harm over punitive measures. Nevertheless, the Positive School’s early reliance on biological determinism, as seen in Lombroso’s work, has been largely discredited, illustrating some limitations in its original formulations.
Conclusion
In summary, the Classical and Positive Schools of thought represent two contrasting paradigms in the study of crime, distinguished primarily by their views on human behaviour, punishment, and the role of the criminal justice system. The Classical School’s foundation in free will and deterrence prioritises societal protection through rational and proportional punishment, while the Positive School’s deterministic outlook advocates for individualised rehabilitation based on scientific understanding. These differences are further rooted in their distinct historical contexts, with the Classical School reflecting Enlightenment ideals and the Positive School embracing 19th-century scientific advancements. Both perspectives continue to influence modern criminology, evident in ongoing debates between punitive and rehabilitative approaches to crime. Understanding these distinctions not only provides insight into the evolution of criminological thought but also informs critical discussions on how best to address criminal behaviour in contemporary society. As criminology evolves, integrating elements of both schools may offer a more balanced approach to addressing the complex nature of crime.
References
- Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments. Liberty Fund.
- Ferri, E. (1901) Criminal Sociology. Little, Brown, and Company.
- Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal Man. G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
- Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2002) Theoretical Criminology. Oxford University Press.
