Introduction
This essay aims to compare and contrast the Classical and Positivist approaches to explaining crime, two foundational perspectives in criminology. The Classical approach, rooted in Enlightenment ideals, views crime as a rational choice driven by free will, while the Positivist approach, emerging in the 19th century, attributes criminal behaviour to biological, psychological, or social determinants beyond individual control. By examining their key principles, methodologies, and implications for criminal justice, this essay highlights their distinct contributions and limitations. Understanding these perspectives remains crucial for students of criminal justice as they underpin modern debates on punishment, prevention, and rehabilitation.
Classical Approach: Crime as Rational Choice
The Classical School of Criminology, developed in the 18th century by thinkers like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, assumes that individuals possess free will and engage in criminal acts after weighing the potential benefits against the risks of punishment. Beccaria’s seminal work, *On Crimes and Punishments* (1764), argues that crime can be deterred through a just and proportionate legal system (Beccaria, 1764). Indeed, the principle of deterrence is central, with punishment designed to outweigh the pleasure of committing a crime, thereby influencing rational decision-making. Bentham’s concept of the ‘hedonistic calculus’ further supports this, suggesting individuals calculate pain versus pleasure before acting (Bentham, 1789).
This approach significantly shaped early criminal justice systems, advocating for codified laws, consistent penalties, and the abolition of torture. However, it overlooks individual differences and external influences on behaviour, assuming all individuals possess equal rational capacity. Critics argue this perspective fails to account for crimes driven by emotion or desperation, limiting its explanatory power in complex cases.
Positivist Approach: Crime as Determined Behaviour
In contrast, the Positivist School, emerging in the 19th century with figures like Cesare Lombroso, rejects the notion of free will, proposing that criminal behaviour is determined by factors such as biology, psychology, and environment. Lombroso’s theory of the ‘born criminal’ suggested that physical traits, or ‘atavistic’ characteristics, could identify inherent criminality (Lombroso, 1876). Though later discredited, this marked a shift towards scientific methods in criminology, employing empirical observation and data to understand crime’s causes.
Positivism also encompasses psychological and sociological dimensions. For instance, Enrico Ferri highlighted social conditions like poverty as drivers of crime, while later theorists like Sigmund Freud explored unconscious motivations (Ferri, 1901). Unlike the Classical focus on punishment, Positivism advocates for rehabilitation and treatment tailored to individual circumstances. However, it risks over-determinism, potentially excusing criminal responsibility and raising ethical concerns about labelling individuals as inherently criminal based on immutable traits.
Key Similarities and Differences
Both approaches seek to explain criminal behaviour and inform justice systems, yet they diverge fundamentally in their assumptions. The Classical School prioritises individual agency and deterrence through uniform punishment, whereas Positivism emphasises determinism and individualised interventions. Methodologically, Classical theory relies on philosophical reasoning, while Positivism adopts a scientific, evidence-based approach, reflecting broader 19th-century shifts towards empiricism. Practically, Classical ideas underpin retributive justice models, as seen in fixed sentencing, while Positivist principles influence rehabilitative policies, such as probation or therapy programmes.
Arguably, the Classical approach offers a simpler framework for maintaining order but neglects root causes of crime. Conversely, Positivism provides deeper insight into causality but can complicate accountability. Both perspectives, therefore, reveal limitations when applied in isolation, suggesting a need for integrated approaches in modern criminal justice systems.
Conclusion
In summary, the Classical and Positivist approaches to explaining crime present contrasting views on human behaviour and criminal responsibility. The Classical School’s rational choice model prioritises deterrence and uniformity, while Positivism’s deterministic stance highlights biological, psychological, and social influences, advocating for tailored responses. Each framework offers valuable insights yet falls short in addressing the multifaceted nature of crime comprehensively. For criminal justice students, understanding these theories underscores the importance of balancing punishment with prevention and rehabilitation in contemporary policy. Ultimately, their coexistence in modern systems reflects an ongoing effort to reconcile individual agency with structural influences in tackling crime.
References
- Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by Henry Paolucci. Bobbs-Merrill.
- Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. T. Payne and Son.
- Ferri, E. (1901) Criminal Sociology. Translated by Joseph I. Kelly. Little, Brown, and Company.
- Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal Man. Translated by Mary Gibson and Nicole Hahn Rafter. Duke University Press.
