Introduction
This essay explores the classical and positive schools of criminology, two foundational perspectives in the study of crime and criminal behaviour. The classical school, emerging in the 18th century, emphasises rationality and free will, while the positive school, arising in the 19th century, focuses on scientific determinism and empirical analysis. The discussion will cover the origins and historical context of each school, the key theories they inspired, and their influence on criminal justice policies both historically and in contemporary times. Additionally, I will offer a personal reflection on which school resonates more with my views and assess their relevance to the 21st century, incorporating empirical research to support my arguments. Through this, the essay aims to provide a balanced understanding of these schools’ contributions to criminological theory and practice.
The Classical School of Criminology
The classical school of criminology emerged during the Enlightenment period in the late 18th century, a time of significant intellectual and social transformation in Europe. This school was largely a reaction to the arbitrary and often brutal punitive systems of the time, where punishments were disproportionate and lacked consistency (Beccaria, 1764). Key figures such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham argued for a rational approach to criminal justice, rooted in the belief that individuals are rational actors who make decisions based on free will. Beccaria’s seminal work, *On Crimes and Punishments* (1764), advocated for proportionality in punishment, deterrence through certainty and swiftness rather than severity, and the abolition of torture and the death penalty in many cases.
Historically, the classical school introduced foundational theories such as deterrence theory, which posits that individuals can be dissuaded from criminal behaviour by the threat of punishment (Bentham, 1789). This perspective assumes that humans weigh the costs and benefits of their actions, a concept often referred to as hedonistic calculus. The classical school’s ideas influenced early criminal justice reforms, particularly in shaping penal codes in Europe and North America. For instance, the emphasis on consistency and fairness led to codified laws that replaced feudal arbitrariness with structured legal systems.
In terms of contemporary impact, classical principles remain evident in modern criminal justice policies, particularly in sentencing guidelines that aim for proportionality and deterrence. For example, mandatory minimum sentences in the UK and elsewhere are rooted in the classical idea of ensuring certainty of punishment to deter crime. However, critics argue that such policies often fail to account for individual circumstances, raising questions about their fairness and effectiveness (Ashworth, 2015). Indeed, while the classical school’s emphasis on rationality continues to underpin legal frameworks, it has been challenged by later theories that highlight the complexity of criminal behaviour.
The Positive School of Criminology
In contrast to the classical school, the positive school of criminology emerged in the late 19th century, driven by advancements in science and a growing interest in empirical research. This school rejected the notion of free will, instead arguing that criminal behaviour is determined by biological, psychological, and social factors. The positive school began with the work of Cesare Lombroso, often called the “father of modern criminology,” whose book *Criminal Man* (1876) proposed that criminals are biologically distinct, identifiable by physical traits such as cranial shape (Lombroso, 1876). This deterministic view marked a significant shift from the classical focus on rationality.
The positive school gave rise to several influential theories, including Lombroso’s biological positivism, Enrico Ferri’s sociological positivism, which emphasised social conditions like poverty, and Raffaele Garofalo’s psychological insights into criminal motivation. These ideas laid the groundwork for later criminological theories, such as strain theory and social disorganisation theory, which explore how environmental and structural factors contribute to crime. In contemporary criminology, positivist approaches underpin research into genetic predispositions to criminality and the impact of social inequalities on offending behaviour.
Historically, the positive school influenced policies aimed at rehabilitation rather than mere punishment. For example, the development of probation systems in the early 20th century reflected a positivist belief in addressing the underlying causes of crime (Garland, 2002). Today, this influence is evident in policies that prioritise offender rehabilitation, such as drug treatment programmes and mental health interventions in the UK criminal justice system. However, the positive school’s deterministic perspective has been critiqued for potentially stigmatising individuals based on traits beyond their control, raising ethical concerns about its application in policy.
Personal Reflection and Evaluation
Reflecting on these two schools, I find myself more aligned with the positive school of criminology, primarily due to its emphasis on understanding the root causes of crime rather than merely reacting to it. A “good” criminological theory, as discussed early in the semester, should be empirically testable, logically coherent, and applicable to real-world issues. The positive school meets these criteria more effectively by encouraging scientific inquiry into the biological, social, and psychological factors influencing crime. For instance, its focus on social determinants resonates with my belief that addressing systemic issues like poverty is crucial for reducing criminality. In contrast, while the classical school’s emphasis on deterrence is logical, it often overlooks the complexities of human behaviour and the structural inequalities that shape decisions.
Regarding relevance to the 21st century, I argue that the positive school holds greater significance. Modern criminal justice challenges, such as cybercrime and the overrepresentation of marginalised groups in prisons, demand an understanding of underlying causes rather than a sole reliance on deterrence. Policies informed by positivist principles, such as restorative justice and community-based interventions, have shown promising results. For example, rehabilitation-focused programmes in the UK have been linked to reduced reoffending rates compared to punitive measures alone (Ministry of Justice, 2020). Therefore, the positive school’s focus on evidence-based solutions appears more adaptable to contemporary needs, though it must be balanced with ethical considerations to avoid deterministic overreach.
Empirical Research Insights
Empirical research further supports the relevance of the positive school in modern contexts. A study by Farrington et al. (2017) examined longitudinal data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, finding that social and environmental factors, such as family dysfunction and economic deprivation, are significant predictors of criminal behaviour across generations. This research underscores the positivist argument that crime is often a product of external influences rather than purely rational choice, challenging classical assumptions. Moreover, the study highlights the effectiveness of early intervention programmes, which align with positivist-inspired policies, in reducing long-term offending. Such evidence suggests that addressing systemic issues can yield better outcomes than deterrence alone, reinforcing the practical utility of the positive school’s framework in contemporary criminology.
Conclusion
In summary, the classical and positive schools of criminology offer distinct perspectives on the causes of crime and the appropriate responses to it. The classical school, with its focus on rationality and deterrence, has historically shaped legal systems by promoting fairness and proportionality, while the positive school’s emphasis on determinism and scientific inquiry has driven rehabilitation-focused policies. Personally, I resonate more with the positive school due to its alignment with empirical and holistic approaches to understanding crime, and I believe it holds greater relevance for the 21st century given its adaptability to complex social issues. Empirical evidence further supports this view by demonstrating the value of addressing root causes over punitive measures. Ultimately, a balanced integration of insights from both schools could provide the most effective framework for addressing crime in modern society, ensuring both justice and prevention are prioritised.
References
- Ashworth, A. (2015) Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge University Press.
- Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments. Translator unknown, first English edition.
- Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. T. Payne.
- Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Crago, R. V. (2017) Intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour: A review of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(2), 109-128.
- Garland, D. (2002) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press.
- Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal Man. Translator unknown, first English edition.
- Ministry of Justice (2020) Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. UK Government.
