Major Differences between the Classical School and the

There are many theories that have been developed which attempt to explain the causes of criminal behaviour, including explanations of crime which focus on the individual – his or her thought process, biological factors, and psychological factors; and explanations of crime which focus on factors external to the individual – the surrounding environment, others who influence the individual, and society as a whole. These two areas of criminology are often seen to be in direct conflict with each other. Nowadays most criminologists agree that it isn't an either-or situation – internal factors and social factors both play a part in determining one's behaviour. This essay takes the same view and argues that both sides of criminology have their strengths and weaknesses in explaining crime, and the notion that only internal or external factors can be the cause for an individual being criminal is outdated. To demonstrate that neither explanations of crime are more convincing than the other, this essay will examine both biological theories and ecological theories and compare them against each other. In doing so, each theory and their origins will be explained, the weaknesses of each theory will be explored, and the crimes that each theory can explain will be stated. Biological theories are interested in the inherited genetics of the individual to determine their predisposition to antisocial behaviour (Hirschi & Gottfredson 1990, p. 414). Cesare Lombroso, dubbed " the father of modern criminology " , popularised biological positivism during the nineteenth century. His general theory proposed that 'the criminal was born, not made' – he believed that atavistic criminals (people who are biologically inferior) were a reversion of the human specimen, having physical features similar to that apes and early man – such a person could be identified by examining their appearance and noting any physical abnormalities or 'stigmata' (White, Haines & Asquith 2012, p. 49).

This paper delves into the contributions of Cesare Lombroso to the Positive School of Criminology. Lombroso, regarded as the father of modern criminology, shifted the focus of criminology from crime itself to the study of criminals. Before Lombroso, criminology primarily analyzed crime through moral and religious lenses, neglecting its scientific study. Lombroso's theory of the born criminal emphasized the correlation between crime and the physical features of criminals, proposing that certain individuals are predisposed to criminal behavior due to inherited atavistic characteristics. However, his ideas, particularly regarding atavism, are considered outdated and unsystematic in contemporary criminology. Despite this, Lombroso's emphasis on understanding the root causes of crime before administering punishment remains a significant contribution. Today, the principles of criminal law prioritize proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and consider the motives behind the commission of a crime. Lombroso's work, although criticized, paved the way for a more scientific approach to understanding criminal behavior.

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 2016

The Myth of the Born Criminal is an impressive and important contribution to both the sciences and the humanities. I know of few books that traverse these diverse disciplines and their concomitant styles of discourse with such skill, and I expect it will lead to enhanced scholarship in history, psychology, biology, criminology, political science, and media studies. Jarkko Jalava, Stephanie Griffiths, and Michael Maraun argue that the origins of psychopathy go back to the turn of the 19th century and to the work of two contemporaries, Benjamin Rush and Philippe Pinel. Rush, an American Revolutionary, physician, and pioneer of American psychiatry, began focusing in the 1780s on a subset of criminals whose criminal behavior seemed so extreme and uninhibited that it lacked rational explanation. By 1812, Rush described such individuals as suffering from moral derangement-a somatically based inability to distinguish right from wrong. Independently and at roughly the same time, Pinel, a French physician and moral reformer, described a subset of his patients as suffering from insanity without delirium. Pinel believed insanity without delirium to be a physical affliction that left these patients perfectly rational but lacking control over their criminal and violent behavior. But Jalava, Griffiths, and Maraun contend that neither Rush nor Pinel discovered a biological condition. Instead, they assert that both tried to explain crime and deviance-which in their view implied a lack of Christian morality-with the tools of taxonomy so popular in the 18th century. The authors highlight how the contemporary rise of phrenology demonstrates the broader cultural thinking at the time that aimed to interpret behavior and personality in terms of biological markers. Thus, the ideas of Rush and Pinel gave much sought-after simple and straightforward explanations of criminal behavior in the rapidly industrializing and urbanizing Western world. Although thought-provoking, the authors could have benefited from a more sustained analysis and perhaps greater discussion of Rush and Pinel's case studies, which would have better clarified their positions and the surrounding contextual influences. A curious omission was a lack of discussion of, or even reference to, the foundational work by Foucault on this period and subject, particularly his 1978 essay, "About the Concept of the 'Dangerous Individual' in Nineteenth-Century Legal Psychiatry." Many of the seminal criminal cases that Foucault discusses would have added needed texture and analysis. According to the book, Rush and Pinel's ideas gained new prominence in the late 19th century under the promotion of famed Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso argued in his theory of degeneration that primitive atavistic traits carried on in a subset of the population creating particularly dangerous and calculating countercurrents to modern moral society. Lombroso gained widespread acclaim, and he became a fierce advocate of degeneration theory, going as far as to attack the reputation of any opponents to the theory. According to Jalava, Griffiths, and Maraun, the relative lack of war combined with internal moral panics over crime, economic change, and industrialized urban expansion to create a fixation with degeneration. Politicians and popular media latched onto Lombroso's theory of degeneration as a simple binary to denounce opponents and advocate policy changes. Again, the authors offer parallels to the spread of psychopathy as a construct over the past several decades in Europe and America, but this is given relatively little attention and exploration. In particular,

International journal of forensic sciences, 2024

I began this examination sharing P. Hirst's (1972) assertion that a Marxist criminology, strictly speaking, would be impossible. What was meant was that the objects of study of academic criminology or sociological theories of deviance were incompatible in an epistemological sense with the object of Marx's theory of history. In examining various sociological theories of deviance, however, I realized that there was no conceivably single or unified object of theory, but instead a disparate corpus of studies, informed by different theories or perspectives and, importantly, with different interests in view. Moreover, it became evident that P. Hirst quite inadvertently presumed that there was a unique field of study called criminology and that, of course, the mere transposition of another object and conceptual structure would be inappropriate. Although an unthoughtful application of a given conceptual structure with its own object of study to a pre-given domain of sociology would be inappropriate, it will be argued that recent developments in Marxist theory and particularly in the study of law and ideology, could provide the 'raw material' for a more adequate theorizing of deviance. The desirability of such theorizing based on historical materialism must lie in the demonstration that it provides satisfactory solutions to the theoretical impasses and inadequacies of other theories of deviance, and fruitful insights into social problems that have been usually designated as deviance. Various theories of or perspectives on deviance have been subjected to criticism by sociologists of rival theoretical standpoints. But the way in which such criticisms have been conducted is unsatisfactory. For, too often, they attack the other theory or perspective for failing to recognize, consider and explain what is only from within their own different theory or perspective legitimate to do. The weakness of this type of reasoning, as T. Benton (1977) has pointed out, is that it relies on the intuitive agreement of the reader that such phenomena do, after all, exist and require explanation. Criticism can only be fruitful if it is shown that it is impossible to understand or explain something a theory purports to explain or understand on the basis of the conceptual structure of the theory, i.e. when it is based on the principle of adequacy and non-contradiction. However, the empirical evidence on which a theory is based is also of crucial importance for the acceptance of the claims and arguments made. This acceptance is enhanced when the theory can be applied fruitfully to solve social problems. It is on the former understandings of criticism that I shall proceed. I will attempt to identify the inadequacies, contradictions and therefore theoretical impasses of major theories and perspectives on deviance and then to show how concepts of historical materialism can deal fruitfully with them.