This essay will outline and compare three foundational schools of criminological thought: the Classical, Neo-Classical, and Positivist schools. These theories offer different explanations for why crime occurs and, consequently, suggest different approaches for its control and prevention. The progression from one school to the next reflects a significant evolution in the understanding of criminal behaviour, moving from philosophical ideas about free will to scientific investigation of the individual and societal factors.
The Classical School
The Classical school of criminology emerged during the Enlightenment in the 18th century as a reaction against the harsh, arbitrary, and inconsistent system of justice that was common in Europe. Thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham are central to this school of thought. Beccaria's hugely influential work, On Crimes and Punishments (1764), laid down the core principles of classicism.
The central idea is that human beings are rational actors who possess free will. It is assumed that individuals make a calculated choice to commit a crime by weighing the potential benefits against the potential costs (Newburn, 2017). This perspective is rooted in the concept of the social contract, where citizens are understood to have given up certain freedoms to the state in return for protection from harm. Crime is therefore seen as a violation of this contract.
To deter rational individuals from choosing crime, the Classical school argues that punishment must be certain, swift, and proportionate to the harm caused by the crime. The focus is on the act itself, not the individual who committed it. As Bentham argued, the purpose of the law is to achieve the "greatest happiness of the greatest number," and punishment is a necessary evil used only to prevent a greater evil (Burke, 2019). This means that sentences should be fixed by law to limit judicial discretion and ensure that everyone who commits the same crime receives the same punishment.
The Neo-Classical School
The Neo-Classical school developed in the 19th century as a modification of the Classical school. While it retained the core belief in free will and rational choice, it acknowledged that the pure classicist approach was too rigid and did not account for individual differences. Jurists and legal thinkers recognised that not all individuals have the same capacity to reason or make choices (Vold et al., 2002).
Therefore, the Neo-Classical school introduced the idea of mitigating circumstances. It accepted that factors such as age, mental illness, or duress could impair an individual’s ability to exercise free will. This led to the introduction of legal concepts such as the insanity defence and doctrines concerning the criminal liability of children. Essentially, this school allowed for some judicial discretion in sentencing, moving away from the strict, fixed penalties advocated by classical theorists. It represents a compromise between the idea that the punishment should fit the crime and the emerging awareness that the punishment should also, to some extent, fit the criminal.
The Positivist School
The Positivist school, which emerged in the late 19th century, marked a radical departure from the philosophical reasoning of the Classical and Neo-Classical schools. Influenced by the rise of scientific method and Darwin's work on evolution, positivists sought to explain crime by looking for its causes in the biological, psychological, and social characteristics of the offender (Newburn, 2017).
The key assumption of positivism is determinism, which is the idea that criminal behaviour is caused by factors outside of the individual’s control, rather than being a product of free will. The focus, therefore, shifts entirely from the crime to the criminal. The most famous early positivist was Cesare Lombroso, who in works like The Criminal Man (1876), argued that criminals were "atavistic," meaning they were evolutionary throwbacks who could be identified by certain physical features or 'stigmata'.
Although Lombroso's biological theories have been largely discredited, his emphasis on scientific observation and measurement became the foundation of modern criminology. Positivism expanded into other areas, including psychological positivism, which looks at personality traits and mental disorders, and sociological positivism, which examines factors like poverty, social disorganisation, and education as causes of crime (Burke, 2019). The positivist approach suggests that the response to crime should be treatment and rehabilitation, aimed at addressing the root causes of an individual’s behaviour, rather than simply punishing them.
In conclusion, these three schools provide a foundational understanding of criminological theory. The Classical school views crime as a rational choice, to be deterred by proportionate punishment. The Neo-Classical school modifies this by allowing for mitigating factors. In contrast, the Positivist school rejects free will, arguing that crime is determined by biological, psychological, or social forces, and therefore the offender should be treated rather than punished.
References
Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments.
Burke, R. H. (2019) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. 5th edn. Routledge.
Lombroso, C. (1876) L'Uomo Delinquente [The Criminal Man].
Newburn, T. (2017) Criminology. 3rd edn. Routledge.
Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J. and Snipes, J. B. (2002) Theoretical Criminology. 5th edn. Oxford University Press.
