Popular Crime Theory Vs Classical Theory

In the late eighteenth century the classical theory was a popular crime theory which argued free will when committing crime. It says the committing crime reaps greater rewards than the consequences of committing the crime later on. However since then the positive theory suggests that free will does not exist when a person commits a crime. Instead genetics, individual differences, social upbringing, biological factors and cognitive structure are taken into account. Positive theory suggests that crime can be reduced with treatments on individual and social levels. Whereas the classical theory suggests that extreme forms of correction are an acceptable form of discipline. This includes petty crimes which could be punishable by death. Today the
classical theory is becoming more favourable with people preferring to see harsher crimes. (Theories of Crime) This essay will include the work and theories of Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Lombroso. Cesare Beccaria argued with a positivist theory that someone should not be treated like a criminal until he has been found guilty of a crime, and that society should not rob them of their protection until has been proven guilty of their crimes. In the eighteenth century the Catholic Church thought that the only way you could be rightfully freed from your criminal sins was through torture (Hostettler, 2011), but who is to say that this person actually committed a crime? In today’s society people stand by The Human Rights Act 1998, section one, the convention rights and freedom, article six. The second right is ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law’. (Human Rights Act 1998, 2004)
He also talks about false confession of suspects under torture. He describes torture of a suspect an easy way of the pain by admitting his guilt to a crime that they didn’t commit. He thought that torture was acceptable for 3 reasons only. To make a prisoner confess to a crime he may have committed, to discover any other person which may be related to the crime and to find out if the accused is connected to any other crime. He considered Roman Catholic torture for sin to be ‘ridiculous’. In the eighteenth century many people were wrongly sentenced for a crime they didn’t commit especially in places such as Sweden and England. (Hostettler, 2011) Unfortunately this still does happen today, there have been many cases of people who have been wrongfully accused of crime that they did not commit. Although torture is not used as a way of extracting information, long and tiring interrogations by the police cause suspects to take the easy way out and accept liability of a crime. This can be seen in a case by a psychologist called Gudjohnsson. He focused on one particular case study of a seventeen year old by known as F.C who had been arrested on suspicion of murdering two elderly women. He was interrogated for more than 14 hours through the night when he admitted that he had murdered the two women. He had only done so because he was under pressure from the interrogation. (Astarita, 2013) Cesare Lombroso had a classical theory that people are born a criminal and that physiological aspects of a person will make them more inclined to commit a crime.
Firstly he used data from a wide range of abnormalities found on criminals at the time, both living and dead. Their weight height and strength were focused on along with abnormalities to facial features including nose and ear size. In further studies he also looked at criminal’s tattoos and word choices (F. Cullen, 2010). During this time it is said that the average criminal would have abnormalities in some way and can be picked out due to them. This could be seen as a highly ineffective way of distinguishing a criminal because even the most innocent of people have abnormalities which single them out. Today’s society has changed and we now know that anyone could be a criminal. Although some people would not like to think so, it is common for people to hold prejudice and even go further as to discriminate people who have tattoos by labelling them as a ‘criminal
type’.

Jeremy Bentham focused on the positivist theory of deterrence. He suggests that preventing people from taking a criminal path and that punishment should be used as a last resort. His theory is based upon three ground structures Celerity, severity and certainty of a punishing act.
His ideas surrounding the severity are that if there is a harsh punishment, people will reconsider include themselves with criminal activities.
The law must boldly outline the penalties associated with committing crime to warn them off of a criminal lifestyle. Any punishment that is too harsh is unfair however if a punishment is too soft then people will commit the crime because the benefits outweigh the costs. (Ihekwoaba D. Onwudiwe, 1959) There needs to be a happy medium in order for the criminal justice system to work. The maximum jail sentence for a person committing a domestic burglary under section nine of the theft act 1968 is six years in police custody. Many people will not get the full six year sentence because they show remorse or get released on good behaviour. Six years is a long time for a person to go to prison for burglary which causes people to re consider stealing, however it still happens because people know that they can get out on good behaviour and that the maximum prison sentence is hardly ever given any more. (Council,
2011)

Benthem’s theories on the certainty of a punishment simply states that if a criminal act is committed then the correct procedure should be taken in order to assure that a suitable punishment is allocated. This has influenced the criminal justice system by