Social Constructionism, Positivism and Classicism
With reference to the materials in Block 1 – and using your own words – compare and contrast: * classicism * positivism * social constructionism
The role of theory in contemporary youth justice practice is crucial in shaping and conceptualising relationships between youth and crime. It provides a structure for how youth justice is practiced and helps make sense of today’s issues surrounding the topic.
Approaches to youth justice have evolved throughout the centuries and it is important for youth justice practitioners to be aware of the evolution of theory in order to be up to date with their knowledge and in their practice. Knowledge of current as well as traditional theoretical perspectives helps provide a new direction on current as well as old questions; it helps with the understanding of how the justice system they work in has been shaped and informs new models of work in this field.
This essay will attempt to compare and contrast three traditions of theorising on crime, law and order: classicism, positivism and social constructionism. A brief discussion of the relative influence of each perspective on contemporary theory and practice in youth justice will be included.
In the late 18th century, classical theorists, such as Beccaria and Bentham, proposed a model which would inform the rational actor model (Hopkins-Burke, p. 85-89, 2011). The idea was that individuals are rational beings and have free will with regards to their behaviour. Should someone choose to be involved in criminal activities, they should be held personally responsible for their behaviour and be punished accordingly. Crime, by its nature, is morally wrong and endangers social order, and therefore, should be punished. Offenders should be deterred of any potential re-offending and would-be criminals should be deterred from first time offending. This is achieved by having a justice system where punishment is automatic and proportional to the crime committed. The principle in
The role of theory in contemporary youth justice practice is crucial in shaping and conceptualising relationships between youth and crime. It provides a structure for how youth justice is practiced and helps make sense of today’s issues surrounding the topic.
Approaches to youth justice have evolved throughout the centuries and it is important for youth justice practitioners to be aware of the evolution of theory in order to be up to date with their knowledge and in their practice. Knowledge of current as well as traditional theoretical perspectives helps provide a new direction on current as well as old questions; it helps with the understanding of how the justice system they work in has been shaped and informs new models of work in this field.
This essay will attempt to compare and contrast three traditions of theorising on crime, law and order: classicism, positivism and social constructionism. A brief discussion of the relative influence of each perspective on contemporary theory and practice in youth justice will be included.
In the late 18th century, classical theorists, such as Beccaria and Bentham, proposed a model which would inform the rational actor model (Hopkins-Burke, p. 85-89, 2011). The idea was that individuals are rational beings and have free will with regards to their behaviour. Should someone choose to be involved in criminal activities, they should be held personally responsible for their behaviour and be punished accordingly. Crime, by its nature, is morally wrong and endangers social order, and therefore, should be punished. Offenders should be deterred of any potential re-offending and would-be criminals should be deterred from first time offending. This is achieved by having a justice system where punishment is automatic and proportional to the crime committed. The principle in
References: Earle. R. (2010) Block 1 Crime, youth and childhood – understanding theory and research, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Hopkins-Burke, R. (2011) Young People, Crime and Justice, Abingdon, Taylor & Francis. Mackenzie, S. (2008) ‘How to Reduce Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour by Going Round in Circles’, A submission to ippr’s Britain’s Got Brains competition, 2008. Pitts, J. and Kuula, T. (2005) ‘Incarcerating Young People: An Anglo-Finnish Comparison’, Youth Justice, (2005) 5: 147. Shiner and Newburn (1997) ‘Definitely, maybe not? The normalisation of recreational drug use amongst young people’. Sociology, (1997), vol.31, no 3, pp.511-29. Smith, D. (2008) ‘Positivism’. In Goldson, B. Dictionary of Youth Justice, Cullompton, Willan Publishing. Young, J (1981) ‘Thinking seriously about crime: some models of criminology’. In Fitgeralg, M., McLennan, G. and Pawson, J. (eds) Crime and Society: Readings in History and Theory, London, Routledge.