Views of Punishment: Classical and Positivist

VIEWS OF PUNISHMENT: CLASSICAL AND POSITIVIST

POSITIVIST AND CLASSICAL PUNISHMENT

AUI Online

Kevin Hensley

Unit 2 IP

Penology

CRJS335 - 1404B - 01

10/15/2014

Dr. Edward Hale

Introduction

During the eighteenth century the enlightenment theory emerged which would pave the way for classical criminology. Until classical criminology was introduced, offenders were believed to be committing crimes because they were sinners and/or possessed by the devil. Because of this belief the punishment was intended to remove evil from the offender 's soul and the law of religion was used mostly against the poor of the population.

These laws gave those who were accused of a crime little or no protection and by the use of torture a confession was wretched from the accused while punishments were mostly unreasonable and cruel.

CLASSICAL APPROACH

The classical approach to punishment allows that the offender makes the rational choice to commit crimes and the offender makes the decision based on the pleasure would outweigh the pain of being punished. The offender uses free will when they choose to engage in criminal behavior. In response, the punishment or deterrent should slightly outweigh what the offender had gained. This has had a great impact on today 's criminal justice system (Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K., 2010).

This is also the reasoning classical thinkers condemn the death penalty. The classical approach believes the death penalty does not deter certain crimes because the punishment should just slightly outweigh the gain.

POSITIVIST APPROACH

The positivist approach to punishment focuses more on the reason why an offender commits a crime. This approach does not support that all individuals have a choice or free will, but instead supports an offenders behavior is due to biological defects and/or abnormalities. These defects rob the offender of their free will and therefore are the cause of their deviant behavior. In other words, criminals are not made, they are born and the causes of crime must be identified in order to rectify the problem.

Cesare Lombroso, a physician from Italy, believed this as well. Lombroso had performed many autopsies on criminals and observed many had the same characteristics physically which included, but was not limited to, broad noses, long arms and sloping shoulders. The condition was known as atavism. Lombroso believed that criminals were immoral people and a kind of throwback to primitive man and they had not developed biologically as a non-criminal individual had. In other words, they were "born criminals" (Ramsland, K., 2009).

This approach also has a different ideal as to punishment. Positivists believe the threat of punishment or incarceration did nothing to deter criminal activity because the offender did not free will when they committed the crime. Positivists believed the offender could be treated with therapy or medication; locked away from society forever; or executed to ensure they commit no further acts of criminal behavior (Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K., 2010).

SIMILARITIES

Even though Classicists and Positivists have different views concerning what creates or causes criminals to behave in the manner they do. Both theories have their initial roots in Italy. Both theories agree the causes of crime are embedded in human nature. And they both suggest that criminals should be removed from society to protect society.

DIFFERENCES

The difference between Positivists and Classicalists is the classical theory has almost no biological facts or figures backing their views. It has, however, been proven to reduce crime rates, provides a deterrent to criminal activity and incarcerates offenders either short or long term.

While positivism does not have any punishments in place it does have forms of treatment. However the classical approach has punishments in place to deter criminals from committing crime by making the pain of punishment outweighs the pleasure of the crime. The main weakness of the classical approach is this approach assumes the criminal make his or her decision in a rational manner and with free will when this is not true. Not all individuals are rational nor are all of their behaviors of free will. By having a mental illness or a physical defect, an individual tends to change how they think and how they act (Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K., 2010).

Conclusion

Having researched each of the theories, I would have to agree with the Classicist theory as it still to this day is a foundation of the criminal justice and judiciary systems of the United States today. A person 's free will and rational thought concerning one committing a crime after weighing the pain of punishment versus the payoff or pleasure has never really been rejected. I feel if positivism were to be used as the mainstay of criminology, our current criminal justice system would not exist because positivism focuses on using treatments to "fix" the offender and the crime. The classical approach, however, seeks to protect society and the victims of crime and to remove and punish criminal behavior.

References

Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K. (2010). _American penology: A history of control_ (2nd ed.). New Brunswich, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Ramsland, K. (2009). THE MEASURE OF A MAN: CESARE LOMBROSO AND THE CRIMINAL TYPE._Forensic Examiner_, _18_(4), 70-72.

References: Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K. (2010). _American penology: A history of control_ (2nd ed.). New Brunswich, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Ramsland, K. (2009). THE MEASURE OF A MAN: CESARE LOMBROSO AND THE CRIMINAL TYPE._Forensic Examiner_, _18_(4), 70-72.