In Block 1 you were introduced to three perspectives on crime, law and order: classicism, positivism and social constructionism. With reference to the materials in Block 1 and using your own words define and explain each of these perspectives and discuss their historical and contemporary influence on theory and practice in youth justice. This essay will discuss three prominent theories in the explanation of crime. This essay will compare and contract these theories, discussing their strengths and weaknesses; concluding with how each of these theories has tried to approach criminal behaviour from a different perspective.
One of the theories is Positivism; it is divided into three main categories: biological, psychological and sociological. In essence, this view maintains that people can only behave in ways that have already been predetermined. Positivism has made a significant contribution to the explanation of criminal behaviour and has shown a link between delinquency and abnormalities in an individual; biological and psychological positivist approach perceive crime as the result of not normal behaviour.
Biological positivism suggests that there is a relationship between biological characteristics and criminal behaviour. Specifically that certain biological characteristics increase the probability that individuals will engage in certain types of behaviour, such as violence or anti social behaviour.
This view implies that humans are not self-determining agents but that their biological structure dictates how they will behave. It also suggests that these traits are inherited and that criminals will come from criminal families. (Open University, 2013) The positivist theory leads to an emphasis being placed on social factors that encourage the growth of criminology and social sciences. Positivism strongly infers that the cause of crime can be corrected once identified. They consider that under or limited socialisation and inconsistent social interaction (including family background) are accountable. The theory considers society to be based upon meritocracy (this is in contrast to Classicists, who deem the social order to be a contract and imply the role of the state is very limited).
Positivists also suggest that Judges view cases from a social and scientific angle and rehabilitation treatments are favoured rather than punishment. For example, interventionist policies, such as community projects, youth clubs etc. are looked upon highly. Classicism; the basis of this line of thinking, is that rationality and intelligence are fundamental human characteristics and thus explain human behaviour. In this view, humans are said to be capable of acting, to promote their own best interests.
The classical school of thought about criminal justice emerged at a time when it was believed that criminals were possessed by demonic creatures, who forced them (the offender) to act in a strange way. The classicism theorists’ challenged this, introducing the idea that people had free will with choice and sanity. (Hopkins Burke, 2008) Therefore, the theory is; crime is a product of a process of free choice, by the individual, whom assesses the potential benefits of committing the crime, against its potential costs. Moreover, people are fully aware and responsible for their actions- excuses and circumstances are not acceptable.
Within this theory it has has been concluded that criminals are not predetermined but make rational calculations of the benefits and detriments prior to committing the crime; crimes are seen as the outcome of a rational decision. The major importance of the classicism school of criminology is that it stresses the role of free will in people’s choices and that they (humans) are not passive observers in their own life (as Positivism suggests) but that they actively choose and engage in the actions which will satisfy them.
There are some problems with this theory; this approach ruins any prospect for offenders’ rehabilitation, the punishment should fit the criminal and not the crime (because each person has individual requirements/circumstances). This theory has no interest in the criminal beyond the crime they have committed and considers them fully responsible for their decisions and choices. There is no consideration for the social circumstances and how these can influence the actions of a person.
The classicism theory proposes that the individual seeks pleasure and attempts to avoid pain; somewhat hedonistic. As a result, a potential deviant/offender will refrain from committing crime if its costs out way the benefits. However, this approach can be seen as too harsh- the penalty being far greater than the crime.
With this approach each crime and criminal are treated/punished the same- with no understanding of reasons as to WHY an offence may have been committed. (Open University, 2013) Social constructionism; (also known as the New Deviancy Theory) emerged in the 1960-70s in response to the positivist domination of criminology (that crime is the result of individual, physical and social conditions). Social constructists believe in free will and creativity.
Human beings constantly generate their own system of values. Within society, certain dominating groups termed as ‘’the bureaucracy’’ or ‘’the powerful’’ impose their values upon the less powerful, labelling those who infringe their rules with the tags of ‘criminal’ or ‘deviant’. (Open University, 2013) Thus, people who experiment with different behaviours or evolve with different values are labelled by the authorities as ‘drug addict’, ‘thief, ‘alcoholic’ etc. (Jock Young, as cited in the Open University, 2013) According to this theory, crime or deviance depends upon two activities: one, an act of an individual or a group and secondly, another individual or a group with different values must label the initial activity as deviant. This theory assumes that understanding, meaning and significance are developed, not separately within the individual, but in coordination with other human beings. (Jock Young as cited in the Open University, 2013) In simplistic terms, what is and what is not acceptable within our peer groups and/or home life may affect what we deem right or wrong when it comes to crime. Whilst the greater society, or bureaucracy may deem certain things as criminal (such as shoplifting or drug use) if we are accustomed to or have been ‘brought up’ around such activities and behaviours we may be desensitised to it thus, not deem it as a crime, as such.
In explaining the cause of crime one must consider motivation i. e. why a person indulges in a deviant act. They hold that as the basic difference between one whom deviates and one who conforms. Sociological constructionists look for socially structured sources of strain within society that would lead them to commit such acts- such as unemployment, poverty. This theory focuses on the ‘reaction’ and that crime is committed as a reaction and not as a cause.
Conclusion
Whilst it seems each of the discussed theories oppose each other and in many areas they do, on some other level they can be seen to complement each other, offering valuable insight as to why people commit crime. Each theory sheds light on different factors that may lead to delinquency, and tries to identify factors that can motivate someone into deviant and criminal behaviour. Despite their relative weakness they did/do make a significant contribution to the explanation of crime and have provided the foundation for further study in the field of criminology.
