The Comparison of Classicism and Positivism in Defining Criminality

Classicism and Positivism are the two of the main theories of Criminology. This paper gives a comparative analysis of these two theories of Criminology. The comparative analysis is based on Jock Young’s article, “Thinking seriously About Crime: Some Models of Criminology”. The Young’s article gives clear explanation of Classicism and Positivism theories of Criminology.

A critical look at Classicism and Positivism theories of Criminology shows that the main difference between the two theories of Criminology lies in the different conceptions of human nature and the general causes of crime. As Young shows in his explanation of different theories of crime, there is indeed a close correlation between one’s understanding of human nature and one’s understanding of the nature and causes of crime.

According to the Classicism theory of Criminology, a human person is conceived as a free and rational being governed by self-interest (Young, n.d). According to this theory therefore, human actions are freely chosen under the direction of reason, and they are motivated by self-interest. What this conception of human person means in essence therefore is that human beings always deliberately choose their actions that best serve their interests. On the contrary, the positivist theory of Criminology conceives human beings as animals whose actions are determined by the external factors, for instance the environment, and the socialization that one receives. According to the positivist theory of Criminology therefore, human actions aren’t the result of a deliberate choice guided by reason and motivated by self interest. This different conception of human nature therefore marks the first fundamental difference between the Classicism and the Positivist theories of Criminology.

As a corollary of the different conception of human nature in the two theories of Criminology, the two theories of Criminology also differ in the understanding of the causes of crime. Classicism theorists contend that criminals should be punished for their crimes because they are responsible for the crimes, i.e. they willingly choose to commit crime without being forced or influenced to do so by any external factor. And to curb crimes in the society, the Classicism theorists contend that punishments for crimes should be made severe so that the disadvantages of committing a crime would, by far, outweigh the advantages of committing the crime. Cesare Beccaria is credited as the scholar who articulated this idea of punishing criminals because they are responsible for their crimimes. According to Beccaria, criminals should be punished for the sake of social order (Beccaria, 1801). Through increasing punishment for crimes, Classicism theorists contended that no rational human being would willingly choose an action that does not serve their best interests, i.e. no person would deliberately choose an action whose consequences has more disadvantages than advantages. On the contrary, the proponents of the Positivist theory of Criminology contended that crime is caused by under-socialization. By under-socialization they meant that people who commit crime have not been socialized sufficiently on the values of the society. For this reason, the under-socialized members of the society develop deviant behaviour, i.e. behaviour that is not consistent with the values of the societies in which they live. Actually, the positivist theorists prefers to call crime a deviant behaviour rather than using the term crime. According to the positivist theorists, human behaviour is never deliberate and rational; the positivist theorists contend that human behaviour can actually be analyzed quantified scientifically. Scientific analysis of human behaviour would involve explaining human behaviour scientifically as having origin not in the individual person, but in other factors outside the person, i.e. the society and the environment in which one has grown up. For the positivist theories therefore crimes are never deliberate and rational actions for they are motivated, and actually caused by factors external to the person committing crime. Positivist theorists therefore do not view criminals as being responsible for their crimes, and for this reason, positivist theorists advocates for corrective measures aimed at helping the criminals to embrace the society values, rather than punishment. The different conception of crime by the proponents of Classicism and Positivist theorists therefore is the second major difference between Classicism and Positivist theories of Criminology.

On social order, the Classism theory of Criminology holds that there is need for a social contract. By social contract the proponents of classism theory meant that there is a need for the members of the society so surrender some of their rights and freedoms to the sovereign for the security of all members of the society. According to the Classism theory of Criminology, it is for the common good of all members of the state that the individuals surrenders some of their rights to the sovereign who would in turn ensure that there is order in the society, by punishing those who do not adhere to the social contract, using the powers given to him by the members of the society. On the contrary, the positivist criminal theorists have a different understanding of social order. According to positivist crime theorists, every society has a consensus on the accepted values of the society. All members of the society are socialized to these society values, and all the members of the society therefore are supposed to behave in a manner consistent with the society values. Positivist theorists therefore contend that it is the established system of values in a society that ensures that there is social order in the society. This shows that the classicism and the positivist conceptions of social order are diametrically opposed. This difference therefore marks the third major difference between the Classicism and the Positivist theories of Criminology.

As the result of the different understanding of the causes of crime, and also different understanding of what constitutes social order, the proponents of classicism and the proponents of positivism theories of crime have different definitions of crime. According to the classicism theory of Criminology, crime is any action that is contrary to the social contract. The social contract is meant to ensure that individual rights, for instance the right to property, are well protected. Anybody therefore who acts contrary to the social order, in other words whoever acts in a manner that would result in destabilizing the social order in the society, commits a crime. The Positivist crime theorists on the other hand have a different conception of crime. According to the classicism theory of crime, crime is conceived as a deviant behaviour that is contrary to the society’s accepted values and norms (Clinard, 1964). For this reason, whoever deviates from the societies accepted values bring about social disorder. The different definition of crime therefore marks the fourth major difference between the classicism and the Positivist theories of Criminology.

The Classicism and the Positivism theories of Criminology differ also on policy deductions. The Classicism policy deduction is based on three main principles. The first principle is the principle of Parsimony; according to this principle, the punishment administered for a crime should be the least punitive measure that can bring about the required goal, social order. In other words, this principle ensures that there is proportionality between the crime committed and the punishment meted out for the crime. The second principle is the principle of dangerousness. This principle ensures that deterrence of future crime should not be used as a basis for determining the kind of punishment to be meted out on a criminal. The third principle is the principle of desert; this principle is meant to ensure that a criminal gets the punishment that they deserve, not more or less. On the contrary, the positivist theory of Criminology rejects any form of punishment because according to them, crime does not originate in the criminal, but from the society. For this reason, instead of punishment, the positivist theorists advocates for rehabilitation, where people will be socialized well to the values and norms of the society. The Positivist theory of Criminology therefore does not have any criteria for determining the kind of punishment to be meted out for a crime. This difference on policy deduction marks the fifth main difference between these two theories of Criminology.

A critical look at these two theories of Criminology shows that the two theories of Criminology have indeed some fundamental differences. The only similarity between the two theories of crime lies in the fact that the two theories are agreed that crime or deviant behaviour disturbs the social order and that there is need therefore to deal with crime so as to restore the social order. Also, a critical look at these two theories of Criminology shows that each of the theories has some disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the Classicism Criminal theory is that it doesn’t take into account the external circumstances that may influence one to commit a crime. The positivism theory on the other hand overlooks the fact that human beings are rational and that they have the ability to freely choose their actions, this fact constitutes the main disadvantage of the Positivism criminal theory.

In conclusion, the Classicism and the Positivism criminal theories are completely different approaches to the phenomenon of crime. But taken together, the two theories of Criminology can offer us a wider perspective of the phenomenon of crime.