Lesson 1.

SCHOOLS OF
THOUGTH IN
CRIMINOLOGY
Lesson 1.2

SCHOOLS OF THOUGTH IN CRIMINOLOGY

Criminology as a discipline is recent, but its foundations date back to centuries

ago built by people who may be called early criminologists. To better understand current
criminological theories, it is essential to be familiar with these people’s contributions and
earlier approaches.

CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY

By the middle of the 18th century, social philosophers studied, argued and began
to look for a more rational approach in imposing punishment. Social reformers sought to
eliminate the barbaric system of law, punishment and justice. They stressed that the
relationship between crime and punishment should be balanced and fair.

One of the social reformers who worked on the implementation of said reform
was Cesare Beccaria. He pioneered the development of a systematic understanding of
why people committed crime.

According to him, the crime problem could be traced not to bad people but laws, that a
modern criminal justice system should guarantee all people equal treatment before the
law. Beccaria believed that the behavior of people with regard to their choice of action is
based on hedonism, the pleasure and pain principle: human being choose actions that
give pleasure and avoid those that bring pain. Moreover, punishment should be
assigned to each crime in a degree that results in more pain than pleasure for those
who commit the forbidden acts. Therefore, “the punishment should fit the crime”. The
writing of Beccaria and his followers from the core of what today is referred to as
Classical Criminology, with the following basic elements:

• In every society, people have free will to choose criminal or law solutions to meet
their needs or settle their problems.
• Criminal solutions may be more attractive than lawful ones because they usually
require less work for a greater payoff; if left unsanctioned, crime has greater
utility than conformity.
• A person’s choice of criminal solutions may be controlled by his fear of
punishment.
• The more severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the better able it is to control
criminal behavior (Siegel, 2004).
Beccaria’s book On Crimes and Punishment supplied the blue print, which was
based on the assumption that people freely choose what they do and are
responsible for the consequences of their behavior.

Another classicist was Jeremy Bentham, a contemporary of Becarria. He

devoted his life to developing scientific approach to the making and breaking of laws.
Like Beccarria, he was concerned with achieving “the greatest happiness of the
greatest number”. Bentham referred to his philosophy of social control as
utilitarianism. Utilitarianism assumes that all human actions are calculated in
accordance with likelihood of bringing happiness (pleasure) or unhappiness (pain).
People weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of
present and present and future pain.

The Classical School of Criminology’s concept of human nature as governed by

the doctrine of “Free Will” and rational behavior, upholds the following principles:

1. All human beings, including criminals, will freely choose either criminal ways
or non-criminal ways, depending on which way they believe benefit them.
2. Criminals will avoid behaviors that will bring pain and will engage in behaviors
that will bring pleasure.
3. Before deciding which course of action to take, criminals will weigh the
expected pains.
4. Criminals are responsible for their behaviors. They are seen as human beings
who are able to interpret, analyze and understand the situations in which they
find themselves.
5. Criminals act over and against their environments. They are not victims of
their environment.
6. Criminals go through a thinking process whereby they take a variety of factors
into account before they make a final decision on whether or not to commit a
criminal act.
7. Criminals are totally responsible for their behaviors.
8. Environmental forces do not push, pull, or propel individuals to act. An
individual acts willfully and freely.
9. Offenders are not helpless passive, or propelled by forces beyond their
control.
10. Each criminal act is a deliberate one, committed by a rational, choosing
person who is motivated primarily by the pleasure-pain principle.
NEO-CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY

The neoclassical school, which flourished in the 19th century, had the same basis
as the classical school a belief in free will. But the neoclassical criminologists, most of
whom were British, saw the need for individualized reaction to offenders. They believed
the classical approach was too harsh and unjust. This school of criminology is a
modification of classical theory; it believed that certain factors such as insanity will
inhibit the exercise of free will.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of harsh penal codes in early times was that
they did not provide for the separate treatment of children. One of the changes of the
neoclassical period was that children under seven years of age were exempt from the
law because they presumed to be unable to understand what is right or wrong. The
exemption would cover juveniles. Mental disease became a reason to exempt a suspect
from conviction too. It was seen as a sufficient cause of impaired responsibility, and
thus defense by reason of insanity crept into the law. Any situation or circumstance that
made it impossible to exercise free will was seen as a reason to exempt a person from
legal responsibility from what otherwise might be a criminal act.

Although the neoclassical school, unlike the classical, was not a scientific school
of criminology, it began to explore the causation issue. Its components made exceptions
to law and implied multiple causations. Even today, much modern law is based on the
neoclassical philosophy of free will tempered by exceptions (Reid, 1997).

POSITIVIST CRIMINOLOGY

The positivist school originated in the 19th Century in the context of the “scientific
revolution.” The positivists rejected the harsh legalism of the classical school and
substituted the concept of “free will” with the doctrine of determinism. They focused on
the constitutional approach to crime, advocating that structure or physical
characteristics of an individual determine that the person’s behavior. Since these
characteristics are not uniform, the positivists emphasized a philosophy of
individualized, scientific treatment of criminals based on the findings of the physical and
social sciences.
August Comte (1798-1857) is considered the founder of the positivist school. He
applied scientific methods in the study of society, from where he adopted the word
sociology. He wanted a society in which all social problems will be solved by scientific
methods and research; he believed that large groups of people such as society, being a
subject of scientific study, can lead to the discovery of specific laws that would greatly
help them.

The positivist school was composed of several Italians. Generally, it is associated

with Cesare Lombroso (who founded the Italian School of thought). Enrico Ferri, and
Rafaelle Garofalo. They were called the “unholy three” by the religious leaders during
the time of positivism because of their belief in evolution as contrasted to biblical
interpretation of the origin of the man and woman. Eventually, because their emergence
symbolized clearly that era of faith was over and the scientific age had begun.

The positivist school presumes that criminal behavior is caused by internal and
external factors outside of the individual’s control. The scientific method was introduced
and applied to the study of human behavior. Positivist can be broken up into three
segments which include biological, psychological and social positivism.

The following are key assumptions of the positivist school of thought:

1. Human behavior is determined and not a matter of free will.

2. Criminals are fundamentally different from non-criminals.
3. Positivists search for such differences by scientific methods.
4. Social scientists (including criminologist) can be objective, or values-neutral in
their work.
5. Crime is frequently caused by multiple factors.
6. Society is based on consensus, and not on social contract.

Biological Positivism

Cesare Lombroso

Cesare Lombroso was Italian criminologist, scientist, university professor, prison

doctor, and founder of criminal anthropology. He was one the largest contributors to
biological positivism and founder of the Italian School of Criminology. Lombroso is
widely known as the father of modern criminology, although most of his ideas have
been discredited today.

It is interesting to examine the sequences of events that made Lombroso, not

Beccaria or Betham, deserve the title.
 Lombroso’s work closely followed Charles Darwin’s theory of man’s evolution.
Lombroso contented that just as human beings developed from the nonhuman animal
forms, the criminal was a throwback or mutant to a primitive stage of human evolution.
The criminal was a product of biology, and not much could be done for this “born
criminal.” Lombroso’s positivist approach was scientific, anthropological and biological.
With his research, the “legalistic concern for crime” advanced to a “scientific study of the
criminal,” which in turn became the field of criminology. This accounted for his title of
being the father of criminology.

After completing his medical studies, Lombroso served as a army physician,

became a professor of psychiatry at the university of Turin, and later in his life accepted
an appointment as professor of criminal anthropology. His theory of the born criminal
states that criminals are a lower form of life, nearer to their apelike ancestors than non-
criminals in traits and dispositions. They can be distinguished from non-criminals by
atavistic stigmata, which refers to the physical features of creatures at an earlier stage
of development, before they became fully human beings.

The criminal’s distinct physical and mental stigmata include deviation in head
size and shape from type common to the race and region from which the criminal came;
asymmetry of the face; excessive dimensions of the of the jaw and cheek bones; eye
defects and peculiarities; ears of unusual size, or occasionally very small, or standing
out from the head as those of chimpanzee; nose twisted, upturned or flattened in
thieves, or aquiline or beak-like in murderers, or with tip rising like a peak from swollen
nostrils; fleshy lips, swollen and protruding; pouches in the cheeks like those of animal’s
toes; and imbalance of the hemispheres of the brain. Lombroso’s work supported the
idea that the criminal was a biologically and physically inferior person.

Among Lombroso’s major contributions to positivist criminology are the following:

1. The theory of Atavism - Lombroso had the opinion that criminals were
developed from primitive or subhuman individuals characterized by some
inferior mental and physical characteristics such as receding hairline,
forehead wrinkles, bumpy face, broad noses, fleshy lips, sloping shoulders,
long arms and pointy fingers. He called this condition atavism.
2. The application of the experimental or scientific method to the study of the
criminal. Lombroso spent endless hours measuring criminally insane persons
and epileptics skulls.
3. The development of a criminal typology. Although Lombroso’s system of
classification is considered crude and not adopted today, he still attempted to
categorize criminals. They are as follows:
 a. Born criminals – these refers to individuals who are born with a genetic
predilection towards criminality.
b. Epileptic criminals – These are criminals who commit crime because
they are affected by epilepsy.
c. any psychological disorders. These criminals are not criminal from
birth; they become criminal as a result of some changes in their ability
to which interfere with ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
d. Occasional criminals – these are criminals who commit crime due to
insignificant reasons that push them to do at a given occasion.

Lombroso also identified the various types of occasional criminals as:

a. Psuedo-criminals – these individuals are not real criminals. They have

neither any inborn tendency towards crime nor are they under the
influence of any bad crime-inducing habit. They do something criminal
on account of acute pressure of circumstances that leave them with no
choice. An example would be persons who kill in self-defense.
b. Criminaloids – the term “criminaloids” (sometimes called criminoloid)
means “like a criminal” or having resemblance with the criminal.” From
this, it can be said that criminaloids are not born criminals but non-
criminals who have adopted criminal activity due to pressure of
circumstances and less physical stamina of self control. The nature of
their crimes is not very graves.
c. Habitual criminals – they have no organic criminal tendency, but in the
course of their lives developed some foul habits that force them into
criminality. Some attributing factors are poor parenting and education,
or contact with other criminals.
d. Passionate criminals – these are individuals who are easily influenced
by great emotions like fit of anger.
4. The belief in the indeterminate sentence. Penalties should be indeterminate
so that those other “born” criminals who are incorrigible could be worked with
and rehabilitated.
5. The application of statistical techniques to criminology – Although crude and
with the use of questionable control groups, statistical techniques were used
by Lombroso to make criminological predictions.
Enrico Ferri

A student of Lombroso, Enrico Ferri is the best-known of Lombroso’s associates.

But although he agreed with Lombroso on the biological bases of criminal behavior, his
interest in socialism led him to recognize the importance of social, economic and
political factors in the study of criminal behavior. His greatest contribution was his attack
on the classical doctrine of free will, which argued that criminals should be held morally
responsible for their crimes because they must have made a rational decision to commit
those acts. On the contrary, Ferri believed criminals could not be held morally
responsible because they did not choose to commit crimes but rather were driven to
commit them by conditions in their lives. He however, stressed that society needed
protection against criminal acts and that it was the purpose of the criminal law and penal
policy to provide that protection.

Ferri claimed that strict obedience to preventive measures based on scientific

methods would eventually reduce crimes and allow people to live together in society
with less dependence on the penal system.

Raffaelle Garofalo

Just like Lombroso and Ferri, Rafaelle Garofalo rejected the doctrine of free will
and supported the position that the only way to understand crime was to study it by
scientific methods. Influenced by Lombroso’s theory of atavistic stigmata, which he
found to have many shortcomings, he traced the roots of criminal behavior, not to
physical features, but to their psychological equivalents, which he called “moral
anomalies.” According to this theory, natural crimes are found in all human societies,
regardless of the views of lawmakers, and no society can disregard that.

According to Garofalo, natural crimes are those that offend the basic normal
sentiments of probity, which mean respect for the property of others, and piety or
avoidance of causing infliction of sufferings to others. An individual who has an organic
deficiency in these moral sentiments has no moral force against committing such
crimes. Influenced by the theory of Darwin, Garofalo suggested that the death penalty
could rid the society of its maladapted members, just as the natural selection process
eliminated maladapted organisms. And for those who committed less serious offenses,
who are capable of adapting themselves to society in some measures, he preferred:
transportation to remote islands, loss of privileges, institutionalization in farm colonies,
or perhaps simple reparation. Clearly, Garofalo was more concerned and interested in
protecting society than individual rights of offenders. Garofalo classified criminals as
follows:
 1. Murderers – those who are classified from vengeance or revenge.
2. Violent criminals – those who commit very serious crimes.
3. Thieves – those who commit crimes against property.
4. Lascivious criminals – those who commit crimes against chastity.

Sociological Positivism

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some scholars began to
search for social determinants of criminal behavior. Among them were the Belgian
mathematician Adolphe Quetelet and the French lawyer Andre Michel Guerry. They
started what was called Cartographic School of Criminology in which they worked
independently on the relation of crime statistics to such factors as poverty, age, sex,
race, climate, and other demographic factors. Both scholars concluded that society, not
the decisions of individual offenders, was responsible for criminal behavior.

Another scholar who worked on relationship of crime and social factors was
Gabriel Tarde. He was of the opinion that society played an important role in creating a
criminal. However, individual choice and chance were also important to him. Tarde’s
major contribution in the study of the cause of crime was concept of the criminal as a
professional type. He believed that most criminals went through a process of training
before finally becoming criminal. Moreover, it was an accident of birth or chance that put
them in an atmosphere of crime.

Of all the nineteenth-century writers on the relationship between crime and social
factors, none has more powerfully influenced contemporary criminology than Emile
Durkheim. According to Durkheim, crime is an investable aspect of society. It could
disappear only if all members of society had the same values, and such standardization
is neither possible nor desirable. He called this concept anomie, disintegration and
chaos replaces social cohesion.
Comparison of the Classical and Positive Criminology

The classical and positivist schools had an important impact on the emergence
and development of criminology. The basic differences between these schools of
thought are listed in the following table (Reid, 1997).

Classical Criminology Positivist Criminology

1. Legal definition of crime 1.Rejection of Legal definition
2. Let the punishment fit the crime. 2.Let the punishment fit the criminal
3. Doctrine of free will 3.Doctrine of determinism
4. Death penalty for some offenses 4.Abolition of the death penalty
5. Anecdoctal method – no empirical 5.Empirical research, inductive method
research method
6. Definite sentence 6.Indeterminate sentence

Lacassagne School

Lombroso’s Italian school was rivaled, in France, by Alexander Lacassagne and

his school of thought, based in Lyon and influential from 1885 to 1914. The Lacassagne
School rejected Lombroso’s However, contrary to criminological tendencies influenced
by Durkheim’s social determinism, it did not reject biological factors. Indeed,
Lacassagne created an original synthesis of both tendencies, influenced by positivism,
phrenology and hygienism, which alleged a direct influence of the social environment on
the brain. Furthermore, Lacassagne criticized the lack of efficiency of prison, instead on
social responsibilities toward crime and on political voluntarism as a solution to crime,
and thus advocated harsh penalties for those criminals thought to be unredeemable
(“recidivist”), for example by supporting the 1895 law on penal colonies or opposing the
abolition of the death penalty in 1906.
 Hans Eysenck (1977), a British psychologist, claimed that psychological factors
such as extraversion and neuroticism made a person more likely to commit criminal
acts. He also included a psychoticism dimension that includes traits similar to the
psychopathic profile, developed by Hervey Cleckley, and later Robert Hare. Eyesenck
also based his model on early parental socialization of the child. His approach bridges
the gap between biological explanations and environmental or social learning-based
approaches ( See e.g. social psychologist B.F Skinner [1938], Albert Bandura [1973],
and the topic “nature vs. nature”

Chicago School

The Chicago School arose in the early twentieth century, through the work of
Robert Park, Ernest Burges, and other urban sociologist at the University of Chicago.
In the 1920’s, Park and Burgess identified five concentric zones that often exist as cities
grow, including the “zone in transition” which was identified as most volatile and subject
to disorder. In the 1940’s, Henry Mckay and Clifford Shaw focused on juvenile
delinquents, finding that they were concentrated in the zone of transition.

Chicago School sociologists adopted a social ecology approach to studying

cities, and postulated that urban neighborhoods with high levels of poverty often
experience breakdown in the social structure and institutions such as family and
schools. This results social disorganization, which reduces the ability of these
institutions to control behavior and creates an environment ripe for deviant behavior.

Other researchers suggested an added social-psychological link. For one, Edwin

H. Sutherland suggested that people learn criminal behavior from older, more
experienced criminals that they may associate with.

Introduction of Criminology and Psychology of crimes

ARMANDO A. ALVIOLA, PhD Crim., PhD Educ. Mngt.