Comparison of Criminology Theories - Law Paper Example

The classical theory of criminology asserts that people plan their criminal activities before carrying them out. To such individuals, committing the crime provides an advantage to them and they do it out of their free will (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The theory also argues that the person committing the crime is fully aware of the consequences of committing the crime. The developers of the Classical School of Criminology were Jeremy Bentham and Cesare de Baccaria, who lived during the 18th Century. In that era, capital punishment was widely used to punish crime and deviant behavior (Akers, 2013). Bentham, who believed in utilitarianism, believed that individuals were entitled to happiness and were thus obligated to live happy lives. Consequently, this philosophy provided a foundation for the classical theory that set out to deter punishment and decide the appropriate penalty for committing a crime. According to the theory, an individual has the will to act in accordance with their desires and will. An individual will weigh the rationality of the crime as determined by the benefits of the crime against its consequences, and the severity of the punishment is dependent upon the severity of the crime to discourage others from committing it (Siegel, 2010). Also, the punishment imposed on the offender is swift and serves to prevent others from emulating the offender and committing the crime (Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The rational choice theory, on the other hand, assets that behavioral choices lead an individual to commit a crime (Rader & Haynes, 2011). These behavioral choices include the choice an individual makes to engage in a crime depending on their premeditation or intent. The person weighs the benefits and the outcomes of committing the crime before they execute their actions (Akers, 2013). The theory asserts that the criminal is rational with respect to their decision-making, and that even with full knowledge of the punishment they are likely to receive, the benefits of committing the crime are far greater than the punishment. The theory is perched on three types of offenders namely, the rational, predestined, and victimized offenders. The rational offender chooses to commit the crimes but the punishments serve to deter them from doing so. The predestined offender is one that cannot control their urges and their environment encourages them to commit the crime (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014). On the other hand, abusive experiences or unfair treatment may incite an individual to commit a crime. This description fits that of a victimized offender.

On assessment of the two theories: the classical school of criminology and the rational choice theory, capital punishment should be abolished. As stated above, the classical theory of criminology maintains that the criminal commits the crime after making a rational choice and will do so to derive maximum pleasure and incur minimal or no pain (Siegel, 2010). Therefore, deterring the crime will involve imposing a penalty that matches the severity of the crime and not above it to prevent the offender and others from engaging in criminal activity (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The introduction of these theories to the criminal justice system, especially the use of the classical thinking, capital punishment has significantly declined. Instead of the death penalty, the prison system as a form of punishment should be used instead. Physical punishment should not be used but in its placed psychological punishment should suffice in changing an individuals perspective on criminal behavior. Capital punishment outweighs the benefits of committing any crime because material or physical benefits are not more valuable than the loss of life. A prison sentence is thus sufficient to change the mindset of the offender and deter others from committing crime.

Comparison of the Classical and Positivist Theories of Criminology

The positivist school maintains that the decisions an individual makes that lead to them committing the crime are determined by means that are out of their control (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014). Such means prevent the individuals from making a rational decision and are based on their physical, biological, and psychological traits. The physical characteristics here include their race and social relationships. The biological traits are majorly the genetic abnormalities that they may have. Mental health disorders are examples of the psychological factors that influence the committing of crime.

The classical school of criminology, on the other hand, explains that criminal behavior exhibited by an individual is based on their rational thinking and is not influenced by external factors (Akers, 2013). The individual is in full control of their actions and is solely responsible for the crimes committed, and by extension, the punishment imposed on them befits the seriousness of the crime committed.

These two theories support the argument that criminal behavior is an aspect or consequence of human nature and that the behavior can be controlled (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014). Consequently, people that cannot integrate human principals into their lives commit serious crimes. Both theories have found application in the criminal justice system and have significantly contributes to the deterrence in the application of capital punishment and inhumane treatment of offenders. However, on scrutiny, the positivist theory of criminology is more desirable because other than attempting to identify the causes of criminal activity, it suggests means of discouraging the offenders from committing crime (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014).

The Classical thought provides the guidelines of determining the suitable punishment (sentencing) for crimes committed. However, it is not sufficient to sentence an individual for a stint in prison, with a background of free will as the cause of crime, and not provide a means of rehabilitating the offender. The Positivist theory offers such a means of reforming the offenders through a logical identification and isolation of the causes of criminal behavior (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014). When these have been identified, it becomes possible to rehabilitate the offender and deter them from a life of crime.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Akers, R. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. New York, NY: Routledge.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rader, N., & Haynes, S. (2011). Gendered Fear of Crime Socialization: An Extension of AKers's Social Learning Theory. Feminist Criminology, 6(4), 291-307.

Siegel, L. (2010). Criminology: The core. Lowell: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Winters, R. C., Globokar, . L., & Roberson, . (2014). An introduction to crime and crime causation. New York, NY: CRC Press.