Historically, classical and Positive approaches to crime were based on distinct assumptions about free will, rationality and crime ‘causation.’ Trace the main ideas of these two approaches, using examples, and discuss their contribution to contemporary cr

Order Description

continuation of the question- Discuss their contribution to contemporary criminology.

Word count – 4000 words

Introduction – 350 words
thesis and purpose statement

Body – Positivism 1000 words
Classical – 1000 words
Compare and contrast using examples

Contemporary contribution – 1300 words
Deterrence theory
Rational choice theory
Routine activities theory
Talk about how past theories have contributed to these new theories and explain these new theories with examples.

Question
Historically, Classical and Positivist approaches to crime were based on distinct assumptions about free will, rationality, and crime ‘causation.’ Trace the main ideas of these two approaches, using examples, and discuss their contribution to contemporary criminology.

Required reading for this topic
•    Melossi, D. (2008) Controlling Crime, Controlling Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 2.
•    Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology. London: Routledge. Chapters 5, 6. 7 and 14.
•    *Rafter, N. (2006) ‘Cesare Lombroso and the origins of criminology: rethinking criminological tradition’ in S. Henry and M.M. Lanler (eds.) The Essential Criminology Reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
•    Tierney, J (2010) Criminology: Theory and Context (3rd edition). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education. Chapter 3.
•    Hopkins-Burke, R. (2009) An Introduction to Criminological Theory (Third edition). Cullompton: Willan. Chapters 2, 5 & 6.
•    Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B. and Gerould, A. L. (2010) Vold’s theoretical criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2.
•    Garland, D. (1985) ‘The criminal and his science: a critical account of the formation of criminology at the end of the nineteenth century’. British Journal of Criminology, 25(2): 109-137.
•    Garland, D. (2003) Of crime and criminals; the development of criminology in Britain’ in Maguire et al The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•    *Garland, D. and Sparks, R. (2000) ‘Criminology, Social Theory and the Challenge of Our Times’ in D. Garland and R. Sparks (eds.) (2000) Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•    *Hayward, K. And Morrison, W. (2005) ‘Theoretical criminology: a starting point’ in C. Hale et al. (eds.) Criminology (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Word count – 4000

Introduction – 350 words
Body – Positivism 1000
Classical – 1000
Compare and contrast

Contemporary contribution – 1300
Deterrence theory
Rational choice theory
Routine activities theory

Conclusion 300 words

All the information pasted here are copied directly from online sources but there are some really good info

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/2544/13chapter6.PDF

Introduction
Identifying and explaining the processes that cause criminal behaviour are undoubtedly, as alluded to above, of fundamental importance in examining and analysing the crime phenomenon. To explain and understand crime, criminologists have formulated many theories that, at least in their ideal form, are composed of clearly stated propositions that posit relationships, often of a causal sort, between events and things under study (Schmalleger 1996:15), and customarily have their roots in one [or both] of the two major theoretical approaches discussed below. Through the years two central ideologies have evolved by means of which criminologists seek to explain and understand crime and criminality. These two ideologies or “schools of thought”, namely the classical and positivist schools are, paradoxically, characterized by antithetical assumptions and diverse policy implications. Notwithstanding this obvious and inherent mutual exclusivity, both schools have drawn a wide following and divided support base that essentially remains to this very day.

It is, moreover, not surprising that these unicausal, all inclusive and dogmatic shibboleths have often facilitated the fusion of elements from both schools in order to create theoretical perspectives that more suitably attempt to explain the complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon that is crime and criminality. These two schools have, furthermore, inevitably spawned various derivative explanatory theories/perspectives that are, to a lesser or greater degree, germane to crime aetiology, but which can invariably be linked to the particular disposition and orientation of the criminological initiator/scholar. According to Snyman (1990:18), the history of the development of criminology is assimilated into the changing language of current criminology. Snyman op. cit. asserts that there is no “new” criminology, as each line of thought is a continuation of previous ideas developed through the centuries. The approach to criminology is, therefore, anything but static, develops with the changing times, and can be said to be as much influenced by history as by current events. The doctrine that characterises each of these schools, their evolutionary/developmental adjuncts as well as certain other more prominent theoretical perspectives will be systematically articulated below, serving as a template for the development of a herpetological crime explanatory model.

Classical school of thought

The classical school of criminology was established in 1755, and is so called because it was the first (italics mine) attempt to reflect logically and formally on criminology (Snyman 1990:6). The school was founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham and was developed in response to the primitive and cruel European justice system that existed prior to the French Revolution of 1798 (Glick 1995:710; White & Haines 2001:28); effectively usurping earlier views that crime is a supernatural phenomenon (Brown, et al.2001:227).

Strangely, and of course most appropriately in the context of this thesis it was, according to South (1998:211), Beccaria himself who once remarked: ‘Do not commit any crime and be just with all the things that surround you. Remember that even the smallest creatures, crushed by arrogant and cruel men, are endowed with a little ray of life’. • Definition McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Classicism’) define this school, which they term classicism, as follows: ‘An approach to the study of crime and criminality which is underpinned by the notion of rational action and free will’. It was developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by reformers who aimed to create a clear and legitimate criminal justice system based upon equality. At its core is the idea that punishment should be proportionate to the criminal act and should be viewed as a deterrent. Further assumptions include the notion of individual choice within a consensual society based on upon a social contract and the common interest’. • General premise

Ultimately the classical school views human behaviour as essentially rational in nature and suggests that people have the ability to choose right from wrong – in actual fact, it proposes that the major element governing a person’s choice of action is the basic human desire to obtain gratification and avoid pain (Bartol 1995:12; Glick 1995:71; White & Haines 2001:29). Maguire and Radosh (1999:23) summarise the core presumptions of this ideology as follows: q All individuals seek to maximise what is in their own interests (hedonism). q Rational calculation is used to achieve aims. q Behaviour is freely chosen. q The tendency to seek pleasure often results in crime.

This theory, therefore, presupposes that the criminal offender is a conscious agent, not someone who is so besieged by internal or external forces so as to lose his/her personal sense of reason. Hence, the emphasis within this school falls on crime per se, and not necessarily the criminal. Punishment is seen as a major mechanism by which to promote compliance with the law [crime prevention/deterrence], and the notion of
equitable chastisement is, therefore, unconditionally endorsed (White & Haines 2001:29; Williams & McShane 1999:23). For Beccaria (in White & Haines 2001:28) the objective of punishment was fundamentally to prevent the criminal from doing further injury to society, and to prevent others from committing similar offences by inflicting punishment in such a mode that it would make the strongest and most lasting impression on the minds of others, with the least affliction to the body of the criminal. According to Mc Reynolds (in Bartol 1995:12), Bentham, somewhat incongruously, apparently believed that all individuals are inherently motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain, without exception, in all situations and it would, therefore, appear that even Bentham’s notion of free will included a good measure of biological determinism, a fundamental tenet of positivist ideology. Despite such paradoxes, the classical school of thought remains popular in the criminological academia, and according to Williams and McShane (1999:24), it may be safe to say that some two-hundred-year-old ideas are among our latest policy and theoretical notions.

THE POSITIVIST SCHOOL
Although the classical perspective dominated the thinking and understanding of crime, law and justice for almost a century, many of the proposals made by the classical theorists had little effect on the crime problem (Glick 1995:77). More emphasis was subsequently placed on the existence of certain patterns in the manifestation of crime, drawing attention away from notions of rationalism and punishment, moving towards a scientific investigation of the causes of crime and stressing in particular the influence of hereditary, psychological and social factors (ibid. 1995:76-7). White and Haines (2001:36) stress that the development of positivistic perspectives constituted a major break with the classical tradition that saw crime as primarily a matter of individual choice, due to positivists explaining crime by reference to forces and factors outside the decision making ability of the individual. • Definition McLaughlin and Muncie (2001, s.v. ‘Positivism’) define this school as follows: ‘A theoretical approach that emerged in the early nineteenth century which argues that social relations and events (including crime) can be studied scientifically using methods derived from the natural sciences. Its aim is to search for, explain and predict future patterns of social behaviour. In criminology it straddles biological, psychological and sociological disciplines in an attempt to identify key causes of crime – whether genetic, psychological, social or economic – which are thought to lie largely out of each individual’s control’. •

General premise

Positivism, according to White and Haines (2001:38), was in fact founded upon the belief that society (civilisation) is progressing ever forward, and that the social scientist can study society, provide a more accurate understanding of how society works, and ultimately provide a rational means of overcoming existing social problems and ills by using scientific methods. Williams and McShane (1999:32) stress further in this regard that the primary characteristics of positivist criminological thought [essentially empiricism] are a deterministic view of the world, a focus on criminal behaviour instead of on legal issues such as rights, and the prevention of crime through the [individualised] treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

Positivism essentially stressed the idea that much human behaviour is a function of external social forces beyond individual control, and internal forces such as mental capabilities (psychological determinism) and biological makeup (biological determinism) – people were beginning to be viewed and understood as beings that are part of the animal kingdom, whose behaviour was very much influenced (if not determined) by social, cultural and biological antecedents, rather than as self-determined beings who were free to do what they wanted (Glick 1995:77-8; White & Haines 2001:43-46). White and Haines (2001:40) stress that three presuppositions in particular underpin the scientific approach as conceived by the positivists: q Social scientists are seen to be neutral observers of the world, and their work is ‘value free’. This is because the world was seen to be ‘out there’, as an external reality, and the role of the scientist is merely to record the ‘facts’. q The key method of the positivist is to classify and quantify human experience and behaviours through a range of objective tests. This means developing various ways to measure human activity. q As with the natural world, the social world is seen to obey general laws of operation. The task of the positivist is to uncover the causal determinants of human behaviour (i.e., to identify ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ relationships), and thus both to predict and to modify future behaviour outcomes. Positivism is, therefore, related to efforts to adopt natural science methods and concepts in the study of society, basically entailing the acceptance of certain ideas about human experience, and attempting to enumerate and systematise this experience in the anticipation that expert intercession could obviate or remedy/mitigate specific kinds of social problems. To all intents and purposes the positivist school (also known as the Italian school), with its emphasis on hard biological determinism and reliance on the use of the senses to gather observable facts and measurements, heralded the beginning of modern scientific criminology (Bartol 1995:13). The premise of this school, founded by Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) is, therefore, deterministic and focuses on the offender whilst seeking to explain criminal behaviour in terms of biological attributes. The positivist orientation, with its exclusive or near exclusive reliance on observable facts, continues to be significant in the study of crime today (Bartol 1995:13; Snyman 1990:11). Modern-day positivists, however, define and identify criminality in a manner geared to establishing those people who are ‘at risk’ of certain behaviour, and there is no longer a one-to-one link between crime and behaviour; rather, certain groups are seen to be more predisposed to crime than others because of biological and social environmental factors – individuals are not born criminal, they are exposed to baseline biological and psychological processes that mould their persona in childhood (White & Haines 2001:48).

Summary
This chapter discusses many of the early theoretical explanations for criminal behavior (pp. 60–62). Early scholarly explanations for crime came from a wide variety of fields. Criminologists have traditionally marked the beginning of their discipline with the establishment of Cesare Beccaria’s and Jeremy Bentham’s classical school of criminology, which purports that people rationally choose to commit criminal acts (pp. 62–68). The positivist school of criminology, founded by Auguste Comte, purports that behavior is determined by measurable factors beyond human control, a principle developed further in the theoretical contributions of Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo (pp. 69–75). All of these theories from the past have formed a foundation for modern criminology and related fields. Rational choice theory is a reformulation and integration of earlier classical and positivist theories. Rational choice theory stresses the idea that a criminal rationally chooses the crime to commit as well as the target of the crime. It also stresses the idea that a high degree of crime prevention can be achieved by focusing on the situational aspects that influence particular types of criminal behavior (pp. 75–76). According to deterrence theory, an individual’s choice to commit or not commit a crime is influenced by the fear of punishment. According to the economic model of crime, criminal behavior follows a calculation whereby the criminal examines the perceived costs, rewards, and risks of alternative actions. The chapter concludes with an explanation of routine activities theory, which stresses the idea that criminals balance the costs and benefits of committing crimes (pp. 77–79).

Contemporary theories
Largely due to its extreme and inflexible nature, classicism proved to be unrealistic in its assumption of the complete rationality of offenders as well as its unequivocal opposition to judicial discretion, and was, therefore, gradually bespoke by neoclassical thought (Brown, Esbensen & Geis 1991:242). • Definition Winfree and Abadinski (2003:23) define neoclassicism as an approach effectively maintaining the basic belief in free will while paving the way for the entry of mitigation (and subsequently aggravation) into criminal justice based on past criminal record, insanity, retardation, and age – punishment only being justified if the crime is the result of reas oned behaviour.

General premise

This school does not, however, represent any schism with the classical view of human nature, but merely challenges the classical position of absolute free will (Bartol 1995:12), subsequently developing rules to cope with extenuating circumstances where individuals could be deemed not to be totally responsible for their actions (White & Haines 2001:30). Bartol op. cit. maintains, furthermore, that neo-classicists specifically argue that free will can be inhibited by pathology, incompetence, mental disorder, or other conditions that may mitigate personal responsibility. Whereas “pure” classicists had maintained that humans are totally accountable for their actions, neo-classicists claim that this is not always the case. Neoclassical thought, according to Brown et al. (1991:229), introduced the following shifts in criminal policy, namely: q There was an identification of degrees in criminal responsibility. Juveniles and the mentally ill, for instance, were deemed incapable of forming intent to commit crime and were consequently absolved from responsibility. This shift from a focus on the harm inflicted to the intent of the offender represents the most important distinction between classical and neoclassical thought – a focus that has survived as a governing principle of western jurisprudence. q Neoclassicism excepts certain categories of persons from the assumption of free will, otherwise presumed in classical thought to dominate all human behaviour. It logically follows that if an individual does not exercise free will, punishment will be of no deterrent value. Neoclassical revisionism strengthened the premises of classicism with its pragmatic philosophy for administration of justice. q Closely related to the introduction of the idea of criminal intent, was a return of a limited degree of discretion to judges. If free will is not absolute, then providing for extenuating circumstances is understandable. Following this line of reasoning, criminal codes began to specify ranges of punishments. Neoclassical philosophy can according to Empey, Stafford and Hay (1999:234), be divided into three branches or groups, namely: q Utilitarian philosophers who believe that legal punishments serve two vital functions: (1) deterring persons from committing crimes and (2) protecting society from those whose acts threaten the social order. The proponents of this philosophy, which is basically deterrence theory, agree with positivists that people are not entirely rational, but hasten to add that this does not imply that they are undeterrable. They are of the opinion that deterrence depends on the likelihood and on the regularity of human responses to danger, and not on rationality. q Just deserts philosophers who, in contrast to utilitarians, question the utility of legal punishment as a means of deterring crime and advocate its use only because those who commit crimes deserve to be punished. They claim that the rehabilitative ideal is a vehicle for abuse and that the only alternative is to restrict its power and replace it with a system based on classical principles. In short, the just deserts model holds that criminal offenders deserve the punishment they receive at the hands of the law because they allowed themselves to be attracted to crime and chose to violate the law. Siegel (2001:140-141) and White and Haines (2001:31) in harmonising and supplementing the above sentiments, propose four basic principles, which essentially encapsulate notions of free will and rationality, as well as proportionality and equality, with regard to the just deserts approach, namely: ß No one other than a person found to be guilty of a crime must be punished for it. ß Anyone found to be guilty of a crime must be punished for that crime. ß Punishment must not be more than of a degree commensurate to or proportional to the nature or gravity of the offence and culpability of the criminal. ß Punishment must not be less than of a degree commensurate to or proportional to the nature or gravity of the offence and culpability of the criminal. Just deserts philosophy, therefore, eschews individual discretion and rehabilitation as aims of the criminal justice system. q Rational choice philosophers argue that the principles of classical criminology can do more than merely shed light on the appropriate legal reactions to crime. They can be used to construct scientific theories that explain such behaviour. As is abundantly clear from the above exposition, the distinction between the classical and neoclassical schools is at best obscure, and they, in essence, represent a continuum of free will based deterrence doctrine. As Einstadter and Henry (1995:43) aptly put it ‘[c]lassicism and neoclassical developments are based on a very different set of assumptions and offer a fundamentally more measured analysis of crime and justice, relying, as they do, on humans’ capacity for rational thought, rather than assuming an animal instinct of fear’. The contrast between these highly similar schools and positivistic criminology, however, rem ains very sharp

Contemporary contribution

The contributions of the early schools of criminological thought have been many and profound. Classicism and positivism have provided us with many theories of crime and criminal behavior, laying a foundation for the discipline of criminology and the related fields of criminal justice and penology. Most modern theories combine elements of both the classical and positivist perspectives. three modern examples are described in this section: rational choice theory, deterrence theory, and routine activities theory.

RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

For rational choice theorists, a criminal rationally chooses the crime to commit and the target of crime. A recent reformulation and integration of earlier classical and positivist theories is found in rational choice theory. Developed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke, rational choice theory focuses on the situational aspects of criminal behavior. Rational choice (or situational) theory stresses the point that society can achieve a high degree of crime prevention by focusing on the situational aspects that influence particular types of criminal behavior. According to rational choice theory, a criminal rationally chooses both the crime to commit and the target of the crime. The criminal, in other words, does not randomly select his or her target. Recently, some criminologists have categorized rational choice theory as a neoclassical theory, because of its focus on rationality and choice. Others, however, have argued that choice theory is a form of positivist theory, because it stresses empirical techniques to evaluate and reduce vulnerability to crime and does not focus on the dispensing of justice. Whatever position one maintains, rational choice theory is one of the integrated classical theories that have merged the classical and positivist perspectives to crime and crime prevention based on a person’s rationality and freedom of choice. An integrated theory is one in which two or more of the major criminological theories are used together in a new theoretical perspective. Choice theory stresses the idea that an individual’s ability to choose is merged with the empiricism of positivism, enabling criminologists to analyze and understand how one’s choices are influenced by situational factors. Further analysis of criminal behavior and crime control will demonstrate, many situational factors or opportunity factors (e.g., access control, entry and exit screening, surveillance, brighter streetlights, and home alarms) can be altered in order to deter criminal behavior

DETERRENCE THEORY
Deterrence theory stresses that an individual’s choice to commit or not commit a crime is influenced by the fear of punishment. Choice theory says that criminals are rational beings who evaluate available information to decide whether a crime is attractive and worthwhile. Deterrence theory, on the other hand, stresses the idea that an individual’s choice is influenced by the fear of punishment. Deterrence is the act of preventing a criminal act before it occurs, through the threat of punishment and sanctions. Rooted in the classical perspective, deterrence theory focuses on the following premises:
• For punishment to be a deterrent to criminal behavior, it must be certain, swift, and severe.
• The severity must be sufficient to outweigh any rewards that the criminal may obtain from a criminal act.
Deterrence is at the center of neoclassical thinking. Why are crime rates so high in the United States? Using the deterrence perspective, one could argue hypothetically that they are high because many criminals believe that many police officers will not make an arrest even if they are aware of a crime; therefore, there is only a small chance of being arrested for committing a particular crime. In addition, the perpetrator may believe that, even if arrested, there is a high probability of receiving a lenient punishment. How, then, can we reduce high rates of criminal behavior? From a deterrence perspective, crime rates should decline if there is an increase in the rates of arrest, conviction, and severity of punishment. Studies have indicated three significant findings, however:
1. Where there have been increases in police activity, crime rates are not necessarily reduced; nor are crime rates reduced by increasing the number of police in a community.
2. In a famous Kansas City, Missouri, police study, the absence or presence of police patrols did not affect the crime rates.
3. At times, high, intense, short-term, levels of police presence and intervention in a community may initially and temporarily deter crime and lower crime rates. However, once the intervention ends, crime rates return to previous levels.

Considering the relationship between deterrence and severity of punishment, can the threat or implementation of severe punishment reduce the crime rate? The research findings are mixed. Some studies report that increasingly tougher laws have a deterrent effect and lower crime rates; but other studies question this relationship.60 A recent study by the National Center for Policy Analysis examined the relationship between the probability of going to prison and various crime rates. For example, the study reported that as the probability of going to prison increased for the crimes of robbery and murder, the rates for these crimes significantly declined. The study concluded that there is a relationship between the probability of incarceration for a particular crime and a subsequent decline in the rate of that crime.61 Deterrence theory also includes the idea that forced retribution for a crime should reduce crime rates. Retribution is the notion that a wrongdoer should be forced to “pay back” or compensate for his or her criminal acts. During the 1970s and into the 1980s, there was a return to retributivism and the justice model. The justice model stresses the idea that offenders are responsible people and therefore deserve to be punished if they violate the law. Do criminal offenders deserve the punishment they receive from the laws and the courts? Should punishments be appropriate to the type and severity of the crime committed? These are questions central to the concept of “just deserts,” which is the pivotal basis of the justice model. Just deserts is a justice perspective according to which those who violate others’ rights deserve to be punished. The severity of the punishment should also be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. In addition to returning to the justice model, the United States in the 1970s and 1980s reverted to a utilitarian punishment philosophy to deal with crime. Utilitarianism in punishment is based on the assumption that punishment is necessary to protect society from crime and also to deter offenders, a subject that will be addressed below.

ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY
Routine activities theory stresses the idea that criminals balance the costs and benefits of committing crimes. Classical theorists explain crime as a rational course of action by offenders who seek to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Routine activities theory is a product of the classical approach. Routine activities theory (RAT) stresses the idea that criminals are not impulsive or unpredictable, because they balance the costs as well as benefits of committing crimes. In an analysis of crime and routine activities, Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson consider the trends in crime rates in terms of the changing routine activities of everyday life. RAT explains why crime and delinquency occur in particular places under specific conditions. It does this by focusing on the convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians against a violation. RAT assumes that 1. self-interest motivates criminal offenders to commit criminal acts; 2. many individuals may be motivated to break laws.

Suitable targets may be things that are valued (e.g., jewelry, cars, or cash) or people who, when assaulted, provide positive rewards or pleasure to the perpetrator. Guardians are defined as objects (e.g. gates, surveillance cameras, or burglar or auto alarms) or individuals (e.g., guards or police) who are capable of protecting possible targets or victims. To the offender, the presence of protective guardians raises crime costs and lessens target attractiveness.62 RAT studies focus on direct-contact predatory violations—illegal acts in which “someone definitely and intentionally takes or damages the person or property of another.”63 Focusing on crime events and not on criminal offenders themselves, RAT examines how structural changes in everyday activity patterns influence crime rates by affecting the convergence in time and space of three requisite conditions for a crime to occur. These three conditions include 1. a perpetrator; 2. a victim  and/or an object of property (criminal victimization increases when motivated offenders and targets converge); 3. a relationship or an opportunity (criminal victimization decreases with the presence of capable guardians). One way of examining routine activities theory is to focus on the locations where crimes are most likely to occur. Where, for example, would you expect the theft of textbooks to occur most often? The answer depends on the daily routine activities of typical victims and offenders, and their relationships. It stands to reason that textbook theft is most likely to occur on college campuses; the greater the availability of valuable texts to potential thieves, the greater the probability that such a crime will occur. For Cohen and Felson, criminality is a given. The concept of routine is derived from the fact that the elements of a criminal act merge together in normal, regular activities. RAT stresses the idea that there are plenty of motivated offenders in society and that it is important to focus on the prevention or deterrence of crime and not worry about the “nature of criminality.” If we are to reduce crime in America, the attractiveness of and/or accessibility to the target needs to be reduced.64 Routine activities theory, then, focuses on criminal events, not on offenders. RAT makes no attempt to account for why some individuals do offend but others do not.