CMY3701 Explanation of Crime
The classical school
Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham
Human nature
People are self-interested, rational creatures (weigh up the advantages and disadvantages)
Able to make and act in accordance with personal choices (``free will'').
Emphasis on the individual offender as being capable of calculating what he or she wants to
do.
Sent to prison with a view to reform.
Develop their rational thought processes.
Conception of society or social order
Assumptions: Left to their own devices, people will follow their own selfish interests
Because people are rational creatures, they can see the advantages in giving up part of
their freedom, accepting a set of laws in exchange for protection of life and property from a
state. Social contract
Causes of crime
Pleasure or gain from the crime outweighs the pain of punishment
Some people make irrational decisions.
Behaviour is guided by hedonism (a pain- and-pleasure principle) by which potential
offenders calculate the risks and rewards involved in their actions.
The decision to commit crime was viewed as the consequence of a logical thought process.
Implications for Criminal justice should be subject to a strict rule of law (due process)
policy Punishments should be known, fixed and just severe enough to deter.
Judges' discretion should be minimised
Ensure that potential offenders were aware of the cost of committing crime.
Punishment should be suited to the offence, and not influenced by the social or physical
characteristics of the offender (intent was deemed irrelevant).
The harm which a particular criminal action did to society was the determining factor that
judged the appropriateness of punishment.
Criticism: Flaws in the idea of:
1. Identical punishment = Aggravating or mitigating circumstances = similar crimes differed in
significant ways.
2. Free will = Circumstances in which freedom of choice was limited.
3. Rationality = Under certain conditions, people did not always act rationally.
Completely ignored differences between individuals.
Developed into A person is still accountable for his or her actions, but acknowledged history and present
neoclassical situation.
criminology It was now recognised that children, elderly, insane and ``feeble-minded'' might be less
responsible.
Admitted into the courts non-legal ``experts''
Sentences became more individualised, depending on the perceived degree of
responsibility.
Central attributes of the classical and neoclassical schools:
1. Concentration on the criminal law and the legal definition of crime.
2. The punishment should fit the crime rather than the offender.
3. The doctrine of free will = all people are free to choose their actions. There is nothing
``different'' or ``special'' about offenders that differentiate them from other people.
4. The use of non-scientific methodology coupled with a lack of empirical research.
Neither school really tried to explain criminal behaviour.
Rational choice theories (opportunity theories)
,Routine activities theory
Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson.
Assumptions: Changes in the modern world = greater number of opportunities to commit crime.
Increase in the availability of crime targets and the absence of capable guardians as a result
of a change in our ``routine activities'' = how normal people live their lives.
When people are at home they function as guardians of their own property.
Homes are increasingly left unattended during the day = no capable guardians for an
extended and predictable time.
Increase in portable goods = attractive targets to thieves.
Contact with motivated offenders increase the opportunity for robbery and assault.
Decrease opportunities for offending, and crime will be reduced. Focus on aspects of the
environment that are most easily altered (e.g. burglar alarm).
There must be at the same time and place a perpetrator, a victim, and/or an object of
property.
More likely to occur if there are other persons that encourage the crime to happen.
Elements for victimisation:
The availability of suitable targets in the form of a person or property, VIVA:
1. Value: subjective rational perspective of the offender
2. Inertia: the extent to which the article or target can be removed
3. Visibility
4. Accessibility
The absence of capable guardians.
The presence of motivated offenders.
Evaluation Identify the environmental triggers that facilitate crime
Crime of place rather than a crime of person.
Provides insight into the issue of crime prevention
Managers and city planners can implement strategies in order to prevent crime (e.g.
increased surveillance; limiting pedestrian access; keeping schools visible to adults).
Criticism Ignores the offender
Cannot answer why some individuals are more motivated to commit crime
A tendency to blame the victim
Rational choice
Cornish and Clarke
Propositions Crimes are deliberate acts, committed with the intention of benefiting the offender.
Offenders try to make the best decisions they can, given the risks and uncertainty
involved.
Offender decision-making varies according to the nature of the crime.
Involvement decisions = becoming involved in particular kinds of crime
Event decisions = commission of a specific criminal act.
Involvement decisions stages:
1. Initiation: whether the person is ready to begin committing crime. (background
factors)
2. Habituation: continue to commit crime. (current circumstances)
3. Desistance: whether or not to stop. (current circumstances)
Event decisions involve a sequence of choices made at each stage of the criminal act
(preparation, target selection, commission of the act, escape, and aftermath).
Bounded There is always some degree of rationality in, although it may be limited – behaviour is
rationality rational, but bounded.
Limited in its understanding of possibilities, potentials and consequences.
All offenders think before they act, even if this is only momentary.
The choice process Stages:
, (This process 1. Initial involvement stage: decide whether they are willing to become involved in
exhibits a measure crime. Influenced by previous learning experiences (experiences with crime, contact
of rationality, with law enforcement, moral attitudes, self-perception, and the degree to which
although the they can plan ahead).
process may be 2. Adopt a crime-specific focus. Decide what offence they will commit. Influenced by
constrained by the individual's current situation. The individual must then select a target for the
limitations of time offence, and weigh the costs and benefits.
and ability and the Crime is regarded as ``deliberate''; it is never ``senseless''.
availability of Always has some anticipated or intended benefit.
relevant Decisions about committing an offence:
information) 1. Offenders know all the necessary facts about the risks, efforts and rewards of crime.
2. Criminal choices usually have to be made quickly and revised hastily.
3. Instead of planning their crimes, offenders might rely on a general approach and
then improvise.
4. Offenders tend to focus on the rewards of the crime rather than its risks.
Evaluation By studying how offenders make decisions, steps can be taken to reduce opportunities.
Changing certain aspects of the situations in which offences occur (e.g. installing burglar
alarms, guard dogs).
The focus is on making crime more difficult to commit or less profitable, so that it
becomes less attractive.
Criticism Offenders will be treated as though they were only rational decisionmakers.
The context that influences their decision is ignored (social context).
The positivist school
Assumptions Methods of science observation, experimentation, and comparison, and sought measurable
causes of criminal behaviour.
Character and personal backgrounds that explain criminal behaviour.
The focus of analysis is on the nature and characteristics of the offender, rather than on the
criminal act.
Scientific determinism= crime is seen as determined by prior causes; it does not ``just
happen''.
Reject the view that the individual is reasonable, exercises free will, and is capable of choice
(classical school)
The offender is seen as fundamentally different from the non-offender.
Offenders are driven into crime by something in their physical makeup, psychological
impulses, or the social environment.
Offenders can be scientifically studied, and the factors leading to their criminality can be
diagnosed, classified, and treated.
Treatment must be individualised.
Indeterminate sentences = length of time in custody should not depend on the nature of
the crime, but must take into account the diagnosis and classification of the offender as well
as the type of treatment.
Evaluation Contribution to the development of a scientific approach
Emphasised the importance of empirical research and developed the doctrine of
determinism.
Individuals were not responsible for their actions. Implied a total absence of free will and
the ability to control one's actions.
Deterministic causes of crime suggest that people are passive and controlled.
Criticism Fails to take account of human decision making, rationality and choice.
An emphasis on treatment and to avoid the whole issue of individual responsibility.
Research contained serious errors in its methodology
Biological positivism
The classical school
Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham
Human nature
People are self-interested, rational creatures (weigh up the advantages and disadvantages)
Able to make and act in accordance with personal choices (``free will'').
Emphasis on the individual offender as being capable of calculating what he or she wants to
do.
Sent to prison with a view to reform.
Develop their rational thought processes.
Conception of society or social order
Assumptions: Left to their own devices, people will follow their own selfish interests
Because people are rational creatures, they can see the advantages in giving up part of
their freedom, accepting a set of laws in exchange for protection of life and property from a
state. Social contract
Causes of crime
Pleasure or gain from the crime outweighs the pain of punishment
Some people make irrational decisions.
Behaviour is guided by hedonism (a pain- and-pleasure principle) by which potential
offenders calculate the risks and rewards involved in their actions.
The decision to commit crime was viewed as the consequence of a logical thought process.
Implications for Criminal justice should be subject to a strict rule of law (due process)
policy Punishments should be known, fixed and just severe enough to deter.
Judges' discretion should be minimised
Ensure that potential offenders were aware of the cost of committing crime.
Punishment should be suited to the offence, and not influenced by the social or physical
characteristics of the offender (intent was deemed irrelevant).
The harm which a particular criminal action did to society was the determining factor that
judged the appropriateness of punishment.
Criticism: Flaws in the idea of:
1. Identical punishment = Aggravating or mitigating circumstances = similar crimes differed in
significant ways.
2. Free will = Circumstances in which freedom of choice was limited.
3. Rationality = Under certain conditions, people did not always act rationally.
Completely ignored differences between individuals.
Developed into A person is still accountable for his or her actions, but acknowledged history and present
neoclassical situation.
criminology It was now recognised that children, elderly, insane and ``feeble-minded'' might be less
responsible.
Admitted into the courts non-legal ``experts''
Sentences became more individualised, depending on the perceived degree of
responsibility.
Central attributes of the classical and neoclassical schools:
1. Concentration on the criminal law and the legal definition of crime.
2. The punishment should fit the crime rather than the offender.
3. The doctrine of free will = all people are free to choose their actions. There is nothing
``different'' or ``special'' about offenders that differentiate them from other people.
4. The use of non-scientific methodology coupled with a lack of empirical research.
Neither school really tried to explain criminal behaviour.
Rational choice theories (opportunity theories)
,Routine activities theory
Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson.
Assumptions: Changes in the modern world = greater number of opportunities to commit crime.
Increase in the availability of crime targets and the absence of capable guardians as a result
of a change in our ``routine activities'' = how normal people live their lives.
When people are at home they function as guardians of their own property.
Homes are increasingly left unattended during the day = no capable guardians for an
extended and predictable time.
Increase in portable goods = attractive targets to thieves.
Contact with motivated offenders increase the opportunity for robbery and assault.
Decrease opportunities for offending, and crime will be reduced. Focus on aspects of the
environment that are most easily altered (e.g. burglar alarm).
There must be at the same time and place a perpetrator, a victim, and/or an object of
property.
More likely to occur if there are other persons that encourage the crime to happen.
Elements for victimisation:
The availability of suitable targets in the form of a person or property, VIVA:
1. Value: subjective rational perspective of the offender
2. Inertia: the extent to which the article or target can be removed
3. Visibility
4. Accessibility
The absence of capable guardians.
The presence of motivated offenders.
Evaluation Identify the environmental triggers that facilitate crime
Crime of place rather than a crime of person.
Provides insight into the issue of crime prevention
Managers and city planners can implement strategies in order to prevent crime (e.g.
increased surveillance; limiting pedestrian access; keeping schools visible to adults).
Criticism Ignores the offender
Cannot answer why some individuals are more motivated to commit crime
A tendency to blame the victim
Rational choice
Cornish and Clarke
Propositions Crimes are deliberate acts, committed with the intention of benefiting the offender.
Offenders try to make the best decisions they can, given the risks and uncertainty
involved.
Offender decision-making varies according to the nature of the crime.
Involvement decisions = becoming involved in particular kinds of crime
Event decisions = commission of a specific criminal act.
Involvement decisions stages:
1. Initiation: whether the person is ready to begin committing crime. (background
factors)
2. Habituation: continue to commit crime. (current circumstances)
3. Desistance: whether or not to stop. (current circumstances)
Event decisions involve a sequence of choices made at each stage of the criminal act
(preparation, target selection, commission of the act, escape, and aftermath).
Bounded There is always some degree of rationality in, although it may be limited – behaviour is
rationality rational, but bounded.
Limited in its understanding of possibilities, potentials and consequences.
All offenders think before they act, even if this is only momentary.
The choice process Stages:
, (This process 1. Initial involvement stage: decide whether they are willing to become involved in
exhibits a measure crime. Influenced by previous learning experiences (experiences with crime, contact
of rationality, with law enforcement, moral attitudes, self-perception, and the degree to which
although the they can plan ahead).
process may be 2. Adopt a crime-specific focus. Decide what offence they will commit. Influenced by
constrained by the individual's current situation. The individual must then select a target for the
limitations of time offence, and weigh the costs and benefits.
and ability and the Crime is regarded as ``deliberate''; it is never ``senseless''.
availability of Always has some anticipated or intended benefit.
relevant Decisions about committing an offence:
information) 1. Offenders know all the necessary facts about the risks, efforts and rewards of crime.
2. Criminal choices usually have to be made quickly and revised hastily.
3. Instead of planning their crimes, offenders might rely on a general approach and
then improvise.
4. Offenders tend to focus on the rewards of the crime rather than its risks.
Evaluation By studying how offenders make decisions, steps can be taken to reduce opportunities.
Changing certain aspects of the situations in which offences occur (e.g. installing burglar
alarms, guard dogs).
The focus is on making crime more difficult to commit or less profitable, so that it
becomes less attractive.
Criticism Offenders will be treated as though they were only rational decisionmakers.
The context that influences their decision is ignored (social context).
The positivist school
Assumptions Methods of science observation, experimentation, and comparison, and sought measurable
causes of criminal behaviour.
Character and personal backgrounds that explain criminal behaviour.
The focus of analysis is on the nature and characteristics of the offender, rather than on the
criminal act.
Scientific determinism= crime is seen as determined by prior causes; it does not ``just
happen''.
Reject the view that the individual is reasonable, exercises free will, and is capable of choice
(classical school)
The offender is seen as fundamentally different from the non-offender.
Offenders are driven into crime by something in their physical makeup, psychological
impulses, or the social environment.
Offenders can be scientifically studied, and the factors leading to their criminality can be
diagnosed, classified, and treated.
Treatment must be individualised.
Indeterminate sentences = length of time in custody should not depend on the nature of
the crime, but must take into account the diagnosis and classification of the offender as well
as the type of treatment.
Evaluation Contribution to the development of a scientific approach
Emphasised the importance of empirical research and developed the doctrine of
determinism.
Individuals were not responsible for their actions. Implied a total absence of free will and
the ability to control one's actions.
Deterministic causes of crime suggest that people are passive and controlled.
Criticism Fails to take account of human decision making, rationality and choice.
An emphasis on treatment and to avoid the whole issue of individual responsibility.
Research contained serious errors in its methodology
Biological positivism
