Neoclassical School of thought (10):
Neo-classical school is a body of theory that contends that scientific
criminology (positivism), which is the belief in rehabilitation, is invalid.
According to this school of thought, society should return to the
principles of classical criminology and should deal with crime by
concentrating on the administration of justice and the punishment of
offenders.
The application of classical criminology during the eighth century
quickly revealed flaws in the idea of identical punishment for
identical crimes, and in the concepts of free will and rationality.
Disadvantages:
Social theorists discovered that aggravating or mitigating
circumstances sometimes meant that similar crimes differed in
significant ways.
Also, while the concept of free will was not abandoned, people
recognised that there were sometimes circumstances in which
freedom of choice was limited.
Likewise, under certain conditions, people did not always act
rationally.
Rationality might be constrained by factors such as poverty, insanity
or immaturity.
In fact, the classical theorists had completely ignored differences
between individuals. First offenders and repeat offenders were
treated exactly alike, solely based on the particular act that had
been committed. Children, the ‘‘feeble-minded’’ and the insane were
all treated as if they were fully rational and competent
The changes in classical criminology resulting from these
realisations developed into what became known as neoclassical
criminology.
Neo-classical school of thought:
According to neo-classicists, a person is still accountable for his or
her actions, but with certain minor reservations – it is acknowledged
that the offender’s past history and present situation both influence
the likelihood of reform.
Ordinary sane adults were still considered fully responsible for their
actions, and all equally capable of either criminal or law-abiding
behaviour.
It was now recognised, however, that children (and in some
circumstances the elderly) were less capable of exercising free
choice and were therefore less responsible for their actions.
Neo-classical school is a body of theory that contends that scientific
criminology (positivism), which is the belief in rehabilitation, is invalid.
According to this school of thought, society should return to the
principles of classical criminology and should deal with crime by
concentrating on the administration of justice and the punishment of
offenders.
The application of classical criminology during the eighth century
quickly revealed flaws in the idea of identical punishment for
identical crimes, and in the concepts of free will and rationality.
Disadvantages:
Social theorists discovered that aggravating or mitigating
circumstances sometimes meant that similar crimes differed in
significant ways.
Also, while the concept of free will was not abandoned, people
recognised that there were sometimes circumstances in which
freedom of choice was limited.
Likewise, under certain conditions, people did not always act
rationally.
Rationality might be constrained by factors such as poverty, insanity
or immaturity.
In fact, the classical theorists had completely ignored differences
between individuals. First offenders and repeat offenders were
treated exactly alike, solely based on the particular act that had
been committed. Children, the ‘‘feeble-minded’’ and the insane were
all treated as if they were fully rational and competent
The changes in classical criminology resulting from these
realisations developed into what became known as neoclassical
criminology.
Neo-classical school of thought:
According to neo-classicists, a person is still accountable for his or
her actions, but with certain minor reservations – it is acknowledged
that the offender’s past history and present situation both influence
the likelihood of reform.
Ordinary sane adults were still considered fully responsible for their
actions, and all equally capable of either criminal or law-abiding
behaviour.
It was now recognised, however, that children (and in some
circumstances the elderly) were less capable of exercising free
choice and were therefore less responsible for their actions.
