neoclassical criminology essay

2.8 The Neoclassical School of Criminological Theory

Brandon Hamann

Classical ideology was the dominant paradigm for over a century, but it was eventually replaced by positivist approaches that seek to identify causes of criminal behavior. However, classical ideology had a resurgence during the 1970s in the United States. Neoclassical theory recognizes people experience punishments differently, and a person’s environment, psychology, and other conditions can contribute to crime as well. Therefore, crime is a choice based on context. Many crime-prevention efforts used classical and neoclassical premises to focus on “what works” in preventing crime instead of focusing on why people commit criminal acts. While the Classical School saw punishment as a means to an end regarding criminal behavior, Neoclassical theory saw punishment more as a deterrent to future crime, using it to prevent more than to punish. Through the development of specific policies – which will be covered in a later section – Neoclassical theorists sought to change behavior through laws and sanctions (Fedorek, 2019).

Drs. Cornish and Clarke [1] (1986) proposed a theory of causation that took a risk/reward approach to criminal behavior. They claimed that offenders “rationally” calculated the costs and benefits of their actions, and if the rewards outweigh the risk, then a crime would most certainly be committed. They didn’t propose that all criminals were thinking rationally or that they were at all rational individuals outright – criminals aren’t having philosophical debates over the moral and ethical complexities of their actions –  but if the situation presented itself, and the circumstances were right, then the probability of a criminal act were much higher.

Cohen and Felson [2] (1979) claimed that changes in modern society and environment made it easier for crime to take place. Since the conclusion of World War II, more people had entered the workforce, and more people spent time away from home. This meant that more and more people became accustomed to the routine of their lives doing menial tasks in the view of the public eye (running errands, paying bills, making groceries, fueling the car, etc.). Cohen and Felson stated that three things must converge in time and space for a crime to be committed – a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. In theory, the activities of our routines make us more prone to being the victim of a criminal act.

• Cornish and Clarke (1986) – proposed a theory of causation based on Rational Choice and risk/reward. ↵
• Cohen and Felson (1979) – proposed a theory of causation based on the routine of people as changes in modern society forced them out of their private lives and into the public view. ↵

2.8 The Neoclassical School of Criminological Theory Copyright © 2024 by Brandon Hamann is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

5.4 Neoclassical

Classical ideology was the dominant paradigm for over a century. But it was eventually replaced by positivist approaches that seek to identify causes of criminal behavior, which you will learn about in the next section. However, classical ideology had a resurgence during the 1970s in the United States that is called neoclassical theory. Neoclassical theory recognizes people experience punishments differently and that a person’s environment, psychology, and other conditions can contribute to crime as well. In neoclassical theory, crime is a choice based on context. Many crime-prevention efforts used classical and neoclassical premises to focus on “what works” in preventing crime instead of focusing on why people commit criminal acts.

5.4.1 Activity: In the News: Oregon Measure 11 Example

In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, which established mandatory minimum sentencing for several serious crimes. Besides removing the judge’s ability to give a lesser sentence, Measure 11 prohibited prisoners from reducing their sentence through good behavior. Additionally, any defendant 15 years old or older who was accused of a Measure 11 offense was automatically tried as an adult. Recently, the Oregon Justice Resource Center reported the effects of Measure 11 on juveniles, especially minorities and many groups are actively working to reform Measure 11. Below are links to the news article and the report itself.

• The Oregonian – “New Report Calls Measure 11 Sentences for Juveniles ‘Harsh and Costly’” .
• Oregon Justice Resource Center’s Report Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon: Impacts of Mandatory Minimums .

Activity: Measure 11 Exercise

After reading the above box and hyperlinks, please explain why many juveniles are not deterred from committing serious crimes in Oregon.

5.4.2 Rational Choice Theory

Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke (1986) proposed Rational Choice Theory to explain criminals’ behavior. They claimed offenders rationally calculate costs and benefits before committing crime and assume people want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The theory does not explain motivation, but instead it expects some people will always commit a crime when given the opportunity. They do not assume offenders are entirely rational, but they do have bounded rationality, which means that offenders must make a decision in a timely fashion with the information at hand before committing a crime. For example, if you were walking down a street and noticed an open window in a parked car, you may contemplate looking in. If you saw something inside, you may then consider stealing it. An entirely rational person may look around to see if there are any witnesses, try to determine if the owner is coming back soon, and so on. You may wait until nightfall. However, you may miss your opportunity. Thus, you need to make a quick decision with the relevant facts at that time.

That was an example of a “crime-specific” model, which is a model where all crimes have different techniques and opportunities. This model assumes that all crime is purposeful with the intention to benefit the offender. To dissuade offenders, Rational Choice Theory emphasized the significance of informal sanctions and moral costs. The theory advocates for a situational crime prevention approach by reducing opportunities. Reducing opportunities is much easier to manipulate and change compared to changing society, culture, or individuals. Ultimately, situational crime prevention strategies try to make crime a less attractive choice.

5.4.3 Routine Activity Theory

Another neoclassical theory is Routine Activity Theory , which was developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979. It claims that changes in the modern world have provided more opportunities for offenders to commit crime. Routine Activity Theory says that three things must converge in time and space for a crime to be committed. They include a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian.

Figure 5.3. A diagram showing Routine Activity Theory in which the convergence of each of the three concepts: a likely (motivated) offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian, within the same time and space creates an opportunity for a crime to be committed.

The motivated offender is considered to be a given as there will always be people who will seize opportunities to commit criminal offenses. Besides, there are a variety of theories to explain why people commit a crime. Suitable targets can be vacant houses, parked cars, a person, or any item. In reality, almost anything can be a suitable target. Finally, the absence of a capable guardian facilitates the criminal event. What can serve as a capable guardian? A plethora of people and things can serve as a guardian. For example, police officers, security guards, a dog, being at home, or even increased lighting to allow other people to see. Other examples are: security cameras, alarm systems, and deadbolt locks which can each reduce opportunities by serving as a capable guardian. Routine Activity Theory concentrates on the criminal event instead of the criminal offender.

5.4.4 Licenses and Attributions for Neoclassical

Figure 5.3. Routine Activity Theory is licensed under the CC BY SA-3.0 .

“Neoclassical” by Sam Arungwa, Megan Gonzalez, and Trudi Radtke is adapted from “ 5.5. Neoclassical ” by Brian Fedorek in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 . Edited for style, consistency, recency, and brevity.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System Copyright © by Sam Arungwa. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

• Annotated Bibliography
• Argumentative
• Book Reviews
• Case Studies
• Communication and Media
• Computer Technologies
• Consideration
• Environment
• Explanation
• Informative
• Personal Experience
• Research Proposals

Classical and Neoclassical Theory on Criminology

The classical and neoclassical schools of thought came into rise in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century following the enlightenment move that acted as a liberating force in the western world. The enlightenment thinkers came up with principles that acted as foundations for the American and French revolutions (Schmalleger, 2002).

The classical theory of criminology has its origin in the 18 th century, a time in history when punishment for crime was severe and very intense. The philosophers of the classical school believed that people should be free to choose on how to act, secondly, avoidance is based upon the idea that human being is a hedonist who seeks delight and tries by all means to avoid pain and keeps weighing the consequences of his actions. The third assumption is that punishment can prevent people from committing crimes since the costs of crimes are more than its benefits. The fourth believe is that the more rapid is the punishment, the more effective it is in preventing people from committing the crimes that are associated with that particular punishment (Curran, & Renzetti, 2001).

Let’s find out together!

The neo-classical view on crime was that since crime and recidivism (tendency to repeat the crime after the punishment) are thought to be a problem, the initial political reaction should be to increase policing, stiffen the penalties and increase the monitoring and supervision of those who have been from the punishment centers such as the prison. This is because the main reason was to prevent the commitment of crimes and that failed, what can be done to keep the society safe for a long time is to lock the criminals in prisons (Schmalleger, 2002).

How the concepts are applied in contemporary criminology

With their main idea being the use of punishment to deter people from committing crimes, this concept is also being applied in contemporary criminology. Different countries have adopted different methods of dealing with criminals. These methods include use of prisons and rehabilitation centers in order to help in correcting the behavior of these criminals (Berger, Free, & Searles, 2001).

You can use our chat service now for more immediate answers. Contact us anytime to discuss the details of the order

For example, once one is caught committing a crime, he is charged in the courts of law and imprisoned. When one is in prison, he is denied of all the freedom that is required under normal circumstances. In some prisons, the criminals are beaten and subjected to harsh conditions as a means of punishing them for the crimes that have committed. This therefore prevents them from committing such a crime once one is set free. Another example is where punishment is given depending on the severity of the crime. Most of the justice systems have punishments ranging from small fines to death sentence depending on the severity of the crime (Reid, 1997). The contemporary justice system has adopted these theories to enable them understand human behavior and know how to deal with it.

The central point of view of classical criminology

The main point of view in the classical criminology was that since human beings are rational, they commit crimes knowing sin their efforts to search for pleasure or to avoid pain.  Therefore the most effective method of preventing human beings from committing crimes is by punishing them.

This theory supports a social responsibility where the neoclassical say that to keep the society safe, the criminals must be locked in the prisons. It is therefore the social responsibility of the justice system to act on behalf of those who have been wronged and to protect the society by locking up the criminals in the prisons.  However the main limitation of the classical thought of criminology is that it assumes that all criminals are rational. It dies not put into consideration the insane people who commit crimes and that may also not be aware when being subjected to punishment. Such people may repeat the crimes even after undergoing the punishment (Vito, Maahs, & Holmes, 2006).  

Another limitation is on the idea of giving a punishment depending on the severity of the crimes committed.  This may not help in ending the behavior completely since human beings, considering the fact that they area rational and seeking pleasure, will make choice between acts with heavy punishment and those with the light ones.

Calculate the Price of Your Paper

Related essays

• Criminal Justice Application
• Criminal Justice Discussion
• Lifetime Appointment of the Supreme Court
• Juvenile Delinquecy

Along with the first order offer - 15% discount (with the code "MY15") , you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Classical, Neo-Classical, & Positivist Schools of Criminology Criminology

Related Papers

Marley Latif

The term criminology is difficult to define because there are several ways of looking at it, depending on the background of the person defining it: ...knowledge concerning the etiology, prevention, control and treatment of crime and delinquency. This includes the measurement and detection of crime, legislation and practice of criminal law, as well as the law enforcement, judicial and correctional systems. In this broad sense, criminology could also be called criminal justice theory in a narrower sense; several academic disciplines look at it differently, usually with a specific focus on the theories and methods of the specific discipline. The most common specific definition of criminology comes to us from sociology. We can gather the importance (and dominance) of sociology within criminology from the preface of Williams and McShane's (2004) popular text, Criminological Theory: While there are other approaches to the study of crime, since the 1920s criminology has been oriented toward sociology. There are, however, some comments on biological and psychological theories of crime... The basis of all criminology, regardless of discipline, is the use of a systematic way of thinking. Systematic thinking occurred long before modern sociology, and those early thinkers thought about crime. This means that some very early thinkers (e.g., Aristotle, Plato, Cicero) must be taken into account if a complete picture is to be drawn. The study of various ways of systematically thinking about the description, prediction, explanation, and control of crime.

AISOKHINA I S

The pattern of understanding of crime and criminals has been address as criminology, yet recent research and scholarly has depict criminology to be the scientific study of crime, this paper is therefore aimed at ovulating the concept of criminology from its genesis to date, further to draw a lucid conclusion as what is and what is not criminology; to aid researchers, scholars and students in the growing field of criminology, criminal justice etc.

Teresa Clyne

Crime and criminology have been at the forefront of hot debates and heated discussion amongst the opposing bodies that in their search for the meaning of the word criminology, these debates have branched into distinct and opposing theorists of what is crime and criminology. Theoretical criminology can be explained as the internal individual personal explanation which is based on social and cultural interpretation of criminality. Criminologists study the criminal actions of offenders; these actions are defined by law as “criminal”, as opposed to the legal and moral discourses which are set forward in sociology, and concern itself more with deviance and control in society.

Brendan Dooley

What is the condition of criminology’s paradigm? The reply to this question has implications bearing on the profession’s bona fides as a science as well as its sustainability as an independent academic enterprise. The work attempts to capture the elusive term through the use of five themes: theoretical consensus, methodological consensus, boundaries, the departure from sociology, and the current and future status of the field. In approaching this question the work presents an analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen renowned criminologists. The centerpiece of the latter data set was assembled and analyzed in prior research (Savelsberg et al. 2002). A content analysis of 2,109 peer reviewed articles appearing in the field’s top journals from 1951 to 2008 produced numerous findings. Criminology lacks a hegemonic theoretical orientation but a consensus is evident in the peer-reviewed publication data in terms of its me...

Munir Mughal

This paper tells Rational actor model of crime and criminal behaviour is based on the notion of free will, it proposes that human beings choose to commit criminal behaviour and can be deterred through the threat of punishment. Biological Approach: It proposes that human beings commit crime because of internal factors over which they have little or no control. Causal Approach: This is a study of the causal link that exists between the defendant’s action and the plaintiff’s injury. It is observation of facts in relation to phenomenon of crime interpreting them in relation to the possible causes of criminal behaviour. A cause may be necessary or sufficient. If result B invariably follows cause A without any other factors being required, and cause A cannot be replaced by any other alternative, then cause A is both sufficient and necessary cause. Deficient in Probity Approach: The criminals deficient in probity, says Dr. Maurice Parmellee, commit crimes against property. Descriptive Approach: It describes the phenomenon of crime and those who commit it. It covers all aspects such as personal traits of criminal and the various forms of criminal behaviour. Organically Inferior human traits Approach: This study was carried by Eavert A. Hootan and William H. Sheldon. Hootan stated that criminals are organically inferior. Hootan had studied 13,873 male criminals and 3023 persons of control group. The study was conducted in various American States. To Hootan the criminal is and inadequately developed runty fellow, while to Sheldon the criminal is husky and athletic type fellow. Economic Approach: It studies external economic factors. Endemic Approach: It studies those factors that arise from local conditions or belong to a particular period of the year, or the specified area that make a man criminal. Environmental Approach: It seeks to explain the phenomenon of criminal behaviour with reference to factors outside the personality of the delinquent. Functional Psychosis Approach: As to mental quality an offender is either normal or abnormal. The Psychotics are of two types, having psychosis of organic origin and having psychosis of non psychosis origin or functional psychosis. General paralysis of the insane (Patients of this abnormality commit offences with astonishing openness and silliness); Traumatic psychosis (Patients of this abnormality commit crimes of violence); Encephalitis Lethargic (Patients of this abnormality commit crimes of explosive and sexual nature); Senile Dementia (patients of this abnormality are of old age and commit varying crimes); Epilepsy (Patients of such abnormality commit crimes of sudden violence). Schizophrenia (Patients of this abnormality suffer split-mindedness. Geographical Approach: George B, Vold’s Approach: In his famous treatise known as Theoretical Criminology, George Bryan Vold, says: Heredity and Criminal Families Approach: Studies were conducted by Arthur Dugdale in the United States of America on the Jukes (1877) and by Henry Herbert Goddard on the Killikaks (1912). Individualistic Approach: It focuses its attention on the biological, mental and other characteristics of the offender to explain the cause of his delinquent behaviour. Professor Ahmad Siddiq’s conclusion on individualistic approaches is logical and appealing to reason. Normative Approach: Objective Approach: It is an approach to criminology as to “what ought to be?” Objective Approach: Criminal behaviour when explained in terms of factors extraneous to the offender which are social, sociological, cultural and economic, the approach is called objective. Organic Psychosis Approach: General paralysis of the insane (Patients of this abnormality commit offences with astonishing openness and silliness); Traumatic psychosis (Patients of this abnormality commit crimes of violence); Encephalitis Lethargica (Patients of this abnormality commit crimes of explosive and sexual nature); Senile Dementia (patients of this abnormality are of old age and commit varying crimes); Epilepsy (Patients of such abnormality commit crimes of sudden violence). Physiological Approach: It is an approach to criminology made by endocrinologists who found that glandular malfunctioning caused the delinquent behaviour. Social Approach: Man may live in isolation but generally he lives in society. Subjective Approach: Criminal behaviour when explained in terms of factors within criminal, i.e. physical, biological and mental traits, the approach is called subjective approach to Criminology. Therapeutic Approach: This approach is of recent origin. It considers the criminal as a victim of circumstances and a product of various factors within the criminal and the society. It is called therapeutic approach. Twin Research Approach: Violent due to environmental influences as prejudices of honour, politics and religion, approach.

Irfan Iftekhar

Critically Compare and Contrast How Two Theories Would Differently Explain a Contemporary Crime Problem of Your Choice

Klara Kerezsi

Summary The author outlines the theoretical and practical relationships between science and jurisdiction. Based on possible consonance or lack of consonance between criminology and criminal jurisdiction the author traces different models. Criminology had a fundamental impact on the criminal justice system and the law reforms proved that scientific results could be transformed into legislation. The paper examines the course of historical development: how, when and why exactly in the given moment of history did criminology and other disciplines interact with each other, and how they shaped criminal policy and the system of crime control. When societal sensitivity towards crime and criminality changed, crime control took a new direction and admitted knowledge from other fields of disciplines than before. Promising scientific results were transmitted to the political sphere by criminology in the first half of the 20th century. Lately the strong ties between sci-ence and policy weakened as the need decreased for scientifically grounded findings regarding perpetrators. In the beginning of the 21st century criminology is expressly facing with the fact that crime policy is able to free itself from the system of reacting to causal interconnections of crime, and crime control can be considered as a purely political or technical issue as well. The relationship of criminology and criminal jurisdiction changed with the appearance of high technology, and the „technique” of crime management gained a central place in crime control. The governmental expectations in crime management have dramatically changed, because instead of the questions in most countries instead of „why” and „what” the question of „how” has become the most important one in most countries. International experi-ences also show that legislators are increasingly using the means of limiting the discretionary powers of law enforcement. They are gradually „taking back” the power to define the content of punishment from professionals, and the influence of social science expertise is gradually decreasing in the system of crime management. The author warns that criminologists can easily find themselves in the role of a „crime management assistant worker”, and from his expertise the political stakeholders will only require elements of technical nature.

Hannan AL-Imara

RELATED PAPERS

Neuroscience

Yasuo Sakuma

arXiv: Information Theory

Adelaida Caro Martín

Catarina Braga

Akit Clio elbűvölt : In honorem Romsics Ignác

Sándor Gebei

Larissa Taboada

Fennia: International Journal of Geography

Markku Tykkyläinen

Aftoni Sutanto

Annals of Translational Medicine

BAMBANG PUDJOATMODJO

Siti Samahani Suradi

Revista Cientifica E Curriculum Issn 1809 3876

Sandra Zakia

Journal of Applied Microbiology

John Walakira

Value in Health

Andrea Olea

History Studies International Journal of History

Rahmat Herianto

Statistics in medicine

Fernando Díez

International Journal of Computer Applications

carlos Ramos

Noviyanti Putri rahayu

Ronald W Yeung

arXiv (Cornell University)

Jose Luis Vivero

Mark Van Der Laan

Journal of Psychiatric Research

Bryna Siegel

tesfay atsbha

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Social Issues

Classical Vs. Neoclassical Theories Of Criminality Essay Sample

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Social Issues , Education , Students , Crime , Criminal Justice , Punishment , Theory , Thinking

Published: 01/25/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Classical Vs. Neoclassical Theories of Criminality

The classical school of criminology obtains its fundamental ideas from the “period of enlightenment.” This occurrence took place at the beginning of the eighteenth century in France. The main contributors to the classical school of criminal thought were Cesare Beccaria (an Italian) and Jeremy Bentham (an Englishman). The neoclassical school of thought on the other hand is a continuation of the classical school of thought. It subscribes to modern theories of criminology such as social control theory, drift theory as well as the classical school theory of rational choice. This paper will compare and contrast the two schools of thoughts with regard to the rational choice theory. According to Cesare, criminals are capable of rational thought and therefore they are able to make rational choices. That is, criminals make a choice to commit crime and any other actions they may take that are contrary to the law. Bearing this in mind, he proposes that the only way to deter such offences is by threat of punishment. This solution stems from the classical belief that humans are rational and hedonistic. That is they are capable of free will and that they seek to maximize pleasure and reduce pain. Fear controls human behavior, therefore a threat to inflict pain through punishment will prevent criminals from choosing to commit crime. In order to deter crimes effectively, Cesare acknowledges that the punishment should fit the crime. The cost of punishment should outweigh the benefits of the offence. Justice through administration of punishment should be prompt and certain to serve its usefulness/utilitarianism (Akers, 1990). As opposed to the neoclassical school of thought, classical school of thought argues that one is responsible for his action and therefore mitigating circumstances are inadmissible. Even though the neoclassical school of thought ascribes to the rationale choice theory and recognizes the need for punishment to deter crimes, it also acknowledges that punishment is only a tool in deterring crimes and not a means to its end. This is because humans do not always act rationally and on the other hand, not all of them are hedonistic and selfish. Following the classical approach to administering justice might lead to punishment of innocent people. Unlike the classical thought, the neoclassical school of thought recognizes other means of deterring crimes. They include socialization where fear of losing a social status, job, or recognition may deter one from committing offences. It therefore supports deterrent measures such as paroles, house sentencing, and rehabilitation. The drift theory that the neoclassical thought ascribes to is similar to the socialization theory. It explains that kids with fewer stakes in the society are most likely to drift and commit crimes. Incorporating them into the social system will serve as a preventive measure to deter them from committing crimes simply because they have nothing to lose (Gottfredson, 1990). In conclusion, the combined use neoclassical and the classical school of thoughts in the criminal justice system will serve better in administering justice. The use of punishment to deter crimes as well as recognizing the fact that apart from internal or rational choice, external circumstances may lead to commitment of an offence will serve more efficiently in administration of justice. Application of both theories creates a synergy and fairness in criminal justice.

Akers, R. L. (1990). "Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory: The Path Not Taken". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Gottfredson, M. &. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Starnford: CA: Stanford University Press.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1218

This paper is created by writer with

ID 276525299

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Dishonesty creative writings, professionalism creative writings, fat creative writings, greece creative writings, sexism creative writings, reflection creative writings, problem solving creative writings, adulthood creative writings, perception creative writings, conflict creative writings, borrowing argumentative essays, generalization argumentative essays, individuality argumentative essays, dominance argumentative essays, glass ceiling argumentative essays, oligarchy argumentative essays, monarch argumentative essays, school year argumentative essays, feminist argumentative essays, sculpting essays, trafficker essays, backpack essays, suffocation essays, overcharge essays, progressivism argumentative essay examples, example of an event that changed my life essay, example of implication of biofuel production on economics of food crops research paper, example of global business essay, action memorandum report examples, essay on special topics 2, the common law background of the fourth amendment essay sample, cloud computing presents several benefits to organizations looking to streamline essay example, a biographical survey of william faulkner essay sample, example of white teeth essay, physical science article review example, research paper on ge ceos immediate and present leadership styles, research paper on how globalization affect culture economy and education in future, example of essay on urls and usability in business, example of essay on strategic concepts, information system course work sample, human resource issues handled in this culture essay, seeing the value in art article review examples.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Classical Criminology

27. May 2019 | zuletzt aktualisiert am 18. April 2022 von Christian Wickert

Classical Criminology sees criminal action as the result of free and rational decisions of the acting individuals.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Main proponents

Cesare Beccaria , John Howard , Jeremy Bentham , Samuel Romilly, John Anselm von Feuerbach, Sir Robert Peel, Samuel Pufendorf u.a.

Classical crime theory, especially according to Beccaria, is based on the assumption that people are free of will and thus completely responsible for their own actions, and that they also have the ability to rationally weigh up their abilities. Crime is therefore the result of free and rational decisions of the acting individuals.

Although social conditions are also mentioned as causes of crime in the classical period, Beccaria and others are more interested in the crime than in the perpetrator. This is due to the idea of equality of all human beings, as well as to the fact that any social (or at the beginning of the classical period also supernatural) circumstances can be met equally, which means that only the deed itself distinguishes the criminals from the non-criminals.

Implications for Criminal Policy

The central demand of the classical school of criminolgy is the proportionality of the sanctions to its preceding crimes. According to Beccaria, the level of punishment must be based on the damage caused. The arbitrary use of justice and overly harsh and inappropriate punishments should be rejected. It is necessary to introduce clear, legal and equal rules for everyone with regard to punishment and the severity of penalties, which should not be based on the person committing the crime but only on the act itself. Therefore, for the same crimes, there must be consistently the same penalties, which in turn must be strictly bound to the written, precise definitions of the various crimes and their corresponding criminal regulations.

The call for punishment and less cruelty came not only from Beccaria. Romilly opposed the arbitrary imposition of harsh and disproportionate punishments, Peel called for the necessary secularization and rationalization of criminal law, Feuerbach advocated the abolition of torture, Pufendorf introduced the concept of human dignity into criminal law, and Howard achieved prison reforms that took into account the health and hygiene of prisoners.

Almost all criminologists from his time period also called for the more or less extensive abolition of the death penalty. However, Beccaria and other authors referred above all to the often disproportionate nature of this sanction to their crime. Many people were then executed for less serious crimes or even killed unjustly. Beccaria wanted to fight this grievance.

However, a stance which in principle is opposed to the death penalty – as it now prevails in many countries, particularly in Europe – cannot be associated with the classical school of criminology, even though they have often been interpreted in this way in the past. After all, Romilly, Feuerbach and Beccaria referred to offences that would still be eligible for the death penalty.

This phenomenon can be explained by the demand for the preventive effect of criminal law, which emerged at the time. According to Beccaria, punishment may only be used if and when it serves to prevent crime. Since man is seen as a free and responsible being, deterrence is the only imaginable form of crime prevention.

The first consequence of this is that secret trials must be abolished and court proceedings accelerated in order to discourage the apparently high level of crime investigation and effective suspension of justice. It also follows, however, that certain particularly serious crimes must continue to be punishable by the death penalty in order to comply with the requirements of proportionality and prevention.

However, Beccaria stresses that the vast majority of criminal offences should be punishable by imprisonment, since too frequent use of the death penalty leads to brutalisation of society and therefore no longer has a deterrent effect.

The deterrence hypothesis on the one hand and the underlying assumption of human rationality and responsibility on the other are also reflected in Bentham’s idea of the Panoptikum, a prison in which the inmates, due to the construction of the building, are at all times under the visual surveillance of the guards or must assume that this is the case. According to the tradition of classical criminology, Bentham assumes that this form of constant surveillance must lead to a conformist way of life for the prisoners within the walls, since it would be extremely irrational to behave criminally in the conscious presence of a guard. Even more than Beccaria, Bentham can be seen here as the implicit precursor of the ‘Rational Choice’.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

It is certainly problematic that the question of the phenomenon of “crime” in the classical period was probably still a by-product of the political and literary handling of punishment and justice. There was no such thing as a specially developed classical theory of crime. The classical theory of crime is rather a summary of the mostly political ideas of Beccaria and his contemporaries, presented and interpreted in retrospect by recipients. Thus there are quite a few who date not classical but positivist criminology as the actual beginning of today’s criminology, since there the subject of “crime” is clearly outlined.

However, the significance of Beccaria and classical criminology (in addition to their influences on crime policy) can be justified above all by their diverse current perceptions (rational choice, deterrence, routine activity approach). Thus, the classical school is not only the oldest school, but probably also the most constant, whose relevance is repeatedly confirmed in neoclassical studies.

In terms of content, classical theory weakens the incompatibility of the assumptions that although people are free and responsible for their actions, they are at the same time subject to (supernatural, later social) causes that lead to their deviant behaviour. However, this contradiction is again due to the fact that Beccaria and Co. did not pursue a coherent crime theory, but tried to justify their political and criminal demands theoretically. On the one hand, it was necessary to mention society as the focus of criminal activities in order to achieve a certain understanding of the perpetrator and thus a renunciation of excessively harsh punishments (this was also associated with criticism of the judges and the judicial proceedings). On the other hand, the emphasis on the equality and freedom of all human beings was also important in order to underline the utilitarian and enlightenment thought prevailing at that time and to establish it in criminal law.

A theory-related critique can therefore be better carried out on the basis of deterrent and rational electoral theories .

• Cesare Beccaria (1764): Dei delitti e delle pene
• Cesare Beccaria (1819): On Crime and Punishment
• Jeremy Bentham (1787): Panopticon or the Inspection-house . In: The Panopticon Writings. Hrsg. von Miran Bozovic. London/New York, 1995.
• teilen  
• E-Mail  

About SozTheo

SozTheo is a collection of information and resources aimed at all readers interested in sociology and criminology. SozTheo was created as a private page by Prof. Dr. Christian Wickert , lecturer in sociology and criminology at the University of Applied Sciences for Police and Public Administration in North Rhine-Westphalia (HSPV NRW). The contributions and linked articles available here do not necessarily reflect the official opinion, attitude or curricula of the HSPV NRW.

Impressum & Kontakt

Partnerseiten.

Criminologia – Kriminologie-Blog

Spread the word

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024

Conference Dates: (In person) 9 December - 15 December, 2024

Homepage: https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/

Call For Papers 

Author notification: Sep 25, 2024

Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE

Submit at: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference  

The site will start accepting submissions on Apr 22, 2024 

Subscribe to these and other dates on the 2024 dates page .

The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024) is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together researchers in machine learning, neuroscience, statistics, optimization, computer vision, natural language processing, life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and other adjacent fields. We invite submissions presenting new and original research on topics including but not limited to the following:

• Applications (e.g., vision, language, speech and audio, Creative AI)
• Deep learning (e.g., architectures, generative models, optimization for deep networks, foundation models, LLMs)
• Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)
• General machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, online, active, etc.)
• Infrastructure (e.g., libraries, improved implementation and scalability, distributed solutions)
• Machine learning for sciences (e.g. climate, health, life sciences, physics, social sciences)
• Neuroscience and cognitive science (e.g., neural coding, brain-computer interfaces)
• Optimization (e.g., convex and non-convex, stochastic, robust)
• Probabilistic methods (e.g., variational inference, causal inference, Gaussian processes)
• Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)
• Social and economic aspects of machine learning (e.g., fairness, interpretability, human-AI interaction, privacy, safety, strategic behavior)
• Theory (e.g., control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)

Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field, and so we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that do not fit neatly into existing categories.

Authors are asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the NeurIPS code of conduct .

Formatting instructions:   All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this order:

• The submitted paper
• Technical appendices that support the paper with additional proofs, derivations, or results 
• The NeurIPS paper checklist  

Other supplementary materials such as data and code can be uploaded as a ZIP file

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages , including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references don’t count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version.

The main text and references may be followed by technical appendices, for which there is no page limit.

The maximum file size for a full submission, which includes technical appendices, is 50MB.

Authors are encouraged to submit a separate ZIP file that contains further supplementary material like data or source code, when applicable.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2024 LaTeX style file which includes a “preprint” option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requiremhttps://www.overleaf.com/read/kcffhyrygkqc#85f742ents, as described in this document. 

Paper checklist: In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist . The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Supplementary material: While all technical appendices should be included as part of the main paper submission PDF, authors may submit up to 100MB of supplementary material, such as data, or source code in a ZIP format. Supplementary material should be material created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. Like submissions, supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

We encourage authors to upload their code and data as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in mind two important criteria. First, we expect papers to fully describe their methodology, and any tool that is important to that methodology, including the use of LLMs, should be described also. For example, authors should mention tools (including LLMs) that were used for data processing or filtering, visualization, facilitating or running experiments, and proving theorems. It may also be advisable to describe the use of LLMs in implementing the method (if this corresponds to an important, original, or non-standard component of the approach). Second, authors are responsible for the entire content of the paper, including all text and figures, so while authors are welcome to use any tool they wish for writing the paper, they must ensure that all text is correct and original.

Double-blind reviewing:   All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy.  This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code.  If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing.  Please do not include acknowledgements at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing.  For instance, write “In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…” rather than “In our previous work [1]...”). If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write “Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...”). Any papers found to be violating this policy will be rejected.

OpenReview: We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/ . This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Wei_Zhang1. The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see FAQ . Submissions without updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone’s help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.  

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond.  Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.  

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book.  NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions.  The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process.  Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged.  The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. 

Author responses:   Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period.  These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview.  These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions:   Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks. 

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.