The Leading Criminologist Of Classical Criminology

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Spiritualistic approach was the beginning of criminology theory as if you had committed a crime it would be classed as work of the devil. As it was believed to be classed a ‘sin’ the punishments were barbaric with no considerations for children or mentally ill. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1678) moved criminology away from spiritualistic to a theory of naturalistic approach of psychological arrogance based on what he termed ‘the wolf desire’. He offered free will, religion and natural life of man. (Souryal, 2011, p.158)

The leading criminologist of classical criminology was Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) who wrote the anonymous thesis ‘Dei Delitti e Delle Penne’ (On Crimes and Punishment). Add rational choice!! According to Vailer 2002, Beccaria wrote recommendations on how the criminal justice systems should be with the ideas of; The law should restrict the individual as little as possible, the seriousness of the crime should be determined by the harm it inflicts on others and excessive punishment is inefficient in that it not only fails to deter, but it also likely to increase crime. As Cesare Beccaria is believed to have stated ‘It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. (Newburn, 2007, p.117)

During the 1800’s, naturalistic approaches of classical criminology started to form a basis for criminal justice systems, this done by replacing spiritualistic approaches with biological considerations. Early considerations for biological approaches had begun with the breakthrough from sciences and medicines. This then began to develop theories on the human body such as Johann Kasper Lavater’s (1741-1801) started to work on the ideas of criminal facial features (Physiognomy) and Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) theory on the shape of a person’s skull (Phrenology). Biological factors had an impact on many criminologists as classical criminology had no considerations towards age, gender, environment or if the criminal was able or disabled.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, ‘Origin of Species (1859)’ had many impacts on many scientists and theorists, as his work covered many aspects including natural selection, survival of the fittest and human genetics connections. (Hagan, 2011, pg117). It is known that the work of Charles Darwin has influenced ‘The father of Modern Criminology’, Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) on the ideas of evolution. According to Rafter (2008) Lombroso was the only criminologist of his time who can qualify as ‘Paradigm Shifter’. He took the topic of the causes of crime away from ‘sin’ and placed it in the realm of science, where it remains today. Lombroso’s famous work ‘L’uomo Deliquente’ (On Criminal Man, 1876) used with Darwin’s theory he established that criminals were atavists (throwbacks) to an evolutionary scale, as that the criminals shared physical features of the primitive humans. The characteristics being, low foreheads, broad noses and cranial capacities smaller than that of a ‘normal’ man. (Maahs, Vito, 2012., p81). The positivistic approach that Lombroso’s theory was based on was the first time that a theory had considered biological factors.

Charles Goring (1870-1919) who was famously known as Lombroso’s biggest critique, done a 13 year longitudinal study on 3,000 criminal and ‘non’ criminals to compare physical characteristics and mental qualities. (Hagan, 2011, p119). Goring quoted that ‘no evidence has emerged conforming the existence of a physical criminal type, such as Lombroso and his disciples have described – our inevitable conclusion must be that there is no such thing as a physical criminal type’ this was cited by Bartusch and Burfeind, (p. 295, 2006). However, Goring found support for the position that persons of different constitutional types were likely to commit certain kinds of crimes. He claimed that offenders convicted of crimes of violence were characterised by strength, considerably above the average of that of other criminals. Burglars, thieves and arsonists will be inferior in stature and weight in comparison to other criminals and the population of large, puny in their general bodily habit. (Brown, Esbensen, Geis, 2010, p.201).

William Sheldon (1949) supported Charles Goring’s theory as he identified in his own study by looking at the body types (somatypes) of 200 men, he distinguished a number of basic forms. (Newburn, 2007, p127). The body types he identified as being: Endomorph, fat, soft and round; tend to be extroverts. Ectomorphs, thin and wiry; are easily worried, sensitive and introverted, mesomorphs; muscular, are gregarious, aggressive, assertive and action orientated. (Maahs, Vito, 2012, p.82).

Gluek and Gluek (1950) worked on Sheldon’s theory of somatypes by doing a study on delinquents and non-delinquents, finding a number of physical differences between the two groups. The delinquent group being a substantially higher proportion of mesomorph body types with 60% statistics with the non-delinquents being at a lower scale of 31%. (Newburn, 2007, p.128)

Johannes Lange (1929) conducted a study on identical and fraternal twins when the ideas about inherited behaviour first arose. In his study he used 13 identical twins and 17 non-identical twins, this 77% of identical twins shared criminal behaviour patterns opposed to 12% non-identical twins. (Cassel, Douglas, 2007) This was argued by other theorists as the sample size was small.

Barry Hutchings and Sarnoff Mednick (1927) also researched biological factors within criminals, they analysed 1,145 male adoptees of which 156 had criminal records. They used 143 criminal adoptees with 143 noncriminal adoptees and found that the criminality of the biological father was a strong predictor of the child’s criminal behaviour even when the contact has been non-existent. (Siegel, 2009, p.135)

bohman frued..moffitt..

Paragraph on changes to society

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) changed his direction of thought to criminality being influenced by society. Individual’s anticipate a change in social norms and pioneer the future morality. Durkheim distinguished two types of criminals: Altruistic and Common. Altruistic criminals are offended by rules of society and would change the rules for the better, whereas Common criminals reject all laws and discipline and purposively violate the laws. (Maahs, Vito, 2012, p145).

Robert Merton’s (1910-2003) strain theory extended Durkheim’s insight. Merton defined anomie as ‘the mismatch between culturally valued goals and institutional means of achieving those goals’ cited by Brym and Lie (2010, p152). Merton’s types of deviance: Innovation, Ritualism, Rebellion and Retreatism. Innovation refers to people who accept society’s goals but reject accepted means, ritualism refers to people who continue to use culturally approved means for achieving socially desired goals even though they reject goals. Retreatism refers to those who have given up both on society’s goals and it’s accepted means and rebellions refers to those who abandon society’s goals and means but they rebel alternative views. (Brinkerhoff, White, Ortega, et al. 2008, p124).

Walter B Miller (1958) also researched sociological influences on criminals within this he concentrated on male gang members from lower class families and explored the attitude and behaviour of the norm. Miller found six concerns these were; trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate and autonomy. His research noticed that without a male role model it can lead to development of exaggerated masculine styles and overcrowded conditions push males to the streets where gang activity becomes likely. (Newburn, 2007, p200)

O&C Edwin Sutherland