A Primer on Crime and
L
Delinquency
Theory
I
DT H I R D E D I T I O N
D
E
L
LROBERT M. BOHM
University
of Central Florida
,
and
TBRENDA L. VOGEL
I
F
F
A
N
Y
California State University, Long Beach
1
5
6
8
T
S
Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
L
I
D
D
E
L
This is an electronic version of the print textbook.
L Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may
be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall
learning experience. The publisher reserves the,right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and
alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
T
I
F
F
A
N
Y
1
5
6
8
T
S
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
A Primer on Crime and
Delinquency Theory,
Third Edition
Robert M. Bohm, Brenda L.
Vogel
Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier
Editorial Assistant: John Chell
Media Editor: Andy Yap
© 2011, 2001, 1997 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the
copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in
any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical,
including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning,
digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or
information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted
under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Marketing Manager: Michelle
Williams
Marketing Communications
Manager: Laura Localio
Content Project Manager:
Pre-PressPMG
Art Director: Maria Epes
Print Buyer: Linda Hsu
Permissions Editor: Roberta
Broyer
Production Service:
Pre-PressPMG
Text Designer: Pre-PressPMG
Cover Designer: Riezebos
Holzbaur/Brie Hattey
Cover Image: Corbis Yellow
Compositor: Pre-PressPMG
For product information and
technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning
Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706
L
I
D
D
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010926703
E
ISBN-13: 978-0-495-80750-6
L
ISBN-10: 0-495-80750-8
L
Wadsworth
,
20 Davis Drive
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at cengage.com/permissions
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
permissionrequest@cengage.com
Belmont, CA 94002-3098
USA
T
Cengage
I Learning is a leading provider of customized learning
solutions with office locations around the globe, including
F the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and
Singapore,
Japan. Locate your local office at www.cengage.com/global
F
Cengage
A Learning products are represented in Canada by
Nelson Education, Ltd.
N
Y more about Wadsworth, visit
To learn
www.cengage.com/Wadsworth
Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our
preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com
1
5
6
8
T
S
Printed in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
2
Classical and
L
Neoclassical
Theory
I
D
D
E
Enlightenment Philosophy and
L
Classical Theory
L
Beccaria
,
Rational Choice Theory
A Critique of Classical Theory
Neoclassical Theory
C
lassical theory is a productTof the philosophy of the Enlightenment, a period of
I
social history roughly spanning
the time of transition between the Protestant
Reformation (1517) and the F
American and French Revolutions (1776 and 1789,
respectively). The Enlightenment, or the “Age of Reason,” was characterized by an
F
intellectual challenge to the then-dominant theological worldview and theologically
A
derived knowledge based on revelation
and the authority of the Church.
During the “Middle Ages”
N or the “Dark Ages,” the nearly thousand years between the fall of the western Roman
Y Empire (476) and the Reformation, the Catholic
Church was the primary cultural and social influence in the Western world. Catholic
theology constituted the source of virtually all knowledge, as Carl Becker, a noted
1
philosopher, describes:
5
Existence was … regarded by the medieval man as a cosmic drama,
composed by the master6dramatist according to a central theme and on
a rational plan.… The duty
8 of man was to accept the drama as written,
since he could not alter T
it; his function, to play the role assigned.
That he might play his role according to the divine text, subordinate
S
authorities—church and state—deriving their just powers from the will
13
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
14
CHAPTER
2
of God, were instituted among men to dispose them to submission and
to instruct them in their proper lines.1
ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHY AND
CLASSICAL THEORY
The challenge to the theologically based worldview and the authority of the
Catholic Church came from Enlightenment thinkers who promoted a new,
“scientific” worldview based on reason. For Enlightenment thinkers, who drew
many of their ideas from the Greek or “classical” philosophers Socrates (469–399
L
B.C.), Plato (427–347 B.C.), and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), reason, especially in
I
those areas where personal observation
was possible, was a legitimate and more
democratic source of knowledge.DReason, for Enlightenment thinkers, referred
to either the rationalism of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Rene Descartes
D (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704),
(1596–1650), Benedict de Spinoza
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716),
Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire
E
(1694–1778), Charles de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755),
L and others, or the empiricism of Francis
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778),
Bacon (1561–1626), Galileo Galilei
L (1564–1642), Johannes Kepler (1571–
1630), and Isaac Newton (1642–1727), among others.2
, logic, which involves reasoning from the genRationalism is based on deductive
eral to the particular or applying theory to a particular case. The scientist constructs
a theory and then makes observations in an effort to support or refute the theory.
T on inductive logic, which involves reasoning
Empiricism, on the other hand, is based
from the particular to the generalI or moving from specific facts to theory. The
scientist makes observations and then constructs a theory to explain the observaF
tions.3 Modern scientific reasoning frequently combines deduction and induction.
As noted, the new, scientific F
worldview of the Enlightenment thinkers explicitly rejected the theological worldview, considering it a fraud or at least an
A
illusion. Again, as Carl Becker explains:
N
Renunciation of the traditional revelation was the very condition of being truly enlightened; for to beYtruly enlightened was to see the light in all
its fullness, and the light in its fullness revealed two very simple and obvious facts … the fact that the supposed revelation of God’s purposes
through Holy Writ and Holy 1
Church was a fraud, or at best an illusion
born of ignorance, perpetrated,5 or at least maintained, by the priests in
order to accentuate the fears of mankind, and so hold it in subjection.
6
The other … that God had revealed
his purpose to men in a far more
simple and natural, a far less mysterious
and recondite way, through his
8
works. To be enlightened was to understand this double truth, that it was
T book of nature, open for all mankind
not in Holy Writ, but in the great
to read, that the laws of God S
had been recorded. This is the new revelation, and thus at last we enter the secret door to knowledge.4
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
CLASSICAL AND NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
15
The Enlightenment thinkers assumed that human beings could understand
the world through science—the human capacity to observe and reason. Moreover, they believed that if the world and its functioning could be understood,
then it could also be changed. They rejected the belief that either the world or
the people in it were divinely ordained or determined.
Instead, they believed that people were freewilled and thus completely
responsible for their actions. Human behavior was considered to be motivated
by a hedonistic rationality, where individuals weighed the potential pleasure of an
action against its possible pain. The concept of hedonistic rationality is associated
with the work of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), who described his “felicity
[or hedonic] calculus” in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
(1789). To determine the “amount” of pleasure and pain associated with an
L
act, Bentham considered several factors such as the intensity and the duration of
5
I
the pleasure or pain. This pseudo-mathematical
model was hardly a scientific
analysis but, instead, was based
on
Bentham’s
personal
evaluation of an act.6
D
In any event, human beings committed crime, in this view, because they ratioDwould give them more pleasure than pain. Before
nally calculated that the crime
the Enlightenment, crime was
Eequated with sin and was considered the work of
demons or the Devil.7 Besides Bentham, other Enlightenment thinkers associated
L
with the classical school of criminology
were Cesare Bonesana, the Marchese de
Beccaria (1738–1794) of Italy,
William
Blackstone (1723–1780), John Howard
L
(1726–1790), and Samuel Romilly (1757–1818)—all of England—and Paul
, (1775–1833) of Germany.
Johann Anselm von Feuerbach
In the realm of criminal justice, barbaric punishments were common both
before and during the Enlightenment. For example, in England during the eighT 100 and 200 offenses carried the death penalty.8
teenth century, between about
Consider the following account
I of the punishment of Robert-Francois Damiens,
who in 1757 stabbed, but did not kill, King Louis XV of France:
F
At seven o’clock in the morning of his execution day, Damiens was led
F
to the torture chamber, where his legs were placed in “boots” that were
A were inserted. A total of eight wedges were
squeezed gradually as wedges
inserted, each at fifteen-minute
N intervals, until the attending physicians
warned that an additional wedge could provoke an “accident” [Damiens’
Y Damiens was removed to the place where
premature death]. Thereupon,
he would be executed. … The condemned man was placed on a scaffold,
where a rope was tied to each arm and leg. Then, Damiens’ hand was
1
burned with a brazier containing
burning sulphur, after which red-hot
tongs were used to pinch5his arms, thighs, and chest. Molten lead and
boiling oil were poured onto his open wounds several times, and after
6
each time the prisoner screamed
in agony. Next, four huge horses were
whipped by attendants as8they pulled the ropes around Damiens’ bleeding
wounds for an hour. Only after some of the tendons were cut did two
legs and one arm separateTfrom Damiens’ torso. He remained alive and
breathing until the second
Sarm was cut from his body. All parts of
Damiens’ body were hurled into a nearby fire for burning.9
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
16
CHAPTER
2
The classicists, as Enlightenment thinkers, were concerned with protecting
the rights of humankind from the corruption and excesses of the existing legal
institutions.10 Arbitrary and barbarous punishments were not the only problems.
At the time, crime itself was poorly defined and extensive. Due process of law
was either absent or ignored. For example, people could be arrested without
warrants and be held in custody indefinitely without knowing why they were
being held. Torture was routinely employed to extract confessions. Judgeships
typically were sold to wealthy persons by the sovereign, and judges had almost
total discretion.
BLE C C A R I A
I
It was within that historical context that Beccaria wrote and published anonyD work, On Crimes and Punishments (Dei
mously in 1764 his truly revolutionary
Delitti e delle Pene). His book generally
D is acknowledged to have had “more practical effect than any other treatise ever written in the long campaign against barbaE 11 Historians of criminal law credit Beccaria’s
rism in criminal law and procedure.”
arguments with ending legal torture
L throughout Christendom.12 At the time,
however, Beccaria’s treatise was not universally acclaimed. For example, in 1765,
the Pope placed Beccaria’s workLon a list of banned books for its “extreme
rationalism.”13 Nevertheless, in the
, book, Beccaria sets forth most of what we
now call classical criminological theory.
According to Beccaria, the only justified rationale for laws and punishments
is the principle of utility, that is, T
“the greatest happiness shared by the greatest
number.”14 For Beccaria, “Laws Iare the conditions under which independent
and isolated men united to form a society.”15 Criminal law should be based on
F of society has a right to do anything that
positive sanction; that is, every member
is not prohibited by law, without fearing
anything but natural consequences. The
F
source of law should be the legislature and not judges.
A of society, as well as the origin of punishBeccaria believed that the basis
ments and the right to punish, isNthe social contract.16 The social contract is an
imaginary agreement entered into by persons who have sacrificed the minimum
Y to prevent what the English philosopher
amount of their liberty necessary
Hobbes called “the war of all against all.” With the demise of absolute monarchies based on the “divine right of kings” and the rise of constitutional monarchies, social contract theory was1used during the Enlightenment to provide
justification for the new political5 system.17 In describing the social contract,
Beccaria wrote:
6
Weary of living in a continual state of war, and of enjoying a liberty
8
rendered useless by the uncertainty of preserving it, they [people] sacrificed a part so that they mightTenjoy the rest of it in peace and safety.
The sum of all these portionsS
of liberty sacrificed by each for his own
good constitutes the sovereignty of a nation, and their legitimate
depository and administrator is the sovereign.18
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
CLASSICAL AND NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
17
However, Beccaria realized that establishing the social contract is not enough to
prevent people from infringing on the remaining liberties of other people. Thus,
Beccaria believed that punishment is necessary.
For Beccaria, the only legitimate purpose for punishment is deterrence, both
special and general.19 Special or specific deterrence is the prevention of particular individuals from committing crime again by punishing them, while general deterrence
is the prevention of people in general or society at large from engaging in crime by
punishing specific individuals and making examples of them. Beccaria summarized
his position on punishment in the following way: “In order for punishment not to
be, in every instance, an act of violence of one or of many against a private citizen,
it must be essentially public, prompt, necessary, the least possible in the given circumstances, proportionate to the crime, dictated by the laws.”20
It is important to emphasize that Beccaria promoted crime prevention over
punishment. As Beccaria maintained, “It is better to prevent crimes than to punish
them. This is the ultimate end of every good legislation [that is, to lead] men to
the greatest possible happiness or the least possible unhappiness.”21 Interestingly,
before Beccaria, the French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire claimed that marriage was an effective deterrent to crime: “The more married men you have, the
less crime there will be. Look at the frightful records of your registers of crime;
you will find there a hundred bachelors hanged or wheeled for one father of a
family.… The father of a family does not want to blush before his children. He
fears to leave them a heritage of shame.”22 Beccaria did not include marriage as a
way to prevent crime, but he did make six other recommendations:23
1. Social contract
2. Law (must be clear, simple, unbiased, and reflect the consensus of the
entire population)
3. Punishment (must be proportionate to the crime, prompt and certain,
public, necessary, and dictated by the laws and not by judges’ discretion)
4. Education (enlightenment): “Knowledge breeds evil in inverse ratio to its
diffusion, and benefits in direct ratio.”
5. Eliminate corruption from the administration of justice
6. Reward virtue
In sum, Beccaria’s main ideas are as follows: Human motivation is governed
by a rational hedonism. A society based on a social contract is necessary to escape
criminal violence and other predatory behavior. The state has the right to punish. Penalties should be legislated, with a scale of crimes and punishments. It is
better to prevent crimes than to punish them.
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
A contemporary version of classical theory is rational choice theory, developed most
fully by Derek Cornish (1939– ) and Ronald Clarke (1941– ).24 In this theory, it
is assumed that, before many people commit crimes, they consider the risks and
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
18
CHAPTER
2
rewards. Economists have presented a more quantitative version of rational choice
theory in their attempt to explain criminal behavior through a costs and benefits
analysis.25 The costs and benefits may be either material (for example, money) or
psychological.
Cornish and Clarke’s rational choice theory extends or modifies classical criminological theory in three ways. First, Cornish and Clarke do not believe that all
people are rational all the time. They argue that people utilize a rationality that is
limited, or “bounded” by incomplete information, time, and ability.26 Second,
they expand the concept of “costs” of crime to include not only official, state sanctions, but also informal sanctions (e.g., parental disapproval), shame, and other consequences such as the loss of a job. Finally, Cornish and Clarke argue that different
people calculate the costs and benefits of crime differently. Drawing on other theL
oretical perspectives, they contend that the estimation of costs and benefits of
I as the individual’s level of self control, moral
crime is “influenced by such factors
beliefs, strains, emotional state andD
association with delinquent peers.”27
D
E
A CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL THEORY
L
The classical school has been characterized
as legal and administrative criminolL
ogy,28 denounced as “armchair criminology,”29 and accused of being “constructed
,
retrospectively by nineteenth century criminal anthropologists who, hoping to
become a ‘school’ in their own right, invented a forerunner with whom they
might favorably compare themselves.”30 The application of classical school tenets
T
was supposed to make the criminal law fairer and easier to administer. To those
ends, judicial discretion would be Ieliminated. Judges would only determine innocence or guilt. All offenders wouldFbe treated alike, and similar crimes would be
treated similarly. Individual differences among offenders and unique or mitigating
F be ignored. Mitigating circumstances or excircumstances about the crime would
tenuating circumstances refer to features
A of a case that explain or particularly justify
the defendant’s behavior, even though they do not provide a defense to the crime.
N are youth, immaturity, or being under the
Examples of mitigating circumstances
influence of another person. A problem
Y with treating all offenders alike and similar
crimes similarly is that all offenders are not alike and similar crimes are not always
as similar as they might appear on the surface. Should first offenders be treated the
same as habitual offenders? Should1juveniles be treated the same as adults? Should
the insane be treated the same as the sane? Should a crime of passion be treated the
same as the intentional commission5of a crime? The classical school’s answer to all
of those difficult questions would be
6 a simple yes, because the school’s focus is the
harm caused by the criminal act and not the specific circumstances of the offender.
8
For classical theorists, a murder at the hand of an insane offender creates the same
harm as a murder at the hand of T
a sane offender and, therefore, they should be
treated alike.
S
The theory of the classical school of criminology poses other problems as
well. For example, classical theory assumes that there is a consensus in society,
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
CLASSICAL AND NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
19
at least about the desirability of a social contract.31 However, as much as it may
be in everyone’s interest to be protected from criminal violence, in a society in
which the distribution of property is inequitable, it may not be in everyone’s
interest to have the present distribution of property protected. Why would a
person without property agree to enter into a social contract to protect the
existing distribution of property?
Classical theory also assumes that rational people will choose to enter into
the social contract; thus, anyone who commits crime is pathological or irrational,
that is, unable or unwilling to enter into a social contract.32 Again, why would a
person without property want to enter into a social contract to protect the existing distribution of property? Classical theory fails to consider that crime may be
rational given the individual’s social position.33 On the other hand, classical theL
ory, especially rational choice theory and economic models, has been criticized
I to which offenders rationally calculate the confor overemphasizing the degree
sequences of their actions.34 D
Placed in its historical context, classical theory turns out to be an ideological
justification for the position D
of the then new and increasingly prosperous merchant or business class.35 Beccaria’s
E system of justice protected the newly propertied classes, while controlling all others, especially the old landed aristocracy who
L
was in direct political competition
with the new merchant or business class.
Although Beccaria was bornLa member of the aristocracy as a marquis, he had
no property and was a disaffected member of his class.36 Other classical criminologists were members of the, new merchant or business class or were in sympathy with them. Note that rational calculation of pains of punishment versus the
pleasure of success makes more sense for property crime than for violent crime.
T practical reasons (to the new merchant or busiIn addition, there were very
ness class) for making the laws
I more humane and reducing capital and corporal
punishment. In the first place, under the system of barbarous punishments,
F
judges and juries were frequently reluctant to convict, thus diminishing deterF of punishments, judges and juries were more
rence. By reducing the severity
likely to convict, and, as a result, property was better protected. An added beneA
fit of sending offenders to prison rather than killing or maiming them was that
N in prisoners (or so it was thought), preparing
prisons indoctrinated work habits
them for labor in the newly Y
emerging industrial age. It was considered wasteful
to destroy able-bodied workers.
Another problem with classical theory is the assumption that human beings
are freewilled and completely
1 responsible for their behavior. Among the first
Enlightenment thinkers to counter those notions, and take what at the time was
5 the seventeenth-century philosopher Benedict de
a very unpopular position, was
Spinoza. According to Spinoza,
6 people often believe they are freewilled or choose
freely, but this belief is a product of their ignorance of the causes that determine
8 as Spinoza concluded, “It is absurd to praise or
their actions or choices. Thus,
blame people since they are and
T do what they must be and do. We should rather
seek to understand the causes of their actions and states of mind.”37 Beirne has
argued that Beccaria has beenSmisinterpreted and that he was “resolutely opposed
to any notion of free will.”38 Beirne maintains that Beccaria believed that “human
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
20
CHAPTER
2
agents are no more than the products of their sensory reactions to external
stimuli.”39 Besides, a belief in free will would seem to deny the contributions of
all modern social sciences, as well as the success of the entire advertising industry.
A major goal of the social sciences, after all, is to understand, predict, and control
human behavior, and the sole purpose of the advertising industry is to create and
maintain a market for commodities by manipulating human behavior. Perhaps a
more fundamental problem is the apparent contradiction between the ideas of
free will and social contract. If people cede a minimum amount of liberty as their
share in the social contract, then they are no longer totally free but are minimally
constrained by the state to which they ceded their liberty.
Still another problem with classical theory is its belief in deterrence. In the first
place, little scientific evidence supports the contention that people do not commit
crimes because they are afraid of being punished.40 A recent meta-analysis of forty
empirical studies found that the effects of deterrence variables on crime/deviance
are quite weak, and are weakened even more in the presence of other relevant
variables.41 Second, even if deterrence exists (and this is not the place to delve
into the methodological difficulties of demonstrating why people do not act in a
given situation), then it probably is effective only for people who have been adequately socialized. How threatened are people whose lives are miserable beyond all
hope? What about people (“outsiders”) whose value systems are not likely to be
changed? For those types of people, deterrence is unlikely to be effective.
Finally, classical theory, as well as both versions of rational choice theory, has
been criticized for being based on circular reasoning: The theory explains the
phenomenon, and the phenomenon serves as evidence to support the theory
(for example, people rationally choose to commit crimes and their crimes are
evidence of their rational choices). The problem with a theory based on circular
reasoning is that it cannot be falsified.42 How is it possible to falsify the claim that
criminal behavior was rational for the person who committed it?
Despite those problems, Beccaria’s ideas, as previously noted, were very influential. France, for example, adopted many of Beccaria’s principles in its Code of
1791, in particular, the principle of equal punishments for the same crimes. However, because classical theory ignored both individual differences among offenders
and mitigating circumstances, applying the law in practice was difficult. Because of
that difficulty, as well as new developments in the emerging behavioral sciences,
modifications in classical theory and its application were introduced.
NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
Several modifications of classical theory collectively are referred to as neoclassical theory.43 The principal difference between the two theories has to do with classical
theory’s assumptions about free will. In the neoclassical revision, it was conceded
that certain factors (for example, insanity) might inhibit the exercise of free will.44
Benjamin Rush (1745–1813), who is considered the founder of American
psychiatry, was one of the first “psychiatrically inclined physicians” (at the time,
they were called alienists or mad-doctors) to make the connection between what
CLASSICAL AND NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
21
they called moral insanity and crime.45 Other early psychiatrists to make the connection were Philippe Pinel (1745–1826) of France, James Cowles Prichard
(1786–1848) of England, and Isaac Ray (1807–1881) of the United States.46
In making the insanity–crime connection, these early psychiatrists rejected the
more than one-thousand-year-old tradition of equating crime with sin and provided the first secular and scientific theories of crime.47 However, they did
not attempt to explain all types of crime but rather focused on “recidivistic,
often violent, apparently uncontrollable [crimes], committed by offenders who
appeared incapable of remorse.”48 The concept of moral insanity would later
become the basis for the psychiatric theory of psychopathy and the diagnosis of
Antisocial Personality Disorder (both discussed in Chapter 5).49
The insanity–crime connection was formalized in legal procedure in 1843,
L
when the M’Naghten Rule for determining legal insanity was formulated in
I was adopted in the United States shortly thereEngland. The M’Naghten Rule
after. With recognition of the
Dconnection between insanity and crime, the idea
of premeditation was also introduced into legal proceedings as a measure of the
D50 and mitigating circumstances were considered
degree of free will exercised,
legitimate grounds for an argument
of diminished responsibility.51
E
Those modifications of classical theory, as embodied in the revised French
L effects. First, they provided a reason for nonCode of 1819, had two practical
legal experts (such as alienistsLor mad-doctors) to testify in court as to the degree
of diminished responsibility of an offender.52 Second, offenders began to be sen, considered rehabilitative.53 The idea was that
tenced to punishments that were
certain environments were more conducive than others to the exercise of rational choice.54 However, consistent with the classical school’s implicit ideology
T the distribution of private property, the modifiabout the sanctity of preserving
cations in the theory that were
I made conspicuously omitted consideration of
economic pressure as a mitigating circumstance and a legal excuse for criminal
F
responsibility.
In any event, the reasonFso much emphasis has been placed on the classical
school of criminology and its neoclassical revisions is that together they are
A
essentially the model on which criminal justice in the United States is based
N years, at least in part because of dissatisfaction
today. During the past thirty-five
with the exercise of judicialYdiscretion, determinate and mandatory sentences
based on sentencing guidelines have all but replaced indeterminate sentences.
In addition, a similar dissatisfaction with the discretion exercised by parole
boards has led to the abolition
1 of parole in the federal jurisdiction and in some
states.
5 during the past thirty-five years is also probaThe revival of classical theory
bly the result of a perceived 6
failure on the part of criminologists to discover the
causes of crime. In a renewed effort to deter crimes, judges currently are sentencing more offenders to prison8for longer periods than at any other time in the
history of the United States, T
and some states continue to use capital punishment.
Ironically, one reason the theory of the classical school lost favor in the nineS that punishment was not a particularly effective
teenth century was the belief
method of preventing or controlling crime.55
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
22
CHAPTER
2
STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What is the cause of crime from the perspective of the classical school
(including contemporary versions)?
2. How would classical theorists prevent crime?
3. What are problems with the theory of the classical school?
4. What changes or modifications to classical theory did the neoclassicists
make? Why?
NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Becker (1932:7).
Zeitlin (1968:Chap. 1).
See Runes (1968); Babbie (1992).
Becker (1932:50–51).
http://www.iejs.com/Criminology/jeremy_benthams_hedonic_calculus.htm.
Curran and Renzetti (1994).
Some still hold this view today.
Vila and Morris (1997:8); Thompson (1975:22–23); Bedau (1982:7); Banner
(2002:7).
From Jones (1987:26); also see Foucault (1977:3–6) for a somewhat different
description of the same event.
Taylor et al. (1974:1).
Beccaria (1975:ix).
Beccaria (1975:ix).
Beirne (1991:782).
Beccaria (1975:8).
Beccaria (1975:11).
The English philosophers Hobbes and Locke wrote about the social contract in
the seventeenth century, and the French philosopher Rousseau wrote about the
social contract in a book published in 1762—two years before the publication of
Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments.
Levin (1973).
Beccaria (1975:11–12).
Beccaria (1975:42).
Beccaria (1975:99).
Beccaria (1975:93).
Cited in Horkheimer (1996:89). For a more recent discussion about marriage and its
deterrent effect on crime, see Warr (2002:105).
Beccaria (1975:94–95).
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
CLASSICAL AND NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
23
Cornish and Clarke (1986).
See Curran and Renzetti (1994:20).
Cornish and Clarke (1986).
Cullen and Agnew (2006:410).
Vold (1958:23).
Curran and Renzetti (1994:22).
Rafter (2004:980).
See Taylor et al. (1974:3).
Taylor et al. (1974:3); but see Vold and Bernard (1986:28–29) for a different view.
See Taylor et al. (1974:3).
Curran and Renzetti (1994:21);
L Tittle (1995:12).
Taylor et al. (1974:3).
I
Beccaria (1975).
D
Berofsky (1973:238).
Beirne (1991:807).
D
Beirne (1991:807).
E
See Paternoster (1987); Finckenauer (1982).
L and Madensen (2006).
Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle,
Tittle (1995:10–11).
L
See Taylor et al. (1974:7). ,
Vold (1979:28).
Rafter (2004:983).
T
Rafter (2004).
Rafter (2004:985).
I
Rafter (2004:999).
F
Rafter (2004:1003).
F
Vold (1979:28).
Vold (1979:28).
A
Taylor et al. (1974:8).
N
Taylor et al. (1974:9).
Y
Taylor et al. (1974:9).
See Vold and Bernard (1986:33).
1
5
6
8
T
S
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
L
I
D
D
E
L
L
,
T
I
F
F
A
N
Y
1
5
6
8
T
S
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or
eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights
restrictions require it.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment