The Theory Of Criminological Positivism And Its Relevance To Modern Criminology
Positivist criminology has its foundation in the beliefs that criminal behaviour is rooted in a distinct and recognizable set of characteristics possessed by the criminal as opposed to the non-criminal. Positivism within criminology has been lauded for its use of scientific research models to create a theory yet it has also been called to question. Many of the earlier assertions such as the causative link between likelihood of offending and appearance or body type have been condemned as unfounded yet the founding scientific processes and an emphasis on the greater understanding of sociological and physiological factors with regards to criminality have contributed to the modern study of criminal behaviour. This paper will set out the main beliefs contained within the theory with a view to determining their relevance to modern criminology and the criminal justice system.
Background
The theory of Criminological positivism is perhaps most commonly associated with the Italian school and Cesare Lombroso, the so-called founding actor in the genesis of the ‘science of criminology’. This was the Enlightenment era, it was a time where ‘the gathering of information which could be observed, as opposed to data that could be felt or believed, constituted the main strategy through which rational knowledge could be constructed’. These new approaches offered a fresh perspective of how crime was assessed and understood. Positivism was steeped in the scientific pursuit of relevant knowledge and the application of this knowledge to a specific set of problems. This was in short a modelling of the social sciences on the natural sciences. Lombroso’s process of approaching the issue of crime and criminality was a step away from the preceding classicism model in which order, management, proportionality and the creation of a criminal justice system based on equality were its overarching goal. Positivism chose to look to the person and their individual qualities and to what extent these facts could be utilized when determining or predicting criminal behaviour. Lombroso asserted that criminals were born, that by the virtue of an existence of atavistic qualities and characteristics, these individuals were faced with the inevitability of crime and the absence of free will. Lombroso based his study on his time spent with prison inmates and the post mortem of the criminal Giuseppe Villella.
Whilst Lombroso is viewed as the father of this branch of criminology by no means can it be assumed that the theory stopped with him. Just as Lombroso was influenced by the works of Charles Darwin so too were many subsequent criminologists influenced by Lombroso’s key belief, namely that the key to understanding the crime is a better understanding of the criminal and his world. Whilst Lombroso was primarily concerned with the atavistic attributes of his control group and his hypothesis of throwbacks and born criminals who have no free will, later criminologists such as Sheldon Kretschner, Murray and Gluecks have taken and expanded on his original findings to create further theories, generally speaking these have been met with the same scepticism as Lombroso but each have contributed in some measure to the overall way in which the study of criminology is conducted- or not as the case may be.
Though Lombroso’s belief that criminality is linked to one’s physical attributes or gender may seem uncomfortable and out of place in today’s criminology it is nonetheless foolish to disregard his study, if for no other reason than for the part that it has played in the overall development of criminology. When addressing the criticisms of the positivist theory (of which will be outlined in a separate chapter) it is important to be mindful of at least some of the primary features of positivism and ones that are evident today in modern criminology, namely, the use of scientific methods to produce data for further study, interest in the causes of crime and criminal behaviour and treating that cause rather than punishment after the fact.
Features of Criminological Positivism
As previously stated, positivism has its roots in scientific methodology. Expanding out from this position positivism can be viewed from three different areas, biological, psychological and social.
Biological positivism refers to the physical, mental or other bod- based characteristics that the delinquent may exhibit as found in the studies of Lombroso Sheldon and Kretschmer. These theories were popular as they allowed society and government to disassociate themselves from the root cause of crime. Lombroso associated criminality with atavistic body types, ethnicity and gender, Sheldon developed his mesomorphy theory which found a direct correlation between biology and criminality and Kretschmer developed his two distinct body types (pyknic and asthnic) and their corresponding characteristics. The biological theory of positivism is generally no longer seen as valid and to many its links with racism and eugenics rightfully so. A major part in the discrediting of these theories is the way that the research was carried out. Lombroso based his findings on a prison population and the skull of a common criminal. Sheldon’s study has been the renowned American criminologist Edwin Sutherland in that he had not begun with a random sample and that in fact Sheldon's 'delinquents' were not in fact delinquent. It has further been found that he had used incorrect measurements and failed to use appropriate statistics due to his own racism.
Psychological positivism is more focused on the propensity for certain personality types to respond in a criminal manner to external stimuli or situations. There have been a variety of theories as the cause and effect of the psychological element. Sigmund Freud and his study of the id surmised that criminality was either based in mental illness or a lack in morals. Others have followed by placing the blame of the home life of the individual such as Glueck and Murray (2001) who in his article The Underclass +10 stated …the chronic criminal is part of the underclass, especially the violent chronic criminal. But so are parents who mean well but who cannot provide for themselves, who give nothing back to the neighbourhood, and whose children are the despair of the teachers who have to deal with them[endnoteRef:4]. At its most simplistic this type of positivism views the criminal activity as an illness, or a manifestation of an external force therefore allowing for a ‘treatment’ alongside punishment when necessary. In the case of Murray and his findings eradicating single mothers would be a pre-crime treatment, for some sexual based crimes are treated with both a medical or psychological package alongside punishment in hopes to reform the offender.
Social positivism places the fault on society at large, which is in direct opposition to the previous two schools of thought. At the forefront of this area was the Chicago School under leadership of Robert E Park. He had very definite views on the city and how it affected those that lived within it likening it to a superorganism. He felt that the varying zones within a city have their own distinct characteristics as do the inhabitants within them. Resulting from immigration, industrialization and urbanization, zones are created that are at odds with each other both internally and externally the effect being social disorganization and a greater likelihood of crime.
Two strands of theoretical work emanated from the Chicago school which were to influence quite profoundly the later development of both criminology and the sociology of deviance these being social disorganization and the labelling theories. Social disorganization expands on the ideas of Park though the work of Merton and the strain theory, Matza and drift and Hirsch’s social control theory. All these theories placed importance on the role/ lack of a role of the individual in their society but importantly the role that the society and variables external to the individual has on the development of the individual as a criminal or law abiding citizen.
The labelling theory developed alongside the strain theory in that it too was concerned with understand the individual within the community and their impact on one another. The theory was pioneered by Howard Becker and was directed towards the labelling of the individual as deviant, specifically how a particular behaviour is labelled as deviant and a drive to understand the impact of labelling on the ‘deviant’. Becker believed that ‘the deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour is behaviour that people so label. ’ Labelling has been instrumental in the way that criminal justice system functions as well as the way that the individual is treated within that system.
Conclusion
As mentioned, many of the beliefs promoted by Lombroso and his fellow criminologist do not sit well in the modern mindset. Positivism may inform us about what is true and false, but we also need to know how truth and falsity have been constructed over time and how the ideas of earlier criminologists were shaped by their personal and social contexts. With regards to Lombroso, and many of his fellow positivists from the outset that his assertions were brought to question and whilst they may have appealed to criminal anthropologists to some they were skewed. As mentioned previously Edwin Sutherland drew attention to the lack of diversity both in gender and race which created a skewed result. This could be applied not only to Lombroso but equally to the findings of Sheldon and Kretschmer in fact Sheldon himself contradicted his own finding that delinquents rather than being lesser beings physically 'excel' in 'general strength and athletic ability' thus contradicting his claims in support of eugenics.
The biological based theories whilst valuable in their contribution to the processes of studying the criminal and crime disregard a fundamental part of what makes the individual, that being the wider community in which they live and exist. This is where the psychological and sociological theories step in and create a more balanced view. Biological theorists place no responsibility on the state for the conditions that those who commit crime are born into or live or ‘that even born criminals would probably not commit crimes if their social conditions were better’. The positivist approach excels when viewed as a package as only then does it goes beyond the individual and place equal importance on external and societal factors. Peering singularly into each theory highlights the importance of the missing components fulfilled by the others. Working together the theories go beyond the individual whilst still placing him at the centre. Looking to the society in which he lives, the conditions and availability of choice and opportunity and the individual’s place in that society creates a greater understanding of cause and effect. This could perhaps be the greatest legacy of positivism.
Bibliography
- Hale, C. Hayward, K. Wahidini, A. Wincup, E. (2009) ‘Criminology’ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp 74-80
- Ward Frampton, T. (2013) PREDISPOSITION AND POSITIVISM: THE FORGOTTEN FOUNDATIONS OF THE ENTRAPMENT DOCTRINE The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 103, No. 1 (Winter 2013), pp. 111-146 Published by: Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Stable URL: https://www. jstor. org/stable/24615611 Accessed: 11-11-2019 15:16 UTC
- Van Swaanigan, R. (1997) Critical Criminology, Visions from Europe. London: Sage Publishing. P 56
- Watlate, S. (2007) Understanding Criminology England: Open University Press. P 146
- Nicole Rafter, Somatotyping, Antimodernism, and the Production of Criminological Knowledge, 45 Criminology 805 (2007).
- Murray, C. Phillips, M. (2001) The Underclass +10
