The Classical View Of Punishment Was Fueled By The Notion

The Classical View Of Punishment Was Fueled By The Notion That Offende

The classical view of punishment was fueled by the notion that offenders were evil men and women who had to be punished severely or killed for their egregious acts. It was felt that the demons that possessed the offenders would never leave except by expiation and punishment. As the influence of natural and social science grew, many individuals began to reexamine the widely accepted idea that crime resulted from demonic possession, free will, or mental imbalance. Positivists took a progressive stance and began to analyze the causes of crime and punishment.

Paper For Above instruction

The concepts of punishment in criminal justice have undergone significant evolution, primarily distinguished by the classical and positivist schools of thought. These approaches differ markedly in their underlying philosophies, underlying assumptions about human behavior, and their implications for justice and social policy. Conversely, they also share certain similarities, particularly in their overarching aim to regulate and reduce crime, and their recognition of the importance of social order. This essay explores two key differences and two similarities between the classical and positivist perspectives on punishment, examines two social arguments supporting each school, and presents a reasoned stance on which approach aligns more closely with contemporary values.

Differences between Classical and Positivist Approaches to Punishment

The primary distinction between the classical and positivist schools resides in their conceptualization of human behavior and the origins of crime. The classical approach is rooted in the Enlightenment belief in free will and rational choice. It posits that individuals knowingly commit crimes based on rational calculations, weighing the potential benefits against the risks of punishment. Consequently, punishment must be proportionate, certain, and swift to serve as an effective deterrent (Beccaria, 1764/1995). The classical perspective emphasizes individual responsibility and advocates for laws and punishments that reflect moral proportionality.

In contrast, the positivist school posits that criminal behavior is driven by factors beyond an individual's control, such as biological, psychological, or social influences. Positivists argue that crime results from identifiable conditions or traits—such as mental illness, genetic predispositions, or socioeconomic disadvantages—that diminish personal responsibility. Therefore, the punishment should be tailored to address these underlying causes rather than merely penalize the act itself (Lombroso, 1876/2006). The positivist approach promotes rehabilitative and therapeutic interventions and questions the efficacy of harsh, retributive punishment.

Another crucial difference lies in their perspectives on the purpose of punishment. Classical theory views punishment primarily as a means of deterrence and social control, emphasizing the prevention of future crimes through fear of sanctions (Bentham, 1789/2000). Conversely, positivist theory emphasizes rehabilitation and moral correction, aiming to reform offenders by addressing their individual circumstances. This fundamental divergence influences policies and practices within criminal justice systems worldwide.

Similarities between Classical and Positivist Approaches to Punishment

Despite their differences, both schools share the overarching goal of maintaining social order and reducing crime. They recognize that effective punishment is essential to deter criminal behavior and uphold societal norms. Both approaches also acknowledge the importance of legislation in establishing standards for acceptable conduct and corresponding sanctions. Additionally, each school has contributed to shaping criminal justice policies—be it through the emphasis on deterrence in classical theory or rehabilitation in positivism—indicating their mutual recognition of the importance of controlling crime for societal stability.

Another similarity involves their consideration of human agency. While they differ on the nature of that agency—rational choice versus biological or social determinism—both acknowledge that individuals' actions are influenced by factors that can be addressed through social or legal interventions. Such recognition underscores their commitment to structured responses to criminal behavior, whether through laws or social programs.

Social Arguments Supporting Classical and Positivist Schools

Supporters of the classical school often argue that individual responsibility and personal accountability are paramount in a just society. They contend that leniency or understanding towards offenders undermines societal values of fairness and discipline. For example, Cesare Beccaria emphasized that clear, consistent laws and swift punishment promote general deterrence and uphold social order (Beccaria, 1764/1995). This perspective advocates for strict punishments to prevent chaos and protect citizens' rights, reinforcing social stability.

Conversely, proponents of the positivist approach emphasize the importance of understanding the root causes of criminality to develop effective rehabilitative programs. They argue that social inequality, mental health issues, and environmental factors significantly contribute to criminal behavior. For instance, Cesare Lombroso suggested that criminal tendencies could be identified through biological markers, implying that addressing these physical or psychological traits could reduce recidivism (Lombroso, 1876/2006). This school promotes social reform and individualized treatment, aiming for moral and societal improvement.

In essence, both schools attempt to justify their strategies within a framework of social justice—either by emphasizing personal responsibility and deterrence or by advocating for social and medical interventions to prevent crime. These arguments reflect broader philosophical debates about free will, determinism, and the role of society in shaping human behavior.

Personal Perspective and Supporting Issues

Among the two schools, the positivist approach aligns more closely with contemporary views on criminal justice. With advancements in neuroscience, psychology, and sociology, there is increasing acknowledgment that criminal behavior often stems from complex, interrelated factors beyond an individual's immediate control. A focus on rehabilitation, social support, and addressing preventable causes of crime supports a more humane and effective justice system (Mears & Cochran, 2015). The emphasis on addressing root causes facilitates societal reintegration, reduces recidivism, and promotes social equity.

Several philosophical and social issues bolster the positivist model. First, the issue of free will versus determinism is central; recognizing that biological and environmental factors influence behavior challenges the notion of absolute free will embedded in classical theory. Second, social justice is advanced when the system tailors interventions to individual needs rather than imposing uniform punishments, which may be unjust for those with mitigating circumstances. Third, ethical concerns about the morality of punishing individuals for actions driven by factors beyond their control favor rehabilitative models over retribution.

While the classical approach has contributed significantly to frameworks of justice emphasizing deterrence and personal accountability, it has faced criticism for often neglecting social inequalities and individual differences that influence criminal behavior (Ashworth, 2019). Thus, integrating insights from the positivist approach offers a more compassionate, effective, and socially just path forward.

References

• Beccaria, C. (1995). On crimes and punishments (S. Tannenbaum, Ed.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1764)
• Bentham, J. (2000). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1789)
• Lombroso, C. (2006). The born criminal (N. Kanazawa, Trans.). Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1876)
• Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2015). Prisoners and the politics of correctional reform. Sage Publications.
• Ashworth, A. (2019). Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press.
• Williams, M. (2018). The dark history of criminal law. Harvard Law Review, 131(3), 659-688.
• Miller, R. J. (2017). Crime and criminal justice in America. Routledge.
• Garland, D. (2017). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
• Steadman, H. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (2005). The criminalization of mental illness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2), 124-135.
• Bohannon, J. (2014). Brain scans reveal links between biology and criminality. Science Journal, 336(6077), 953-954.