Positivist Criminology:

the search for a criminal type?

Dan Ellingworth

Understanding Criminology

Friday, 24 October 2008

Lecture Outline

• The debate with classical criminology

• The basis of a positivist criminology

• Biological and Sociological Positivism

Classical

Criminology

Positivist

Criminology

Philosophy •Free-will

•Utility

Maximisation

•Individuals subject

to external forces

Problem •The Calculating

Criminal

•Under-socialisation

Solution •Deterrence •Expert Study and

Intervention

2 competing approaches to crime

Positivist Critique of Classicism

• Critical of Rationality

– The cost-benefit calculation

• Critical of Universal Sentencing

– If the context of choice is different, shouldn‟t

sentencing differ as well?

• Critical of lack of focus on criminal

– Really a theory of the state, not of the actor

Basis of Positivism

(Jeffery 1960)

• Determinism: crime is caused by factors

other than rational decisions

• Differentiation: criminals are different in

some identifiable manner from non-

criminals

• Pathology: this is something „wrong‟: not

just normal variation

Positivism and Science

• Positivism: – observation and experimentation

– objective things that can be observed

– quantification: data

• Belief in science as a higher form of knowledge– Religion < metaphysics < “positive” scientific

knowledge (Auguste Comte)

– Not “Why?” questions, but “How?”

– N.B. “Dare to Know” from last week

• Specifically: identify causes of criminality, in order to “rectify” them

Influence: Social Darwinism

•Scientific theory regarding

human evolution

•Socialisation, civilization,

culture and evolution

treated as synonymous

• Criminality seen as an

under-socialised / under-

evolved behaviourDarwin: On the Origin of Species

Crime As Pre-determined Action

Solution – expert identification of cause, and

isolation / remedy / removal from society

Biological Positivism Sociological Positivism

- Physical symptoms of

under-development

- Genetic explanations

- Psychology

- constitutional flaws

- psychoticism etc.

• Poverty

• Culture and Subculture

• Social Exclusion

Individualistic Positivism

• Cesare Lombroso

Italian physician

1835–1909

• the search for the „criminal type‟

• studied body types of executed

criminals

• Key approach: criminals are

different from non-criminals

• „atavism‟ (a return to an earlier

evolutionary form) as cause of

individual‟s deviance

• Did address environmental causes

in later versions

Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo

• Growing consideration of non-physical causes– Physical factors

– Anthropological factors

– Social factors

• Strong support for state intervention in each area incl. better housing, birth control etc. to prevent crime

• Garofalo: criminal acts demonstrated a lack of pity(revulsion against causing suffering) and/or probity(respect for property rights of others) on the part of the criminal

• Punishment is less important than measure of „social defence; against further offending

Adolphe Quetelet

• Belgian Mathematician

(1796 – 1874)

• Statistical approach to

criminality: attempted to

explain the noticeably

consistent patterns in

crime statistics.

Criticisms of Positivist Criminology• Lombroso and biological positivism

– Physical differences assumed to signal under-evolution

– Methodologically flawed

– The socially powerful assumed to be superior:

dangerous precedent

– Relieves society from any responsibility

– Expert domain expansion: danger of repressive

intervention (eg. Mussolini)

• Generally

– Deterministic / Over-predictive

– Ignores social construction of “crime”: uncritical of

official definitions and measurements

– Understates range of criminal behaviour and criminality

The „essentialising‟ of crime

• A huge range of human behaviour

designated as “criminal”: this is the only

common feature of these actions

• This „essentialising‟ of deviance allows us

to

– Feel better about ourselves

– Condemn and moralise about others

– Use the designation of „criminal‟ to justify

widespread inequalities

– “Individualisation and Differentiation”

Harms: Crime v. non-crime?

• Deliberate poisoning v. pollution

• The cigarette industry

• Low wages

• Agricultural subsidies in the West

• Adultery

Source: Professor Susanne Karstedt and Dr Stephen Farrall (2007) Law-abiding majority? The everyday crimes of the middle classes

Legacies of Positivism

• The study of the criminal, not crime

• Methodological rigour – allied to science (at least in theory)

• Potential rehabilitation of the criminal

• Crime pattern analysis

• Crime Reduction Strategies

• Continued (limited) research into genetic and psychological disposition to crime

Classical V. Positivist Criminology

Central to the debate is consideration of

agency and structure

Agency: we behave the way we do because

we choose to

Structure: we behave the way we do

because of constraints placed on us

Summary so far

Classical criminology

• emphasises agency: personal free-will

• focuses on crime deterrence and punishment

• Enduring influence: on the criminal justice system esp. punishment

Positivist criminology

• emphasises structure: circumstances

• focuses on the causal factors associated with offending

• Enduring influence: on criminological research, and rehabilitation

After Reading Week:

Sociology arrives! Durkheim and Anomie