Positivism

Luka Magnotta

Crown argued that he had personality disorder and an intense desire for attention 

-Luka magnotta auditioned for tv shows, was an escort, got cosmetic surgery 

-fled to France then was found in Berlin reading articles about himself 

-found guilty and sentenced to 25 years 

Positivist criminology

Emerged in the 2nd half of the 19th century 

-emerged as a response to classical criminology 

-applies the scientific method to the study of crime 

-get to the root cause of crime 

-crime is a result of both internal and external factors 

-societal factors (external)

-psychological factors (internal)

Biological factors (internal)

key principles of positivist criminology

1. There are fundamental differences between criminals and non-criminals (ex: body, mind, environment)

2. Human behaviour is determined 

Hard: people have no choice when confronting situations, no free will, their behaviour is governed by other factors 

Soft: conditional free will, constraint free will, people will have a choice but it may be limited or constraint but there is always a choice 

3. Social scientists can be objective in their work 

4. Punishment should fit the offender not the offence 

5. Society is built upon a consensus approach 

2018 Van attack

Biological factors- something biologically inside caused this behaviour 

Psychological factors- he had autism 

Sociologically factors- bullied, online discussions (Incels), heterosexual men who want sexual relations with a women but are unsuccessful 

-targeted women and planned with attack due to years of rejection 

-sentenced to life 

Criticisms of Positivist criminology

• Assumption of difference

  • This questions whether criminals are fundamentally different from non-criminals. Are criminals simply people who have broken the law, while non-criminals are those who haven’t been caught yet?

• Overly deterministic

  • Some theories of crime suggest that people commit crimes because of factors beyond their control, like their upbringing, environment, or biology. This is called determinism. But this raises the question: do people really have no free will? Can individuals choose not to commit crimes, or are they just products of their circumstances?

• Overprediction of crime

  • Some theories predict that certain people (e.g., those from disadvantaged backgrounds) are destined to become criminals. But what about those who don’t?

• Discourse of non-responsibility

  • If we say that all crime happens because of social, biological, or psychological factors, does that mean no one is personally responsible for their actions?

• Ignores the criminalization process

  • This point questions why certain behaviors are considered crimes while others aren’t. For example, why is drug use criminalized in some places but legal in others? Why is corporate fraud sometimes treated more leniently than petty theft?

• Assumes the consensual worldview

  • Many crime theories assume that society agrees on what is right and wrong. But do all groups in society actually share the same values? Some laws may benefit the powerful while harming marginalized groups.

• Belief in the objectivity of social scientists

  • Social scientists study crime, but can they truly be neutral? Everyone has biases, and researchers might interpret data in ways that fit their own beliefs.

• Legitimization of experts

  • Experts often suggest ways to "fix" criminal behavior, such as rehabilitation programs or psychological treatments. But should all forms of treatment be accepted just because they come from experts? In the past, some treatments (like forced sterilization of criminals) were justified in the name of science, but they were unethical. This critique warns against blindly trusting expert opinions without questioning them.