Positivist Criminology Notes

Introduction to Positivist Criminology

Positivist criminology emerged in the 19th century as a response to classical theories of crime. It posits that the world is observable and measurable, akin to the natural sciences, making criminology an objective science focused on the causes and effects of criminal behavior. Positivist criminologists emphasize quantitative evidence, seeking statistical validation for criminal theories, and they branch into biological and sociological perspectives to explain criminality.

Key Concepts in Positivism

Positivism divides into two broad approaches: individual positivism, which looks at internal factors such as biological and psychological conditions leading to crime, and social positivism, which examines external societal influences.

Biological Positivism

Biological positivism finds its roots in the Italian School of Anthropological Criminology, with theorists like Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso is famously known for his belief that criminals are 'born, not made,' suggesting that physical traits can indicate criminality. He applied natural science methods to study offenders, famously using craniometry to measure skulls and evaluate physical deviations in 'criminals.' Among his claims, he suggested that features like a sloping forehead and asymmetrical face could identify the 'born criminal.'

Lombroso’s theory of atavism suggests that criminals are regressive, reverting to primitive evolutionary states. He also controversially introduced ideas that linked race and criminality, using stereotypes that were rooted in the prevailing ethnic hierarchies of his time.

Critique of Biological Positivism

Lombroso’s methods faced significant criticism due to their scientific weaknesses and biases towards certain races and social classes. Subsequent scholars, like Charles Goring, challenged his assertions, showing no distinct physical differences between criminals and non-criminals. Goring rejected the idea of an "anthropological criminal type" but controversially recommended reproductive regulation for those he deemed 'feeble-minded.'

Later, figures like Earnest Hooton and William Sheldon echoed similar sentiments regarding inherited traits associated with crime but faced accusations of elitism and racial biases in their research.

Sociological Positivism

Sociological positivism, on the other hand, views crime as a product of society. This approach was notably shaped by Émile Durkheim, who regarded crime as a necessary and normal part of society. Durkheim posited that crime serves functional roles, such as defining acceptable behavior and reinforcing societal norms. He introduced concepts like collective conscience, emphasizing that society collectively reacts to criminal behavior to reinforce social solidarity.

Durkheim also characterized crime as normal and functional, reinforcing the idea that a certain level of deviance is essential for social health. High societal regulation could lead to stagnation, while under-regulation might unleash unchecked individualism.

The Chicago School

The Chicago School further explored crime's relationship with urban environments. Sociologists like Shaw and McKay focused on the spatial aspects of criminal behavior, demonstrating how neighborhoods with social disorganization often exhibited higher crime rates. They introduced the concentric zone model, illustrating how urban areas are structured and how crime fluctuates with social cohesion.

Cultural Transmission and Differential Association

Cultural transmission explains how values and behaviors are passed down through generations, with certain neighborhoods gaining reputations for delinquency. Edwin Sutherland expanded on this with his differential association theory, arguing that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others who endorse criminal attitudes and behaviors. The concentration of exposure to criminal definitions increases the likelihood of engaging in crime.

Sutherland's nine propositions highlight that crime is learned in intimate groups and that the motives, techniques, and rationalizations for crime are acquired through societal interactions, making it a behavioral decision shaped by one's environment. However, criticisms exist regarding its failure to explain how individuals begin offending or how some resist criminal influences despite exposure.

Conclusion

Positivist criminology, through its biological and sociological lenses, provides a framework for understanding the complexities of criminal behavior. While biological approaches focus on inherent traits, sociological perspectives stress environmental factors. Despite their criticisms, both approaches contribute significantly to the discourse on crime causation and prevention, paving pathways for future research in criminology, including contemporary examines of genetics, neurobiology, and social influences.