What did revisionist social historians contribute to our understanding of the development of the law and criminal justice?
Since the late 18th century, the topic of crime has developed, and become more accepted for ‘serious historians’ to study (Phillips, 1985, p. 50). The topic of crime is inclusive of methods of punishment, alongside law enforcement agencies, as well as the study of criminals and criminal behaviour (p. 50). Therefore, much of the work in this area looked at the development of crime rates, or local studies of crime (Zehr, 1976). There was also some focus on penal reform and the history of criminal justice. (Johnson, 1995). However, the general consensus throughout focused on presenting the development and progress of the
…show more content…
They argued that criminal behaviour was used as a form of resistance to the upper class and state. It was used as an act of rebellion. This impacted the current knowledge of the development of the law and criminal justice (Pearce, 2003). For instance, they argued that only representatives of the ruling class implemented the laws in Britain. This leads to a situation whereby, those being punished are typically because of “crimes of poverty such as stealing food or failing to pay fines, while the private companies that run the railways are allowed to get away with killing people in train crashes caused by their pursuit of profit before safety” (Byron, …show more content…
This has contributed to our understanding of the development of the law and criminal justice, as it argues that ‘crimes’ were created in response to power relations. “The history of crime is largely the history of how better-off people disciplined their inferiors… or of how in modern times bureaucrats, experts and policeman used them to justify their own expanding functions & influences” (Gatrell, 1990, p.245).
In conclusion, revisionist social historians made a significant impact on the knowledge of the law and criminal justice. The main focuses revolved around the idea of Marxism, the view from below and questioning the existing politics of control. This in turn impacted what was viewed as criminal behaviour, methods of law enforcement and how it is impacted by capitalism.
There was very little structure to the justice system and due to it being so punitive, juries were reluctant to find people guilty of offences (Bentley, 1998). This period of time became known as ‘The Bloody Code’. Throughout The Bloody Code policing was entirely a local initiative, there was not a centralised police force. Constables, Watchmen and Amateur Justices were tasked with crime prevention, crime detection, and general public safety (Reiner, 2000). However, the Watchmen were branded ineffective and there was little to no public confidence in their use, they were ‘scarcely removed from idiotism’ (Critchley, 1978: 18) this view would makeweight of the orthodox perspective suggesting that the New Police were to bring competency and professionalism, attributes which clearly lacked within the private system. Another major issue that affected the public opinion of the private system was the employment of thief-takers. For example, Jonathan Wild, a private detective who was extremely corrupt. Wild stole items from individuals, and then took it upon himself to return these items for a large reward. The revisionist view is that corruption was not an
The individuals within our society have allowed the people to assess and measure the level of focus and implementation of our justice system to remedy the modern day crime which conflicts with the very existence of our social order. Enlightening us to the devices that will further, establish the order of our society, reside in our ability to observe the Individual’s rights for public order. The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence-based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packers believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed, defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness.
Young, J. (1981). Thinking seriously about crime: Some models of criminology. In M. Fitzgerald, G. McLennan, & J. Pawson (Eds.), Crime and society: Readings in history and society (pp. 248-309). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
There are different principles that makeup the crime control model. For example, guilt implied, legal controls minimal, system designed to aid police, and Crime fighting is key. However one fundamental principle that has been noted is that ‘the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal processes’. (Packer, 1998, p. 4). This is very important, because it gives individuals a sense of safety. Without this claim the public trust within the criminal justice process would be very little. The general belief of the public is that those that are seen as a threat to society, as well as those that fails to conform to society norms and values should be separated from the rest of society, from individuals who choose to participate fully in society. Consequently, the crime control model pro...
The three eras that have characterized the field of criminology over the past 100 years are the “Golden Age of Research,” the “Golden Age of Theory,” and an unnamed era that was “’characterized by extensive theory testing of the dominant theories, using largely empirical methods’” (28). The “Golden Age of Research” era spanned from 1900 to 1930 according to John H. Laub. This era is identified as focusing heavily on the collection of data surrounding crime and the criminal. This data was assessed without “any particular ideational framework” (28). The second era, the “Golden Age of Theory,” spanned from 1930 to 1960, also according to Laub. This era is also rather self-explanatory, it is described by the development of theories; however, Laub
During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).
Unlike previous theories, the conservative theory took a primitive approach to crime during the 1980s and 1990s. After the turn of the century, crime was associated and viewed through the lens of society. That lens shifted during the 1980s as crime was viewed as the responsibility of the individual and not through society. For example, the individualistic views the Classical School and Positivist School theorists had. Although Wilson and Herrnstein did not take the same approach as Beccaria, Bentham, or Lombroso each set out to once again, get tough on crime and bring ‘“punishment back into society’” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015, p. 328). The two primary questions for conservative theory was asked by Wilson and Herrnstein in their book,
Conflict criminology strives to locate the root cause of crime and tries to analyze how status and class inequality influences the justice system. The study of crime causation by radical criminologist increased between 1980s and 1990s as this led to the emergence of many radical theories such as Marxist criminology, feminist criminology, structural criminology, critical criminology, left realist criminology and peacemaking criminology (Rigakos, 1999). In spite of critical criminology encompassing many broad theories, some common themes are shared by radical research. The basic themes show how macro-level economic structures and crime are related, effects of power differentials, and political aspects in defining criminal acts.
Conscious efforts to critique existing approaches to questions of crime and justice, demystify concepts and issues that are laden with political and ideological baggage, situate debates about crime control within a socio-historical context, and facilitate the imagination and exploration of alternative ways of thinking and acting in relation to crime and justice. (p. 3).
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However, it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process. Furthermore, can formal social control institutions such as the criminal justice system and the government provide the best aspect of producing conformity and law abiding behaviour? Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory is concerned with what effect formal institutions have on conformity in individuals and in particular, how law abiding behaviour is produced due to these institutions (Walklate, 2005).
Norrie A, Crime, Reason and History. A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2001)
Classical criminology theory is a legal systems approach, which emerged in the 1700s age of enlightenment. Various philosophers like John Locke, Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria expanded upon the theory of the social contract to explain the reasons as to wh...
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
This early period of criminology was called classical criminology. The age of Classical Criminology came about in the 1700s because of the need to counteract the cruel forms of punishment which was prevalent for those times. In times before the classical period of criminology, anyone despite being of unsound mind could be convicted and receive capital or torturous punishment. “Classicalism was based on free will and rational choice” (Tim Newburn, 2007, pg114). This brought about the idea that criminals/offenders would receive equivalent punishment to the level of their offence, due to the fact that the criminals/offenders were acting upon their own free will (their own ability to act upon their own discretion). During the 18th century there were numerous campaigns by varied thinkers that forwarded the need for individual rights and a fairer justice system to be put in place. The risings that took place at this time such as the American and French revolutions kickstarted the creation of “new institutions in which political decisions were made” (Tim Newburn, 2007, pg
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular