Two Theories That Have Influenced The Current Development Of Criminology

Crime is defined as an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. The idea of the born criminal was introduced by Italian army physician Cesare Lombroso, he began to study delinquents in the 1860’s (p. 69); he believed that criminology was based on the individual criminal themselves. Lombroso collected the skulls of criminals, and it was believed that the key to criminality manifested in the deformities of the skull; these bumps and lumps were presumed to be the links to physical and mental illness. Classical criminology and positivist criminology, have influenced the current development of criminological theory. The two criminologies set the current tone for the ways of which

Criminal behavior is not just genetic but also influenced by ones environment. This is closely related to the historical argument of nurture versus nurture, in my opinion it is nature and nurture. It can be said that criminals are a result of harsh living conditions, and thus the participation in illegal activity is a forced means of non-negotiable survival. On the contrary not all individuals have been forced to live such a life, some of the traits have been passed down through generations. Cesare Lombroso says that it is nurture not nature that is solely responsible for criminal behavior. If this is true than that would mean that the current criminals that are or have been institutionalized are born with these character traits, thusly having no control over their actions because it would presumably be inevitable to not become a criminal based on Lombroso’s

Outward antisocial impulses result in the development of a criminal, impulses directed inward results in a neurotic child. Philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria argued that crime was a matter of free will and rational self-interest,in which could be defined by law. They also believed that the punishment one faced for the consequences of their actions would ultimately deter crime. Classical criminology makes the assumption that people who commit crimes, choose to do so rationally based on the pleasurable result that there could possibly be an positive outcome. Would that pleasure, assumable being positive, really deter ones illegal behavior if the benefit is substantially positive? Compared to Neoclassical which can be defined as crimes that offend against a universal understanding of what morality is. One could say that it is possible to obtain a more aggressive deterrence of crime through the change of a environment, thus making crime less appealing and feasible. Neoclassical criminologists sought to explain crime as a result of problems such as poverty, low intelligence or family