Resume
Complete summary - Advanced Criminology
- Cours
- Établissement
- Book
A complete summary involving all the requested chapters that you have to study for the exam.
[Montrer plus]
Livre connecté
Titre de l’ouvrage:
Auteur(s):
- Édition:
- ISBN:
- Édition:
Plus de résumés pour
-
Samenvatting van alle literatuur van Theoretische Criminologie
-
Alle theorieën advanced criminology
-
Uitgebreide samenvatting Theoretische criminologie
4 revues
Par: meespeucker • 8 mois de cela
Par: maikederuiter • 9 mois de cela
Par: nathanvanulden • 9 mois de cela
Par: luukprovoost • 9 mois de cela
Vendeur
S'abonner
lisanvdkamp
Avis reçus
Aperçu du contenu
Advanced criminologyTable of contents
Chapter 3 Classical, neoclassical, and rational-choice theories..................................................1
Chapter 4 Biological, physiological, and biosocial theories of crime.........................................7
Chapter 6 Social Process Theories............................................................................................14
Chapter 7 Control Theory, Social Bonds, and Labelling..........................................................21
Chapter 8 Social Ecology and Cultural Theories of Crime.......................................................28
Chapter 9 Anomie, Strain, and Subcultural Theory..................................................................34
Chapter 10 Conflict and Radical Theories of Crime.................................................................41
Chapter 12 New Directions in Critical Criminological Theory................................................49
Chapter 3 Classical, neoclassical, and rational-choice theories
Classical theory was a strategy for administering justice according to rational principles.
Classical thinkers replaced the foundation of the caste system with the then-radical notion that
1
,people are individuals possessing equal rights. Prior to the Enlightenment, justice was
arbitrary, barbarous and harsh, with torture and corporal punishments such as whipping. Later
on, reformers made a distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving poor”. Though
both were to be punished for wrongdoing, the deserving poor, who were “poor through no
fault of their own”, were sent to workhouses, designed to train the poor to work through
discipline.
Classical theory was originally a radical, rather than conservative concept because it opposed
traditional ways, challenged the power of the state, deviated from the orthodoxies of the
Catholic Church, and glorified the common people.
The Preclassical Era
In the preclassical era, people were born into statuses of wealth and power, positions that they
claimed as their natural right. The law was the will of the powerful applied to the subordinate
members of society. The administration of justice was based on exacting pain, humiliation,
and disgrace to those accused of offenses.
Around 1650, humans were now seen as capable of making a difference in their lives and
situations through acts of will. The concept of “the individual” was born, with the highly
esteemed qualities of rationality and intelligence. The middle classes benefited from
considerable economic and social advancement. This was at the expense of farmers, laborers,
and the poor, many of whom became beggars and thieves. A division between riches and
poverty was created. The growth in street crime was not slowed by the ubiquitous corruption
in the criminal justice system. Officials whose job was to control common crime actually
encouraged it by accepting bribes. “Justice” was questionable, as the judicial system operated
arbitrarily and unpredictably. Juries could be corrupted, and witnesses would sell their
evidence.
Concern for the poor soon became mixed with fear of a threat to public order. In response to
the rising fear of crime, European parliaments passed additional and harsher penalties against
law violators. A more clear distinction between the respectable, deserving poor and the
unrespectable, undeserving poor was asked. The “respectable poor” included those suffering
from sickness and contagious diseases, wounded soldiers, curable cripples, the blind,
fatherless and pauper children, and the aged poor. They received immediate assistance,
including shelter, treatment and education. The “unrespectable poor” were described as
worthless, and were to be punished with imprisonment and whipping before being trained for
honest work. The justification was that compulsory labour would permanently cure begging
and thievery where laws had failed.
The Classical Reaction
The combination of both a rising landowning middle class as well as an escalating crime rate
led the philosophical leaders of the classical movement to demand double security for their
newfound wealth. They needed protection against the threat from the “dangerous” classes, and
against threats from above, the aristocracy that still held the reins of government power and
legal repression. Reformers needed a new legal concept of humans that would limit the power
of the old, aristocratically run state and liberate the freedom, safety, and security of the
individual to create and keep wealth. This emerged in the concept of universal rights to liberty
and freedom that would apply equally to all people.
2
,Cesare Beccaria
Cesare Beccaria formed a radical group called the “Academy of Fists”, which was dedicated
to waging relentless war against economic disorder, bureaucratic petty tyranny, religious
narrow-mindedness, and intellectual pedantry. His book On Crimes and Punishments became
highly influential and justified massive and sweeping changes to European justice systems.
Beccaria claimed that humans are born as free, equal, and rational individuals having both
natural rights, including the right to privately own property, as well as natural qualities, such
as the freedom to reason and the ability to choose actions that are in their own best interests.
He believed that government was created through a social contract in which free, rational
individuals sacrificed part of their freedom to the state to maintain peace and security on
behalf of the common good. The government would use this power to protect individuals
against those who would choose to put their own interests above others.
Taken together, these assumptions led to the principle of “individual sovereignty”. This means
that individual rights have priority over the interests of society or the state. Beccaria insisted
that lawmaking and resolving legal ambiguities should be the exclusive domain of elected
legislators who represented the people. He also altered the focus of what counted as crime.
Rather than defining crimes as offences against the powerful, he saw them as wrongdoings
against fellow humans and thus against society itself. He also argued that the law, the courts,
and especially judges have a responsibility to protect the innocent from conviction and to
convict the guilty, but to do so without regard to their status, wealth, or power. The only basis
for conviction was the facts of the case. This led to the principle of “the presumption of
innocence”.
When it came to crime prevention, Beccaria argued that laws and punishments should be only
as restrictive as necessary to just deter those who would break them by calculating that it
would not be in their interests to do so. Punishments should be proportionate to the harm
caused. According to Beccaria, “general deterrence,” which means using the punishment of
one individual to discourage others from committing crime, should be replaced by individual
or “specific deterrence,” which encourages each individual to calculate the costs of
committing the crime. The principle of “just deserts” is important here, which means that
convicted offenders deserve punishment that is proportionate to the seriousness of the harm
they caused.
In order for deterrence to work, three things must occur: certainty, severity, and celerity.
“Certainty” refers to a high chance of apprehension and punishment. “Severity” of
punishment means that the level of punishment must be appropriate. If the punishment is too
severe, it is counterproductive and results in a lack of respect for the law. If the punishment is
too lenient, it will not serve as a deterrent. Finally, for punishment to appear as a deterrent to
potential offenders in relation to the offence committed, then it must also occur swiftly after
apprehension, that is, with “celerity”.
Jeremy Bentham
Bentham expanded on Beccaria’s ideas by offering the notion of the “hedonistic, or felicity,
calculus”. This calculus states that people act to increase positive results through their pursuit
of pleasure and to reduce negative outcomes through the avoidance of pain. Like Beccaria,
Bentham saw law’s purpose as increasing the total happiness of the community by excluding
“mischief” and promoting pleasure and security. He believed that for individuals to be able to
3
, rationally calculate, laws should ban harmful behaviour, provided there is a victim involved.
Crimes without victims should not be subject to criminal law. Laws should set specific
punishments (pain) for specific crimes in order to motivate people to act one way rather than
another. But since punishments are themselves evil mischief, the utility principle (the idea that
the greatest good should be sought for the greatest number) justifies their use only to exclude
a greater evil, and then only in sufficient measure to outweigh the profit of crime and to bring
the offender into conformity with the law. In the case of the repeat offender, it might be
necessary to increase the punishment to outweigh the profit from offences likely to be
committed. He rejected the death penalty because it brought more harm than good and
therefore violated his utility principle.
Neoclassical Revisions
In seeking fairness and the elimination of discriminatory misuses of justice in the French
Revolution, the French Code of 1791 treated all offenders equally – regardless of individual
circumstances. In 1819, the French revised the code, and this neoclassical position recognized
“age, mental condition and extenuating circumstances”. The basic underlying assumptions –
that humans are rational, calculating, and hedonistic – remained the cornerstone of criminal
justice policy. Later on, the focus of criminal justice shifted away from the criminal act and
how equal individuals chose it toward what kinds of individuals would choose such acts and
why other kinds would not.
Criminal Justice Implications: The Move to “Justice” Theory
The scientific search for the causes of crime displaced the armchair philosophers of rationality
and reason. It changed criminal justice policy to take into account both individual and social
differences, especially in sentencing practices. Offenders were diagnosed as having specific
problems and were deemed to need sentences (treatment) based on their diagnosed problems.
The emphasis shifted from deterrence to treatment under what was termed “rehabilitative
justice”. Critics raised two central problems. First, for all the effort at rehabilitation, did it
prevent recidivism, or reoffending? The second charge against rehabilitative justice was that it
was unfair. Justice theorists pointed to a tendency for rehabilitation and treatment to drift
toward discretion and inconsistency. Rehabilitation often inflicted more cruelty than the
punitive approach. From this scepticism rose the justice, or “just deserts,” model. This model
contained four key elements: (1) limited discretion at all procedural stages of the criminal
justice system, (2) greater openness and accountability, (3) punishment justified by the last
crime or series of crime, and (4) punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the crime,
based on actual harm done and the offender’s culpability.
The Conservative Law-And-Order Turn
Combined with a conservative or “law-and-order approach” to crime control, the prevailing
just deserts model holds that crime is freely chosen and rewarding, and, therefore, it demands
both deterrent and retributive responses. This is not only because of the harm done but also
because the offender knew the consequences before committing the crime.
Determinate or Mandatory Sentencing
Determinate sentences are designed to make justice “fair” and to make potential offenders
aware of what sentences they can expect for committing specific crimes. Evidence from
research on state-level sentencing reform shows that the policy of determinate sentencing both
reduces sentencing disparity and increases prison populations. However, there are several
4
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur lisanvdkamp. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €4,49. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?
4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)
80364 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours
Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans