The Classical School of Criminology

The Classical School of Criminology evolved out of a response against the barbaric system of law, justice and punishment that subsisted before 1789. It sought an emphasis on free will and human rationality. The Classical School was not interested in studying criminals, but rather law-making and legal processing. They believed that humans were hedonistic but rational beings, deterred from unlawful behaviour by threat of sanction. Therefore, punishment is made in order to deter people from committing crime. Classical theory focused on a legal definition of crime rather than a definition of criminal behaviour. Two famous philosophers of this classical epoch were Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria focused on the law, its punishments, and its outcome on the individual--crime was a result of bad laws not bad people; Bentham was concerned with utilitarianism—the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both men supported the idea of a social contract—individuals agree to give up some of their freedom to the state, and in return, the state will protect them; people create the government to defend their mutual promises by laws and punishments. While Beccaria’s ideas hailed him as “the father of criminology”, his ideas along with Bentham’s paved the way for human rights and free will.

Today the Canadian criminal justice system, as a result of the Classical School, employs the Young Offender’s Act, The Charter of Rights, the consideration of mitigating circumstances, indeterminate sentences, probation, and parole (Brantingham, 2001). Its influence is abundant in our system, but a main concern lies in our government’s ability to comply with the Classical School’s objective—a fair and effective system of rational, justified, legal, and proportional punishment.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Punishment is a form of deterrence—it can either be specific, punishing an individual so that he/she won’t commit a crime again, or general, punishing an individual to set an example for society to not commit the same crime. Beccaria claims, punishments are necessary because of human selfishness, therefore, punishments should not deny human selfishness, but supply “motives” to make it in one’s self-interest not to break the law (Brantingham, 2001). In this sense, punishment can be seen as preventative. But in order to be effective, the deterrence must possess celerity (swiftness), severity, and certainty (Beccaria, 1764, p.282-284). If a punishment is quick to follow the crime, people are more likely to recall the connection when contemplating a criminal act, and weigh it into their consideration—this is celerity. Severity is the kind of punishment the offender is likely to receive. Certainty is the likelihood of the offender being punished. Some argue that the likelihood of being punished is more significant than the kind of punishment likely to be received (Sacco & Kennedy, 1998, p.131)—in fact, if certainty is high, severity can be lower. From charge to conviction, the Canadian criminal justice system is quick to comply with the certainty aspect of deterrence, yet the problem of its effectiveness lies in its inability to possess celerity—the average delay across Canada is about 18 months. This proves ineffective for deterrence, but its severity or proportionality divulges its ineffectiveness. In Canada, homicide is a culpable offence, liable to 25 years without parole, yet the average time served in prison for murder is about 11 years. Beccaria states that the punishment must be proportional to the crime—hence, it should not be excessively harsher than the crime (1764, p.281). Excessive punishments actually encourage crime—by making minor and serious offences equally punishable, disproportionate punishments make it in the interests of would-be offenders to commit the more serious crimes (Brantingham, 2001). My concern is one of determining suitable proportionality for a crime—it is not written out specifically for each crime, like the Criminal Code is, making it difficult for a judge to apply suitable punishment proportionality to the crime. Therefore, I think proportionality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder—except it is the judge who has the actual say in proportionality. This is why people are allowed to appeal their sentence and why others protest, criticize, and complain about a given one.

In my opinion, the average punishments for Canadian crimes are not justified—criminals are getting off easy, and that is unacceptable. Aggravated sexual assault is life without parole for 25 years, yet the average time served is about 37 months. Justification relies on empirical demonstration that general and specific deterrence is accomplished (Brantingham, 2001). General deterrence in this case may result in high recidivism rates due to the fact that this example lacks proportionality and celerity (from previous example). Of the three rules of deterrence, these two are the most important, yet our system seems to disregard them by its actions. While Beccaria would be turning in his grave at the sight of our system’s lenient sentencing, Bentham would argue that our system does not fully utilize his theory of utilitarianism—the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Bentham, 1789, p.80-83). For sexually assaulted victims, the greatest good for the greatest number of them is definitely not to find out that their assaulter has been let out of jail after 37 months. Victims of crime can often take numerous years to recover psychologically from the event, and knowing that their offender will get off easy may instil more fear and anger in the victim, thus inhibiting the recovery process.

If one breaches a contract, he/she will be penalized; therefore it is understandable that punishment is the consequence of committing a crime because a crime is a breach of the social contract to which we all are bided to. Punishments should be legally fair and effective, and made known to the rationally, calculating public. Our criminal justice system proves to be a lenient one by definition of its duration of sentences, thereby, lowering its efficacy—but nothing states that doing so is prohibited. If a punishment is excessively harsher than the crime, it can be considered a vengeance by the state (Beccaria, 1764, p.280-281), defies the theory of utilitarianism—the offender is also entitled to as much freedom has he/she possibly can be entitled to under situational circumstances—and is unjust. No Ex Post Facto criminal laws are allowed—they must be announced first, then used—if there is no law for a crime, then it is not a crime by definition (Brantingham, 2001). In order for the law to be made known to the public, it also must be written in an understandable language and published before it goes into effect so people can understand and obey it. Classical theory is also supported by due process—to ensure that the government does not act oppressively or tolerate appreciable risks of inaccurate findings of guilt (Packer, 1968, p.303-305). This is probably where certain individuals may see the criminal justice system as lenient since due process advocates are willing to release the factually guilty to deter government violations of rights. The Rule of Strict Interpretation states that the scope of criminal law should be applied to the smallest possible set of behaviours and judicial application of it should always opt to cover the fewest possible types of behaviour (Brantingham, 2001). Therefore, if the law restricts too many behaviors, then too many things will be considered a crime, and the purpose of the social contract will be flawed.

Beccaria and Bentham were strong influences in the Classical School of Criminology. Being advocates of the social contract they believed that it was in the society’s best interest that the government ensured the safety and happiness of society. Beccaria believed that efficacy in the law and its punishments would ensure this security while Bentham’s utilitarianism complimented this belief. Together they formed the basis for future generations of criminal justice systems around the world—including our very own Canadian criminal justice system today.