Do people choose to commit crime or are they propelled in to criminal activity?'

Authors Avatar

Ben Jones

Monday 12th January 2004

Theory, Crime and Criminal Justice

Do people choose to commit crime or are they propelled in to criminal activity?’

Until the 1970’s, historians discussing the developments in the area of crime control institutions in Britain tended to take a perspective formulated in the Whigs notion of progress and drawing on the positivist approach to crime and criminals.  Crime tended to be seen as an absolute: it was largely understood in terms of theft and, to a lesser extent, violence; it was something perpetrated by ‘criminals’ on the law-abiding majority of the population. Improvements in the control mechanisms had been brought about by progressive humanitarianism and the sensible, rational responses of reformers to abuses and inefficiencies.  Since the 1970’s these perspective and interpretations have been subjected to critical examination by a new generation of social historians.  These historians began to work on court records in the hopes of penetrating the lives of the poor and socially disadvantaged; they have tended to concentrate on periods of social and economic upheaval such as the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century, or the years of industrialization and urbanization in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.  The initial focus was on property of crime, seen by some as a kind of ‘protest’ offence by the poor during periods of economic upheaval and privation.  More recently, partly as a result of social historians growing interests in gender issues, the focus has shifted towards violent offences, with important research addressing domestic violence and child abuse.  

All of these historians have sought to relate crime and the control of crime to specific economic, social, and political context; and all have acknowledged that crime is something defined by law, and that the law was changed and shaped by human institutions.  

To analyise the question fully I have identified the different areas of thinking throughout the Criminological spectrum. These are the classical school of thinking, the positivist school of thinking, and the labelling perspective - concluding whether criminal’s act on the basis of free will or whether they are propelled in to criminal activity.

The first leading theory from criminology that was most popular was known as ‘classical criminology’.  Classical criminology grew out of a reaction against the barbaric system of law, justice and punishment that was in existence before 1789.  This can be seen in Foucault’s work.  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.

Join now!

Crime, they believed, was activity engaged in, out of total free will and that individuals weighed the consequences of their actions in their minds. Punishment is made in order to deter people from committing crime and it should be greater than the pleasure of criminal gains. Classical theory emphasized a legal definition of crime rather than what defined criminal behaviour. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution reflect the Classical movement, thus the law of today is classical in nature.

Two famous writers during this classical period were Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, who both led the movement to human ...

This is a preview of the whole essay