Classical Theory

he classical school of criminology was developed in the eighteenth century, where classical
thinking emerged in response to the cruel forms of punishment that dominated at the time.

There were two main contributors to this theory of criminology and they were Jeremy Bentham
and Cesare de Beccaria. They are seen as the most important enlightenment thinkers in the area
of 'classical' thinking and are considered the founding fathers of the classical school of
criminology. 

Pros Cons
Provision of a criminal policy Assumes Rationality:

the greatest achievement of this school of
criminology lies in the fact that it suggested a
substantial criminal policy which was easy to
administer without resort to the imposition of
arbitrary punishment. It goes to the credit of
Beccaria who denounced the earlier concepts
of crime and criminals which were based on
religious fallacies and myths and shifted
emphasis on the need for concentrating on the
personality of an offender in order to
determine his guilt and punishment.
all criminals are rational is not generalisable
to the whole population nor is it entirely valid,
due to the fact that there may be biological
factors stopping an individual from being able
to think and behave rationally. Therefore it
may not be the particular choice of the
individual as they may have been born that
way; they may not have the ability to make a
rational decision due to a mental illness such
as schizophrenia. They may be disorientated
or even drugged which affects the brain
functioning and therefore any behaviours,
resulting in an individual becoming irrational.

e.g mental incapacity and lacking mens rea

Punishment for deterrence Assumption of Free will

They believed the punishment should not be
inflicted for vengeance; rather, punishment
should be for the reduction or deterrence of
crime.
Also, if people act due to principles of
rationality and free will then why is it that the
poor are predominating in the criminal justice
system, classical thought doesn't include
factors of necessity in order to survive.

e.g. role of external factors, poverty

Rationalizing criminal acts
Hedonistic calculation
According to this reasoning, individuals are
“human calculators” who put all the factors
into an equation in order to decide whether or
not a particular crime is worth committing.
Not everyone is a criminal by choice. Some feel
that they are lead to criminal activity due to
various social factors and outside influences
such as oppression, lack of opportunity, low
socio-economic statue, joblessness, and so
forth
Lacks deeper explanation for criminal
motivation
The Classical argument suggests crime occurs
due to temporary irrationality but this does not
explain why crime occurs in predominately low
income areas. (in the first place)
Lacks Scientific backing

Proposes a system of proportionality
Beccaria arguing for the need to reform the
criminal justice system by referring not to the
harm caused to the victim, but to the harm
caused to society. In this, he posited that the
greatest deterrent was the certainty of
detection: the more swift and certain the
punishment, the more effective it would be. It
would also allow a less serious punishment to
be effective if shame and an acknowledgement
of wrongdoing was a guaranteed response to
society's judgment. Thus, the prevention of
crime was achieved through a proportional
system that was clear and simple to
understand, and if the entire nation united in
their own defence
e.g
Present day application
Deterrence continues to underlie all judicial
systems and indeed underpinned the principles of
the first commissioners of Sir Robert Peel,
e.g. in the creation of the Metropolitan police.
Prisons are also used as major deterrents and also
to try and reduce rates of crime.
Beccaria’s views provided a background for the
subsequent criminologists to come out with a
rationalized theory of crime causation which
eventually led the foundation of the modern
criminology and penology.
Classicists tended to define criminal acts as
natural consequences of the unrestrained
human tendency to seek pleasure—as simply
hedonistic abuses of free will. The problem with
such an explanation, if accepted without
qualification, is that it provides little possibility
of further investigation
hedonism, rationality, and free will are mythical
human attributes. They may, in fact, define the
“essence” of human nature, but to accept
these constructs in pure form poses great
difficulties for science, a method of inquiry that
seeks measurable “causes” of the phenomena
it explores.
he classical school has much less biological
fact and figures backing up its views
Punishment proportionate to crime and not
criminal
 Classicism defines the main object of study
as the offence. The nature of the offender
was defined as being free-willed, rational,
calculating and normal. The classical thinking
response to the crime was to give punishment
that is proportionate to the offence.
The idea that 'punishment should fit the crime
rather than the criminal' fails to appreciate the
impact of individual differences in terms of
culpability and the potential for rehabilitation
It erred in prescribing equal punishment for
same offence thus making no distinction
between first offenders and habitual criminals
and varying degrees of gravity of the offence.
Doesn’t recognize inequality in society
Classical theory fails to recognise that the
inequalities in society are often the cause of
crime and when suggesting all are equal before
the law we are confronted with a major
contradiction.
e.g
The inequality in society also highlights the
difference between formal law and substantive
law because certain individuals in society have
the means to exploit the legal system through
knowledge and lawyers whereas others cannot
Although this theory was developed in the 18th
century it can still be applied and have
successful use in the 21st century.

e.g. Beccaria’s plan was used as the foundation

for many penal codes in Europe, Russia and the
United States
America’s justice system is founded on this
theory(Beccaria’s work influenced the first 10
amendments to the U.S. Constitution (the Bill
of Rights).

Social Disorganization Theory

Pros Cons

Explanation crime on macro level Failure to explain crime on micro level

The principal strength of this theory is that it On one end it provides a good explanation of
explains juvenile delinquency and crime such as juvenile delinquency and juvenile group crimes
vandalism, joy-riding and pointless theft which but it fails to explain individua responses.
mainly occurs in delinquent groups and
subcultures. Much of other theories of
criminology ignore this group reaction and
focus solely on individual

e.g Robert merton’s anomie theory and e. g joy riding is explained by this theory but it
biological positivists look at the cause of crime does not explain why crimes like murder and
as purely an individual matter without paying other compulsive crimes occur.
much attention to group crime.

Emphasis on social circumstances Narrow scope

It emphasized that the circumstances in which
people live is important in the genesis of crime.
It took away the attention from the notion that
criminals are born as such and focused on the
interaction of people and places.
Informed approach
Social disorganization theory studies can help
government and law enforcement policy-
makers make informed decisions from the
evidence to form strategies that help prevent
criminal activity in disadvantaged communities
to make it safer for all.
It adds new dimension to study crime but is
limited in its approach
e.g. it is ill-equipped to explain the occurrence
of hotspot crime – crime concentrated in small
geographic areas
Identification and measurement of social
mechanism
greatest challenge involves identifying and
measuring the social mechanisms that
account for heightened crime rates in
socially disorganized neighborhoods. Stated
alternatively, a
major conceptual limitation of social

Loopholes in socialization process
By studying patterns of socialization processes
in various communities, it is able to identify
pitfalls in socialization, in general.
Prediction of crime in society
With explanation of intragenerational
transmission it is able to predict crime in
neighborhoods
Biological Theory
Pros
Scientific Approach
it changed the way of criminological ideas and
opened up new theories that were based on
scientific facts rather than philosophical ideas
like in Classicism. can be tested
Testability
This theory has its strengths in its testability of
its predictions and the simplicity of measuring
Impetus for further developments
disorganization research is the relative lack
of
attention paid to the processes that
mediate the effect of community
characteristics
Explanation of social differences
Can't explain individual differences within
neighborhoods or cross-national differences.
Prediction of crime on individual level
Cannot account for individuals and groups in
the same neighborhood who are crime free or
why a few individuals commit a highly
disproportionate share of crime
cons
Subjective criteria
He used subjective criteria to allocate normal
and delinquent subtypes into condition
Generalization of disorders:
It develops theories about disorders and
generalises them to apply to everyone. It does
not take into account the view that humans are
unique. An example of this is that General
Adaptation Syndrome assumes that everyone
responds in the same way to stress but does
not take into account that some people have
more support than others.
It exaggerates the differences between
criminals and non-criminals. By focusing upon
what makes a criminal different from the
population, it tends to suggest an image of the
normal and the abnormal, of them and us. In
fact, many criminals overlap with the
population – are indeed just like you and me;
indeed are you and me
as not everybody who has an abnormality is a
criminal
Lack of Scientific support/incosistency
A strength of Lombroso's theory is that is has
led to further developments in explanation of
criminality. It is often regarded to be
responsible for developing newer theories
which have sound scientific evidence.
e.g. correlation between genetic and crime
urged modern researchers to look more into
the brain and biochemical factors such as brain
dysfunctions and imbalanced chemicals.
Acknowledgement of external factors’ role
Lombroso’s theory proved to useful because he
challenged the idea that criminals are wicked or
that they choose to be criminals. He also
accepted the fact that the environment does
contribute to the growth of criminal behaviour.
Explanation for human behavior
It is deterministic because it increases the
likelihood of being able to treat people with
abnormal behaviour and provides explanations
about the causes of behaviour.
Ecological Theory
Psychological Theory
Pros
Insight into human mind
The weakness that was established in this
theory found that these associations were later
shown to be highly inconsistent or inexistent,
and Lombroso had not used a control group
therefore having nothing of any substantial
nature to compare his results to. This became
Lombroso’s biggest flaw in his research and
theory.
e.g. after comparing 3,000 convicts with a 3,000
strong control group, there was little
correlation between psychical anomalies and
criminality.
Indifference towards penal system
It has a tendency to neglect the workings of the
penal system: the law or its aspects by which
crimes come to be invented and/or regulated.
Promotes stereotyping
A strong criticism of Lombroso’s theory was
that it encouraged stereotyping. This, in turn,
would then encourage prejudice and
discrimination.
For example if children are shown a picture of
a man with tattoos, they will indicate a negative
attribution towards the picture rather than to a
picture of a man without tattoos (tattoos on a
man are known to be a good indicator of being
a criminal)
Cons
Overemphasis on mind
Psychoanalysis has enlightened health
professionals about many aspects of the human
mind and its inner workings, phenomena that
had previously been inexplicable. As a direct
result of psychoanalysis, approaches to
psychological treatment are now considered
routine.
Comprehensive theory
By far one of the greatest strengths of
psychoanalysis is that it is a very
comprehensive theory. Psychoanalysis,
originally intended as a theory to explain
therapeutic or psychological concepts, explains
the nature of human development and all
aspects of mental functioning
Emphasis on nature as well as nurture
Takes both nature and nurture into account
(Nature: ID,Ego,Super Ego/ Nurture:
Parents,Childhood experiences)
Recognition of Subconscious to Affect
Behavior
Some people feel lonely and sad when sober,
but experience otherwise when drunk. A
psychodynamic approach can help you
recognize about the unconscious which can
have an impact on behavior. So when your
therapist taps your unconscious, you associate
the love of your mother with alcohol. This
approach seeks the deepest portion of an
individual to heal him or her from the inside
out.
Differential Association Theory
Pros
Addition of a new dimension
A major strength of differential association
theory is the contribution it made towards
changing people’s views about the origins of
criminal behaviour. The theory contributed
heavily to shifting the blaming of individual
factors from biology to social factors and
As well as this Freud’s theories
overemphasize the unconscious mind, sex,
aggression, and childhood experiences
Testability
these theories are difficult if not impossible to
test as one cannot see, identify, or measure the
id, ego, or superego.
Ignores Biological Components
Although there are strong psychological
evidence about this technique, it can disregard
any biological components that can be
associated to this scenario. Basically, when
talking about addiction, there is a genetic or
biological predisposition on this matter that can
be hard to ignore.
Crime and intelligence – limited explanation
However, they have only demonstrated that
low intelligence and crime occur together
frequently; they have not demonstrated that
low intelligence is the cause of crime
Cons
Testability
A major weakness and criticism of differential
association theory is this difficulty in testing it.
Sutherland was unable to provide a scientific
and mathematical framework to predict future
offending and it is hard to see how pro-criminal
attitudes a person has could be measured and
experiences.
This theory became instrumental in integrating
the view of sociology in the context of
criminology
Another strength of the differential theory is
that it accounts for both criminal behavior at
the individual level and the distribution of
crime rates across different social settings.
Since crime rates in a social setting are a
summary of the frequency of individual
delinquent behaviors, they are determined by
the fraction of individuals who receive excess of
delinquent behavior patterns via the process of
differential association.
Explanation for diverse social classes:
Sutherland’s work also contributed to
highlighting the transgressions of middle class
people rather than those of only lower social
standing highlighting that different forms of
crime are committed by people of all
backgrounds.
Supporting evidence
Supporting evidence for differential association
as an explanation comes from research studies
which show crime tends to run in families.
Osborne and West (1979) found that when the
father had a criminal conviction, there was a
40% chance the son had also committed a
crime by the time they were 18 years old in
comparison to 13% of sons who had non-
criminal fathers.
Possibility for solution
This presents real world implications as the
learning environments could be changed to
address this (through social policies) where as
previously the acceptance of genetics being the
key influencer in offending left little alternatives
as genes can’t be altered.
Labelling Theory
Pros
Comparison of cultures
Aids in understanding the reasons for
differences in deviance between different
compared to pro-social attitudes to see where
the tipping point would be.
Lacks quantification
It is also not clear what ratio favourable to
unfavourable influences would be required to
tip the balance for a person to become a
criminal.
Explanation for individual differences
Differential association as an explanation is
unable to account for people’s individuals
differences as not everyone who is exposed to
criminal influences goes on to commit crime.
Ignores biological factors
This highlights how social learning of
behaviours, crime and attitudes and values may
be shared within a family however it could also
be argued that such a link may be through
shared genetics which undermines this
explanation.
Ethical concerns
The theory also raises ethical issues particularly
when you consider that people from
impoverished backgrounds can be stereotyped
as unavoidably criminal. This explanation also
ignores the role of free will that people have in
choosing not to offend suggesting pro-criminal
exposure in sufficient levels is enough to create
criminal behaviour.
Cons
Overemphasis on society
by overemphasizing the role of society the
theory in a way portrays the criminals as
cultures
Insight into deviance
By breaking down the process of deviance into
3 steps: primary, secondary, tertiary, it provides
a theoretical framework to better understand
the behavior which is deviant from the norm.
Draws attention to social control
highlights the role of moral entrepreneurs such
as the mass media and the role they have in
defining and creating deviance and generating
moral panics
it calls attention to the unintended
consequences of social control.
Sparks social concern
Labeling the of criminals opens the problem to
public thus, sparking social concern and aid
advocacy efforts.
Recognition of mistake
The process of labelling may force the criminal
to recognize his mistakes, thus helping the
criminal to conform to norms
Scope
The theory looks at all times of criminals, while
other theories that focus on certain groups
based on statistics
victims thus, tending to ignore the real victims
of the crime
Explanation of primary deviance
It fails to explain why people commit primary
deviance in the first place before they are
labeled.
e.g breaking traffic laws and taking illegal drugs
are both examples of primary deviance,
the concern with the effects of social reaction
to primary deviance results in labelling theorists
neglecting to examine the origins of primary
deviance. Since Primary Deviation isn’t due to a
social reaction, it’s obvious we’re left without
explanation for the occurrence of Primary
Deviance in the first place.
Need of 3rd party label
Also the theory claims that for a criminal to be
successfully labeled an audience must be
present to provide a reaction to the crimes
committed. Does this mean that if a murder is
committed where the killer has successfully
avoided anyone's suspicion that the act is then
not criminal and the killer will not think of
him/herself as such? It's probable that the
murderer's socialization and/or value system
could initialize self-labeling, but the theory
clearly states the labeling must come from a
3rd party
Certain acts are only categorized as crimes
when the society portrays them as that.
Disregards rehabilitation
Labelling theory ignores the possibility for
rehabilitation because they see the problem of
crime as not lying within the criminal but within
society and as such, society should change.
Stereotyping
Stereotyping has the potential to be a deeply
destructive and misleading force which may
lead to the formation of ‘deviant subcultures’
Inaccurate measure
A label does not tell of a person’s character but
of the societal perception of that individual and
for this reason it is an inaccurate measure of
deviance and conformity.
 Social Conflict Theory
Pros
Macro scale explanation of crime
Conflict theory has strengths in its macro view
of society. Abstracting different portions of
society into different groups allows easier
analysis for interactions between these groups.
Explanation of conflict of interests
Conflict theory is also helpful in understanding
situations when there's a conflict of interest.
For example, it's been well-documented that
marijuana has fewer negative health and social
impacts than alcohol, but marijuana continues
to be illegal in most of the USA in part because
there's a lot of demand for increasing (or at
least maintaining) our prison populations.
Private corporations build prisons, they lobby
legislators to make sure there's a steady supply
of prisoners, so laws continue to be made that
put people in prison, even when voters don't
necessarily feel that negatively about marijuana
use.
Acknowledges inequalities in societies
The strength of the conflict theory is that it
acknowledges the inequalities of society, and
how these inequalities are reinforced over the
generations. It illuminates how the ruling
elite manipulate society in order to retain their
power, and challenges the functualist view
of society working together as one entity.
Explanation dominant class’ behaviour
Conflict theory is most helpful for
understanding the hidden ways that elites
oppress the masses - eg popular religion and
popular Hollywood culture.
A new approach
A strength includes that conflict theories
opened the way for society to be viewed from
alternative and critical perspectives, as opposed
to normative or traditional perspectives - much
like disruptive thinking does today - allowing for
non-traditional, innovative and creative
approaches to social phenomena.
Cons
Micro scale explanation of crime
But the analysis at individual level is weak.
e.g. It doesn’t explain ??
Explanation of cooperating groups
On the other hand, conflict theory doesn't
often explain very well why people work
together and cooperate. Most people go to
work not just because their bosses force them
to, but because there's a mutually beneficial
relationship between workers and their
employers - or even (for the lucky few) because
they obtain some intrinsic enjoyment from the
work they do.
Lack of research
There is a lacking presence of the study of
conflict theory in mainstream research. Much
of the scientific research performed on conflict
dealt primarily with individual conflict rather
than interpersonal conflict. For this reason,
there may not be a scientific basis for upholding
the conflict theory.
Limited scope
The conflict theory is limited to certain
environments. Incorporating the conflict theory
into environments such as the home has its
own set of challenges. While the conflict theory
certainly would relate to social class
relationships, it is much more difficult to bring
that concept into family dynamics as the link
between the two is extremely limited.
Pessimistic view of society
The conflict perspective on society affirms the
negative and conflicted state of society as
normal behavior. This theory challenges the
status quo and firmly believes that the elite
class is responsible for enforcing social order on
those who are destitute. Furthermore, it
discounts all acts of kindness as having an

Radical Theory
Pros
Highlights class difference
Marxism draws our attention to class
inequality, by providing explanations for crime
which cover all social classes, a variety of
offences and the nature of the law
Highlights selective law enforcement
Marxists argue the law is not an 'equal body',
but is there to protect the values of the ruling
class e.g. capitalism, in which keeps them rich
and in power
contends there are clear differences in how the
law is enforced between street crime e.g. theft,
and corporate crime e.g. companies breaking
safety regulations.
Theoretical strengths
The major strength of the theory is theoretical
one. In theory, if the ideas are put into practice
it would ensure equality all over the world thus
findings are a basis for a better tomorrow
Looks beyond statistics
They also argue that the statistics do not
include the crimes of the ruling class because
the laws governing such information are hugely
biased. They do not allow access to some
crimes; those committed by the ruling class are
protected.
Highlights the impact of corporate crimes
Snider (1993) uses official statistics to
illustarate how corporate crime is much more
ulterior motive or personal agenda.
Humanitarian efforts, acts of altruism,
democracy and the civil rights movement,
according to the conflict theory, were designed
to control the masses rather than to promote
peace and social order.
Cons
Overemphasis on corporate crime
it has been widely criticized for its
undue emphasis on corporate crime, at the
expense of other types of crime. It is argued
that crimes such as burglary, robbery, and
other violent crimes cause greater harm than
Marxist theories seem to imply
Overlooks the role of non-class variables
It ignores the relationship between crime and
important non-class variables such as ethnicity
and gender
Limited Practical application
The viewpoint that capitalist class i.e.
corporates and business get off lightly is not
entirely correct. The criminal justice system
acts against the interests of the capitalist class
e.g BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico in 2010; the
total settlement cost more than $4.5 billion
(which is the single largest criminal resolution
in the history of the United States)
Negation of the theory
Not ot all Capitalist nations, have out of control
crime rates, for example, Switzerland. The USA
has the highest crime rates in the world, but
that could be dependant on the size of the
population, not capitalism
Invalidity of official statistics
Interpretivists argue official statistics are invalid
and do not give a true picture of crime rates, as
 harmful that street crimes e.g. corporate crimes many go unreported for various reasons
such as industrial diseases cause around 100,00
deaths per year in the USA, where as around
20,00 people are murdered per year (so 5x
more deaths occur from corporate
origins!!!!!!!!!)
In spite of this criticism of radical criminology, it is possible to argue that there are merits in this
perspective. These are:

(1) It affects our outlook on legislation-its enactment and its administration.

(2) It compels us to determine how the internalisation of legal norms varies in different segments in
our society.

(3) It prompts us to examine how the methods designed to control crime result in some unintended
effects.

(4) It lays stress on explaining the relationship between political order and deviant behaviour. In a
way, this revitalises the profound sociological theme of relationship between individual and the
state.

(5) It points out the importance and the necessity of legal equality in a democratic society. If radical
criminologists succeed in creating awareness about the desirability of having legal equality in
society, they may do great service to society.

http://www.preservearticles.com/2012050131504/short-notes-on-the-criticism-of-radical-
criminology.html

Social Control Theories

Pros
Highlights role of social influence
Explains the role of social influece from the
media, peers and parents
Cons
Overlooks role of structural factors
The theory tends to blame the victim thus,
overlooking structural factors that lead to
family breakdown (poverty, long working hours,
unemployment.)

Emphasis on Informal social control Overlooks delinquent peer influence

Through emphasis on internalization of moral
codes these theories tend to reduce the focus
on punitive and coercive measures of social
control.
Expedites rehabilitation
Identification of weak social bonds can enable
rehabilitation professionals to ensure speed
rehabilitation of offenders e.g. by reattaching
the client with the family through therapeutic
strategies such as planned family outings and
scheduled family conferences
Parent deficit does not automatically lead to
children becoming criminals. There are also
‘pull factors’ such as peer group pressure,
which these theories overlook.
Explanation of adult crime
The theories do not offer any explanations on
adult crime and their link with juvenile
delinquency
Involvement for example may not explain white
collar or blue-collar crime because if one is
conforming to societal norms by working at the

Empirical/supporting evidence
Attachment to parents/commitment to
conventional activities is proven to reduce
crime.
job, he is not necessarily too busy to commit
crime but because his working has the
opportunity to commit crime.
Inconsistency
It is questionable whether vicarious
reinforcements are consistent enough to
change behavior

e.g The Cambridge Study in Delinquent e.g. Empsupporting research focuses on minor
Development (Faring ton and West 1991). deviance among fairly law-abiding groups
Looked at 411 ‘working class’ males born in
1953 who were studied until their late 30s.
Found that offenders were more likely to come
from poorer, single parent families with poor
parenting and parents who were themselves
offenders. This study suggests that good
primary socialisation is essential in preventing
crime.
Long term impact Limited scope
Despite criticism, social control theories have The theories do not address all types of crime
guided public policy reformations and are quite thus, undermining its validity
popular today.