5 Chapter 2 – Classical Theories of Criminology

The Conceptualization of Crime

Crime can be theorized in several ways. The most common way people view crime is as harmful acts that are “against the law.” However, many criminologists take a more complex view of the matter and caution that it is unwise to simply see crime as a violation of the law (Beirne & Messerschmidt, 2011; Agnew, 2011). As explained in Chapter 1, the law is technically a social construction, and many acts that cause significant harm are legal while other acts that cause minimal harm are criminalised. If criminologists only focus on acts that are violations of criminal law, they miss harms that fall outside of the law, and risk viewing relatively harmless behavior as a problem simply because it is illegal.

To address these gaps, some criminologists suggest that we view crime as a violation of conduct norms (Sellin, 1938) (see chapter 5 Social Disorganization and Differential Association). In other words, it is important to consider what a culture or group deems to be normal or deviant behavior as this may vary based on geographic location, history, and a variety of other factors. Deviance refers to behaviors that depart from or violates social norms. These behaviors are not necessarily deviant and may not even be criminalized, but these acts may be criminalized in the future due to cultural changes. For example, adultery (or “cheating on someone”) is considered a deviant act in cultures where monogamy is the norm, but it is rarely criminalized. Thinking about the relationship between crime and deviance can shed light on why some acts were criminalized in the first place. We can see, then, that the definitions of crime and deviance change over time and differ from culture to culture. In an effort to apply a more systematic and objective (i.e., “scientific”) approach to the study of crime, criminologists have developed typologies and other classification systems to organize their thinking about criminal acts.

Crime Typologies

The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) (discussed in greater length in the Scientific and Empirical Research chapter of this text) has a typology, or special system for classifying different types of crime: violent crime, property crime, other crime, traffic offences, federal drug offences, and other federal law violations. Another common approach is to divide criminal acts into victimless crimes (e.g., drug use, prostitution, and illegal gambling) and crimes where there is a clear victim (e.g., robberies and physical assaults). Alternatively, criminologists and other commentators may use the categories of street crime or blue-collar crime (e.g., more common types of property and minor violent crime) and suite crime or white-collar crime (e.g., financial, and occupational forms of crime committed by those with status or power in society, such as politicians, legal officials, corporate executives, celebrities, and famous athletes).

While these classification systems are clearly useful, most typologies fail to capture all types of crime and conceptualize them in a way that is helpful to students new to criminology. To address these concerns, this reading will review crimes that receive the most attention from criminologists. We will use the following system of classification:

Violent crime: homicide, sexual assault, assault, and robbery.

Property crime: breaking and entering, theft, identity fraud, and identity theft.

Crimes of morality/public order: drug use and prostitution.

Organized crime: serious crimes committed by groups of at least three people with the underlying purpose of reaping material or financial benefits.

Hate crime and terrorism

White-collar crime: crimes committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupation for their own benefit.

Corporate crime: crimes committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupation for the benefit of their business or corporation.

The following section will review the definitions of the types of crime listed above (with the exception of white-collar and corporate crime, which are discussed in chapter 6 Anomie and Strain Theory) and the ways they are considered to have different levels of severity. In addition, some observations will be made about the situations in which these types of crimes occur and any patterns that can be identified.

Criminology and the Classical School

The field of Criminology is broken up into “Schools.” These schools represent an evolutionary progression of the study of crime causation based on historical events of the times in which those theories were first established. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Criminology as a field is relatively young compared to other sciences (both Social and Biological). Criminology is at its core a derivation of the study of Sociology but branched off to become its own field of study somewhere in the late 18th century. The theorists of this time were concerned with the systems of justice in their respective communities and their influences on crime and punishment.

Before this, however, citizens began to question the justification of their governments and of the affects the criminal justice system had on their daily lives (Fedorek, 2019). Historically speaking, this began towards the end of the Middle Ages (500 to 1500 AD). A renaissance of social thinking argued that the monarchies of the era were too heavy-handed in their interpretation and implementation of justice within its constabulary and not paying close enough attention to the negative effects on the citizenry experienced by cruel and unusual punishment practices. Governments during these periods were never truly representative of the communities in which they governed, mostly because the power laid with the wealthy and powerful landowners and the royalty of the ruling class. The people had no right to confront their accusers, and the rich and powerful used this to their advantage. This inequity would be the birth of the social disruptors who would become the first Criminologists.

The Classical School of Criminology

The Classical School of Criminology is focused on the idea that people prioritize their personal well-being through their ability to rationally choose between good behavior and bad behavior.  Early theorists argued that people chose to pursue a state of pleasure over a state of pain and did so with the explicit need for self-gratification. The first theorists also argued that people were entitled to certain inalienable rights, a just criminal justice system for all, and the ability to have a coexisting relationship with that system.

Thomas Hobbes

In the mid-17th century Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), a British philosopher, wrote in his seminal piece Leviathan (1651) that people were rational and were entitled to such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well as the right to self-government. In the case of punishment, according to Hobbes (1651), judges were not bound by another’s sentencing prescription simply because there was precedence to do so. This social contract thinking would later be a building block for the modern American Criminal Justice System.

Hobbes’s Social Contract Theory is especially influential to the early concepts of Criminology, in that it suggests that humans naturally gravitate towards a system that is beneficial to their individual needs. Humans are possessed by a need for self-interest and will develop mechanisms within their experience to elevate their own social perspective. Hobbes argues that any term that expresses a positive or negative outcome is not born from emotion, but rather a need to separate what is beneficial and what is not from a micro social and a macro societal perspective. More explicitly, humans individually develop those systems that benefit them and transmit those systems to an aggregate (We take what makes us happy and project that on a larger scale to include everyone around us).

And we do this because we are reasonable in our thinking and our actions. Or are we?

Sir Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a British philosopher and reformer whose ideas about crime and punishment have influenced many criminological theories. His contribution to the field of Criminology centered around the concept of Utilitarianism, the belief that people act in their own self-interest. Bentham also considered the average person to be hedonistic, acting in such a manner that maximized their personal thirst for pleasure, while limiting their experience with pain. How these terms (pleasure and pain) were defined was subjective to the encounter in which they were experienced. We think of pleasure and pain in terms of emotional gratification. Bentham thought of pleasure and pain in a more inclusive manner: psychological, economical, and social. To further justify this course of behavior, Bentham argued that lawmakers should be in tune with the personal needs of citizens and devote their time to producing policies that focused on their need to be happy. Again, how that happiness was defined was never universally accepted.

In the event that pain was necessary as a means of punishment, Sir Jeremy Bentham had posited a concept that would later be influential in the theory of Deterrence. He argued that punishment should be used as a means of last resort, in such a manner that was quick and just harsh enough to sway the opinion of the masses into understanding that a particular behavior that was deemed deviant was not worth the suffering it incurred. During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was not uncommon for criminals to be punished in plain view of the public, in an attempt to influence behavior against a particular act that was considered unlawful.

Sir Jeremy Bentham also expounded on the Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes, going so far as to describe the process in which humans made decisions regarding their personal behavior. He reasoned that not only are people reasonable, but also rational in their choices, basing their behavior on a cost/benefit analysis. To Bentham, the choice to commit an act of deviance was directly influenced by the level of reward associated with the risk, and if the benefit of the “crime” outweighed the cost, then a rational person would more than likely engage in that behavior. This conceptualization would later evolve into Rational Choice Theory (see Chapter 7 Control, Rational Choice, and Routine Activities Theories), but the foundation was laid here.

Cesare Beccaria

One of the first “Criminologists” wasn’t even one. Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), an Italian philosopher, economist, and politician, is considered to be the “Father of Criminology.” He authored a book titled An Essay on Crimes and Punishment in 1764 which laid the foundation for what came to be called the Classical School of Criminological Theory. In the book, Beccaria theorized that crime occurs when the benefits outweigh the costs—when people pursue self-interest in the absence of effective punishments, and that crime is a free-willed, rational choice. Beccaria also revised the concept of proportionality, first introduced by Sir Jeremy Bentham, which states that in order for a punishment to be effective, it must fit the crime that it is intended to deter from repeating (di Beccaria & Voltaire, 1872).

How The Classical School of Criminology Affects Life in Louisiana

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the concepts of crime causation introduced in this chapter all have some influence on our everyday lives. We all go about our days with the notion that every decision we make is in our own best interest. It doesn’t matter if those decisions involve what we buy at the grocery store, or how much cereal we eat for breakfast (or dinner, if that’s your game). And to consciously be aware of the consequences of all our actions throughout our lives is something we take for granted. Criminology is a fascinating field of study in that it not only gives us a better understanding of the mechanisms that go into trying to explain criminal behavior, it also gives us an opportunity to explore so many other areas of influence in our lives and how they equally affect our non-criminal behavior.

People are hedonists, whether they know what it means or not. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Where it becomes problematic is when that sense of self-interest misaligns with the majority of what the community considers acceptable social behavior. That is the reason for laws: social behavior control. And it isn’t just laws that directly influence our behavior, but also those values learned through our own life experience. We are influenced by our parents, our elders, our religious institutions, our schools, and our own sense of morality when it comes to proper behavior norms. If those boundaries are not learned early in life, can we honestly expect that a person will behave in a fashion that we consider acceptable?

The Classical School of Criminology is the foundation of crime causation. The theories developed within gives us, Criminologists and non-Criminologists alike, a glimpse into the building blocks of deviant behavior, but it also gives us an opportunity to understand behavior as a whole. This is where we can begin to differentiate between the “need” and the “want.” If we as Criminologists can understand and pinpoint events that can be used to influence policy in such a manner that alleviates the need or want to commit an act of crime, then we must endeavor to pursue that course of reasoning.

 

Figure 2.6 illustrates the issue of recidivism within the state Louisiana as compared to other reporting states. While the overall percentage of formerly incarcerated individuals returning to prison is below the national average, the state does have the 3rd highest rate of imprisoned people, and the 12th highest imprisoned population. The issue of whether more imprisoned people means lesser crime is a strong topic for debate, and research has shown that it is actually cheaper to rehabilitate than it is to incarcerate, by about 50% (Elevations Health, 2024). The figures and more can be found here.