Introduction
Criminology studies the reasons behind criminal behaviour and looks at crime as a social occurrence (Vito & Maahs, 2011). Criminologists provide theories that policy makers use to manage crime. They have formulated several theoretical approaches to help understand criminal behaviour. Some of these theories trace the cause of crime to the individual who first weighs the negatives and positives of a criminal act. Others associate crime with inherent physical and psychological traits and view criminal behaviour as determined by other factors beyond the offender’s control. The study and application of these theories is very useful to criminology. This essay focuses on the importance of the rational choice theories and the positivist theories in understanding criminal behaviour. It gives comparisons and points of departure between the two approaches.
Rational Choice Theory
The main tenets of theory of rational choice are derived from the formulation of Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria was a strong believer in the principle of utilitarianism, which is the notion that human behaviour is motivated by the desire to increase pleasure and avoid pain (Samaha, 2005). The theory proposes that when a person commits a crime, his punishment ought to be swift and geared towards deterring further offenses (Siegal, 2010).
Rational choice theory makes commendable gains in criminology from the early assumption that as punishment gets severe crime ought to reduce. Its application to criminal behaviour puts emphasis on the reward an offender expects from a crime, and the costs and gains associated with criminal activity (Piquero & Tibbetts, 2002). It assumes that people are only concerned in themselves and how they can maximize their goals and pleasure. The theory comes from a premise that human beings act rationally (Haan & Vos, 2003). They calculate the expected outcomes of their actions before making a choice.
To be considered rational, human behaviour has to maintain consistency with logic. People, therefore, make choices on their course of action (conformity or deviance) based on calculations that involve weighing of pain against pleasure. In addition, they try to reduce the risks associated with criminal activity by taking into account situational aspects such as time and place (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). Therefore, if the risks associated with punishment outweigh the expected benefits of the crime, the risks serve to deter criminal behaviour. Although it retains its stress on the cost-benefit calculus, the rational choice theory develops into a complete outlook that recognizes the complicated makeup of crime.
One of the proponents of the theory, Gary Becker concedes that though most people adhere to high standards of morality, deviants rationally view the gains from criminal behaviour as outweighing the punishment and their current situation (Gül, 2009). A person who expects to be jailed for ten years for a crime that can save his life or that of his children, for instance, can conduct a rational cost-benefit analysis. If the benefits are higher than the cost, then he is likely to commit the crime. In such a scenario, the rational choice theorists propose an increase in the amount of fines or severity of punishment to deter criminal activity. Rational choice theory also recommends that efforts to reduce or prevent crime can be formulated in a way that increases the likelihood of the criminal getting caught thereby improving security and surveillance. It is the belief of the rational theorists that varying factors like poverty, family setting or IQ play an important role in the explanation of crime. The criminal chooses between personal challenges and the availability of opportunities.
Positivist Theories
In the nineteenth century, criminologists moved away from the framework of free will to a more scientific and deterministic approach (Einstadter, 2006). The positivistic theory marked the beginning of the modern science-based outlook to criminology and assumed the existence of consistent social laws that could only be uncovered through scientific investigation. It put emphasis on the use of scientific procedures such as the collection of data on various individuals and the social trends around incidences (Farr, 2012). Positivist theorists borrowed a lot from the anthropological theory of evolution and focused on observation and collection of evidence using a deductive approach. The theory sought to formulate laws on the causes of crime using research directed towards the cause of deviant behaviour.
Biological positivism relates crime to chemical disproportion in the human brain. It claims that deviant behaviour is a result of biological or genetic deformity. These defects if detected can assist in the differentiation between deviants and conforming citizens. Modern proponents of this theory seek to link testosterone, IQ and crime. Unlike their traditional counterparts, they understand the role played by society in influencing criminal behaviour. Going by the biological theory, the solutions society can offer to reduce criminal behaviour are limited. However, society can attempt to cure the offender using rehabilitation and medication. They can also isolate the individual from the rest of society. To prevent further transmission of criminal genes to future generations, the biological theorists propose sterilization or death of the offender (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2010). These options are especially useful if deviant behaviour is solely biological. If not, it is wrong to sterilize a man for criminal behaviour that cannot be passed genetically. Penal systems should target offenders only (Estrada, 2008).
One of the strongest proponents for the positivist theories was an Italian psychiatrist called Cesare Lombroso. Known as the father of criminal anthropology, Lombroso focused on studying mental processes and body traits with which a criminal was born. He replaced the idea of rationalism and choice with that of determinism. Lombroso started his studies during his stint in the army where he noted physical differences between disciplined and deviant soldiers. His original theoretical outlook linked inclination to commit a crime with certain physical attributes shared between most offenders (Lombroso, 2006). He proposed certain physical attributes that could be used to set criminals apart. This was known as atavism (Hagan, 2010). Lombroso held that criminals were easy to identify as they had features like those of apes (O’Brien & Yar, 2008). Later on Lombroso added economic and social influences to factors that influenced criminal behaviour. The problem with Lombroso’s model is that it could cause discrimination towards people with certain physical traits based on stereotypes. Though scientific study brought forward facts that discredited Lombroso’s theory, he was recognized for laying down the foundations for studying the criminal mind in a scientific way.
Lombroso’s theory had several followers such as Enrico Ferri and Raffaelo Garofalo. Ferri, in a close relation to Lombroso’s atavism, put forward four different types of criminals. He grouped them as insane, born criminals, occasional criminals, and criminals by passion. He believed that the growth rate of crime was proportional to security measures used. For him, increasing security officers or policemen only served to increase incidences of crime. Ferri, therefore, saw no reason for rehabilitation of criminals or putting in place deterrent measures. Garofalo, another biological positivist, proposed the use of social Darwinism to eliminate criminals and their descendants. His reputation lay in his attempt to devise a ‘natural’ explanation for crime. Robert Dugsdale, another reputable positivist, viewed crime as hereditary. He believed that the traits that predisposed an individual towards criminal behaviour were passed from one generation to the next.
Sigmund Freud devised a model based on three psychological types that he believed played a big part in deviance. He came up with the id, ego, and the superego as explanations for human behaviour. According to Freud, human beings were inherently evil. The id was the animalistic nature inherent in all humans but was kept in check by the ego and superego.
Main Points of Convergence and Divergence
Positivist and rational choice theories may hold exceptionally divergent views on the causes of crime, but they both have their origins in Italy. The theories also agree that the roots of crime lie in human nature. Though each theory recommends the removal of offenders from society, the rational school proposes rehabilitation and deterrence while the positivist holds that criminal behaviour is inborn and determined. According to the positivist theory such behaviour cannot be changed.
One advantage of positivism is the objectivity it offers when searching for facts that are important in the creation of efficient laws and social policy. It can provide realistic solutions to the menace of crime. On the contrary, the rational theory of choice takes a more subjective approach that is dependent on individual preference. Though it is important to aim for objectivity, absolute objectivity is unattainable as human beings are intrinsically subjective and must be recognized as so in any academic endeavour.
It is true that mental factors influence the inclination of a person to commit crime, but to isolate certain parts of society as criminals and non-criminals based on their biology only serves to impose prejudice and discrimination. However, with advancement in science, the debate has shifted from phenotypic features of criminals to the link between genes and crime. Therefore, it is easy to notice a person with a flat nose or protruding jaw, but not their inclination to commit offences. However, the biological approach to understanding crime and deviance is still used despite the change in the debate.
The application of scientific procedures in understanding criminal behaviour is not an easy task and is not easily applicable. Positivism is criticized for its principle of normative consensus (Bohm & Vogel, 2010). One of the main critics of Lombroso is Charles Goring who disputes the existence of the criminal type. He argues that criminal behaviour is a product of the interaction between hereditary and environmental causes.
Conclusion
Each school of the theories above has a valuable impact on the criminal legal and justice systems of modern day societies. Both theories contribute to the eradication of cruel and sadistic treatment of offenders and overhaul of the death penalty. The positivist school paves way for the rehabilitation of offenders for their own good through scientific research on the causes of crime. On the other hand, the rational choice theory forms the backbone of our modern day penal system where punishment is weighed to fit the crime committed. In addition, most of the ideas put forth by the rational choice theory such as entitlement to a fair trial and equal treatment under the law can be found in The Bill of Rights.
References
Bohm, R. Vogel, B. (2010). A primer on crime and delinquency theory (3rd ed.). Belmont; Cengage Learning.
Einstadter, W. J. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. USA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Estrada, A. C. (2008). Criminal Law: Made easy for students, bar examinees & practitioners. Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store.
Farr, Z. (2012). Critically assess the impact of positivist approaches to understanding crime. Web.
Gül, S. K. (2009). An evaluation of the rational choice theory in criminology. Soc. & Appl. Sci., 4(8), 36-44.
Haan, W. D. & Vos, J. (2003). A crying shame: The over-rationalized conception of man in the rational. Theoretical Criminology, 7(1), 29–54.
Hagan, F. (2010). Introduction to criminology: Theories, methods, and criminal behaviour. London; Sage Publication.
Lilly, R. J., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2010). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. London: SAGE Publication.
Lombroso, C. (2006). Criminal Man. USA: Duke University Press.
O’Brien, M. & Yar, M. (2008). Criminology: The key concepts. New York: Routledge.
Paternoster, R. & Bancman, R. (2001). Explaining criminals and crime. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Piquero, A. R. & Tibbetts, S. G. (2002). Rational choice and criminal behaviour, New York: Routledge.
Samaha, J. (2005). Criminal justice (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Siegal, L. J. (2010). Criminology: The core. Lowell: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Vito, G. & Maahs, J. (2011). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.