Criminological Theory - Essay Example

ical and Neo ical Crime Theory It is amazing to find out that there are actually two types of Crime Theory that experts adhere to in the 21st century. These are the classical and neoclassical theories that both define the cause of crimes in two highly different manners. These separate theories are based upon different ideas and platforms, therefore creating two individualized school of thoughts when it comes to the definition of crimes and what causes people to commit them. This paper will look into the meaning of these two crime theories and what makes them both similar and different from each other.

I shall begin this paper with a look at the Classical Crime Theory which is the basis for all the beliefs of all classical crime causations. Classical crime theory was actually a prominent belief during the 18th and 19th centuries. This particular theory depends upon the belief that man has free will and thus has options when he commits a crime. Under this school of thought, a criminal is believed to have a mindset that tells him that his criminal behavior will be more acceptable provided that rewards he will be getting from his criminal act will be far greater than the punishment that he will be getting once he is caught in the act of committing the crime.

Therefore, applying severe and harsh punishments upon criminals will deter them from committing crimes. Although this particular school of thought lost out to the positivist theories during its era, it found a resurgence in its popularity in the 1970's with most people believing that harsher punishments would definitely be an effective crime deterrent. It would seem that with the slew of heinous crimes that have been beating up the American justice system in the 21st century, it would definitely seem like there is a need to return to the classical crime theory in order to not only solve the crimes, but also deter the culprits from executing their vicious plans.

The Neoclassical Crime Theory, which is another name that the Positivist Crime Theory is identified by, concentrates more on the reasons as to why a person commits a crime. It is a school of thought that associates criminal behavior with the behavioral predictions relating to the person who committed the crime. The neoclassical theorists believe that the level and severity of punishment for a culprit should be based upon the level of guilt of the person. This would therefore mean that not all crimes shall be treated equally and therefore, the punishments shall be enforced accordingly.

This of it as the varying degrees of murder that a person can commit and you then have a solid example of the Neoclassical Crime Theory. After all, crimes committed are all done with varying degrees of contributing factors such as age, gender, and social classes. Think in terms of people who live in the ghetto and how they oftentimes move around in groups and emulate the actions of the other groups in their area. Usually those other groups are committing crimes, thus the neoclassical belief that crimes committed by these people are based upon imitation of other influences in their lives.

In our modern world, the resurgence of vicious and ultra violent crimes have people demanding harsher punishments for the crime perpetrators. This is because these people who committed the crimes had the personal choice to not commit the crime. Yet they chose to do so because they believed that the sense of gratification that they can get from committing the crime is well worth the possible punishment that can be meted out by the judicial system. Therefore, it would be quite difficult to deter the commission of crimes under the classical theory of crimes.

But that is not to say that one should not try to deter crimes from happening using the classical school of thought. I believe that the classical school of thought, upon which the United States constitution is based would try to deter the modern day crimes such as the Boston Marathon Bombing by providing even more severe punishments for those caught committing these crimes. However, rather than the death penalty, I believe that since these people used their free will when they opted to commit the crime, then the punishment should be similar.

Rather than sentencing them to death, we should instead make them wish that they were dead already. Thus driving home the idea that committing a crime is not a good idea because there is no crime worth the type of hard labor that they will be forced to undergo. Punishments such as forcibly drafting them into military service in hot spots around the world. Assigning them to tasks in Afghanistan, Iraq, or some other war torn hotbed where the American soldiers, who are exemplary citizens, are being picked off one by one by bombings and other terrorist acts.

If they complete 6 tours of duty without losing a limb or getting killed, then they can go free. On the condition that should they commit another crime, they shall once again be sentenced to hard labor on the war front. That should make any criminal think twice about committing any crime. He may not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of his criminal behavior. Sources N.A. (n.d.). Neoclassical crime theory. theoretical criminology. Retrieved from http://crime-study.blogspot.com/2011/05/neoclassical-crime-theory.

html Van Der Hag, E. (1986). The neoclassical theory of crime control. sagepub.com Retrieved from http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/1/1/91.extract