Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Print
Email
The Positivist School has attempted to find scientific objectivity for the
measurement and quantification of criminal behavior. As thescientific
method became the major paradigm in the search for all knowledge, the Classical
School's social philosophy was replaced by the quest for scientific laws that would
be discovered by experts. It is divided into Biological, Psychological and Social.
Biological positivism
Physical Characteristics
The main exponents of this school were three eminent Italian criminologists
namely: Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo andEnrico Ferri. It is for this reason
that this school is also called the Italian School of Criminology.
The first attempt to understand the personality of offenders in physical terms was
made by Lombroso of the Italian School of criminological thought, who is regarded
as the originator of modern criminology. He was a doctor and a specialist in
psychiatry. He worked in military for sometime handling the mentally afflicted
soldiers but later he was associated with the University of Turin. His first published
work was L’Umo Delequente which meant “the Criminal Man” (1876). He was the
first to employ scientific methods in explaining criminal behavior and shifted the
emphasis from crime to criminal.
Lombroso was the first criminologist who made an attempt to understand the
personality of offenders in physical terms. He employed scientific methods in
explaining criminal behavior and shifted the emphasis from crime to criminal. His
theory was that criminals were physically different from normal persons and
possessed few physical characteristics of inferior animal world. The contribution of
Lombroso to the development of the science of criminology may briefly be summed
up in the following points:
1. Lombroso laid consistent emphasis over the individual personality of the criminal
in the incidence of crime. This view gained favour in subsequent years and modern
criminological measures are devised to attain the aim of individualization in the
treatment of criminals. It has been rightly commented that the sociologists’ emphasis
on the external factors, psychologists on the internal factors, while Lombroso held
that both had a common denominator__ the “individual”.
3. At a later stage Lombroso himself was convinced about the futility of his theory
of atavism and therefore extended his theory of determinism to social as well as
economic situations of criminals. Thus he was positive in method and objective in
approach which subsequently paved way to formulation of multiple-causation theory
of crime by the propounders of sociological school of criminology.
By the time of Lombroso’s demise, in 1909, it became abundantly clear that his
theories were over-implication of facts and rather naïve, hence the notion that
criminal is physically atavistic-type lost all credence. The assumption that there is
some nexus between atavism and criminal behavior had no scientific basis. The
modern positivism in criminology has developed its own systematic views in which
there is little scope for Lombroso’s atavism. Some modern writers even speak of it
as “Lombrosian myth” in criminology.
Another chief exponent of the positive school of criminology was Enrico Ferri. He
challenged Lombrosian view of criminality. Through his scholarly researches, Ferri
proved that mere biological reasons were not enough to account for criminality. He
firmly believed that other factors such as emotional reaction, social infirmity or
geographical conditions also play a vital role in determining criminal tendencies in
men. It is for this reason that he is sometimes called the founder of ‘criminal
sociology’.
The major contribution of Ferri to the field of criminology is his “Law of Criminal
Saturation”. This theory presupposes that the crime is the synthetic product of three
main factors:
1. Physical or geographical;
2. Anthropological; and
3. Psychological or social.
Many critics, however, opposed Ferri’s law of criminal saturation stating that it is
nothing more than a statement that the law of cause and effect equally applies to
criminal behavior as well.
1. Born criminals;
2. Occasional criminals
3. Passionate criminals
4. Insane criminal and
5. Habitual criminals.
In his ‘Penal Project” Ferri denied moral responsibility and denounced punishment
for retribution and moral culpability.
4. Lascivious or lustful criminals who commit crimes against sex and chastity.
As a member of the Italian ‘judiciary’ Garofalo was well acquainted with the then
existing criminal law and procedure in the administration of criminal justice and
recommended death, imprisonment for life or transportation and reparation as three
modes of punishment for criminals. Out of his experience as a Judge and having
witnessed total failure of correctional measures in France, Garofalo was not very
optimistic about reformation of offenders. He therefore, strongly pleaded for
elimination of habitual offenders who were incapable of social adaptation as a
measure of social defense.
It would be seen that the positive school of criminology emerged essentially out of
the reaction against earlier classical and neo-classical theories. The merits of this
school were:
3. With the predominance of positive school, the emphasis was shifted from
penology to criminology and the objects of punishment were radically changed in as
much as retributory methods were abandoned. Criminals were now to be treated
rather than punished. Protection of society from criminals was to be the primary
object which could be achieved by utilizing reformatory methods for different
classes of criminals in varying degrees. It is in this context that positive school is
said to have given birth to modern sociological or clinical school which regards
criminal as a by-product of his conditions and experience of life.
4. The positivists suggested elimination of only those criminals who did not respond
favorably to extra-institutional methods. The exponents of this school accepted that
there could be extenuating circumstances under which an individual might be forced
to commit crime. Therefore, besides looking to the crime strictly from the legal
standpoint, the judicial authorities should not lose sight of the circumstantial
conditions of the accused while determining his guilt and awarding punishment.
The positive school differed from the classical school of criminology in the
following manner:
1. Defining Crime: Classical school defined crime in legal terms. Where as, the
positive school rejected legal definition of crime and preferred sociological
definition.
4. The Focus of the School: Classical school focused greater attention on crime,
namely, the act rather than the criminal. Whereas, the positivists laid greater
emphasis on personality of the offender rather than his criminal act.
5. The Founders of the School: The main exponents of classical school were
Beccaria and Bentham. The main exponents of positive school were Lombroso, Ferri
and Garofalo.
6. Contribution to the Field: The classical school was an 18th century dogma which
attempted to reform the criminal justice system in order to protect criminals against
arbitrary discretion of judges. The positive school was a 19th century doctrine which
emphasized on scientific method of study and shifted emphasis from crime to
criminal and from retribution to corrective methods of treatment.