Classical Vs. Neoclassical Theories of Criminality
The classical school of criminology obtains its fundamental ideas from the “period of enlightenment.” This occurrence took place at the beginning of the eighteenth century in France. The main contributors to the classical school of criminal thought were Cesare Beccaria (an Italian) and Jeremy Bentham (an Englishman). The neoclassical school of thought on the other hand is a continuation of the classical school of thought. It subscribes to modern theories of criminology such as social control theory, drift theory as well as the classical school theory of rational choice. This paper will compare and contrast the two schools of thoughts with regard to the rational choice theory.
According to Cesare, criminals are capable of rational thought and therefore they are able to make rational choices. That is, criminals make a choice to commit crime and any other actions they may take that are contrary to the law. Bearing this in mind, he proposes that the only way to deter such offences is by threat of punishment. This solution stems from the classical belief that humans are rational and hedonistic. That is they are capable of free will and that they seek to maximize pleasure and reduce pain. Fear controls human behavior, therefore a threat to inflict pain through punishment will prevent criminals from choosing to commit crime.
In order to deter crimes effectively, Cesare acknowledges that the punishment should fit the crime. The cost of punishment should outweigh the benefits of the offence. Justice through administration of punishment should be prompt and certain to serve its usefulness/utilitarianism (Akers, 1990). As opposed to the neoclassical school of thought, classical school of thought argues that one is responsible for his action and therefore mitigating circumstances are inadmissible.
Even though the neoclassical school of thought ascribes to the rationale choice theory and recognizes the need for punishment to deter crimes, it also acknowledges that punishment is only a tool in deterring crimes and not a means to its end. This is because humans do not always act rationally and on the other hand, not all of them are hedonistic and selfish. Following the classical approach to administering justice might lead to punishment of innocent people.
Unlike the classical thought, the neoclassical school of thought recognizes other means of deterring crimes. They include socialization where fear of losing a social status, job, or recognition may deter one from committing offences. It therefore supports deterrent measures such as paroles, house sentencing, and rehabilitation. The drift theory that the neoclassical thought ascribes to is similar to the socialization theory. It explains that kids with fewer stakes in the society are most likely to drift and commit crimes. Incorporating them into the social system will serve as a preventive measure to deter them from committing crimes simply because they have nothing to lose (Gottfredson, 1990).
In conclusion, the combined use neoclassical and the classical school of thoughts in the criminal justice system will serve better in administering justice. The use of punishment to deter crimes as well as recognizing the fact that apart from internal or rational choice, external circumstances may lead to commitment of an offence will serve more efficiently in administration of justice. Application of both theories creates a synergy and fairness in criminal justice.
References
Akers, R. L. (1990). "Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory: The Path Not Taken". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.
Gottfredson, M. &. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Starnford: CA: Stanford University Press.
