Criminology is the survey of offense, from what causes offense to what could or does forestall it. The thoughts which form the subject of criminology come from cardinal minds in the country who come up with theories and carry out research to seek to happen grounds to back up their claims. These minds can be influential in conveying about alterations in countries such as the legal or prison systems.
Two enormously influential minds in the country of criminology are Cesare Beccaria and Cesare Lombroso who have expressed positions and formulated many theories which come under the class of criminology, from thoughts on wrongdoers to how they should be punished. Cesare Beccaria ( 1738-1794 ) belonged to the classical school of criminology which refers to the work carried out in the eighteenth century enlightenment period which would hold followed useful and societal contract doctrine.
Beccaria was portion of an blue Milanese household in Lombardy and went on to finish a jurisprudence grade at the University of Pavia in 1758. Although Beccaria was an Italian economic expert and non a criminologist every bit criminology as we know it today was non ‘invented’ until the nineteenth century ( Hayward, Maruna & A ; Mooney, 2010 ) .
Cesare Lombroso ( 1853-1909 ) came along after Beccaria and is frequently considered the ‘father’ of criminology and, unlike Beccaria he belonged to a different type of criminological ‘school’ , the positive school of criminology which uses more scientific attack to analyzing the societal scientific discipline, utilizing methods from the natural scientific discipline such as systematic observation, accretion of grounds, nonsubjective facts and deductive model.
Lombroso trained as a doctor in Northern Italy and severed 4 old ages in the Army where he started his observations of persons, he subsequently went on to go the manager of different refuges in parts of Northern Italy where he went on to farther observe persons going specifically interested in what he referred to as ‘primitive peoples ( Hayward, Maruna & A ; Mooney, 2010 ) . In the eighteenth Century Beccaria was the first to offer an account for offense and condemnable behavior.
Strongly influenced by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Beccaria believed that we are hedonic existences that look out for our ain opportunism, by ciphering the pleasance or hurting that will ensue from an action to make up one’s mind whether to make it or non ( Hayward, Maruna ; A ; Mooney, 2010 ) , which could take an single to perpetrate offense if they believe that the resulting pleasance will outweigh any hurting that may originate from the action.
Due to this Beccaria besides suggested that piquing is a pick made out of free will from rational persons merely like those who choose non to take portion in condemnable behavior. However, Lombroso offers a different sentiment on wrongdoers. Lombroso was strongly influenced by Charles Darwin and his theory of development and believed that wrongdoers were atavists to earlier signifiers of worlds. Lombroso believed that those who commit offense were throwback, a term he developed for those who were non to the full evolved and more ‘primitive’ than non-offenders ( Hayward, Maruna ; A ; Mooney, 2010 ) .
It was the throwback nature of the person which Lombroso believed was the ground the person became a felon. Lombroso even believed that if these these persons were atavists of from old phases of development so they should hold differing physical and physiological features from ‘normal’ persons which he referred to as a stigmata, Lombroso suggested that features such as excess fingers or toes, larger jaws or ears, an insensitiveness to trouble, etc were declarative of an throwback person ( Mazzarello, 2011 ) .
Lombroso examined and documented many felons and suggested that he found these features in each of them including Giuseppe Villella, an Italian felon said to be similar to the ill-famed English consecutive slayer Jack the Ripper, who Lombroso performed an necropsy on and upon scrutiny of his skull and encephalon found similarities between it and that of less evolved Primatess, which for him supported his theory that criminalism is the consequence of being less evolved than the ‘normal’ person ( Lombroso, 1872-1944. ) .
Thus alternatively of condemnable behavior being the consequence of free will wish Beccaria proposed, Lombroso believed that condemnable behavior has a deterministic component. While this theory was met with some agnosticism in Europe, Lombroso was enormously influential in America, but this besides had a negative side to it as proposing that felons can be identified by physical features could take to certain single with such features to be singled out even if they have non committed a condemnable offense or been found guilty of a offense.
Lombroso went on to develop his thoughts and proposed that there are different types of felons. Some illustrations of the types of condemnable Lombroso suggested there are, are the born felon, the insane felon, criminaloids and felons of passion. First, born felons, a term which was really foremost used by a pupil of Lombroso’s Enrico Ferri, this type of condemnable merely makes up about a 3rd of the condemnable population but frequently commit the more serious offenses and as outlined above is categorised presented with features bespeaking an throwback nature but Lombroso besides believed that this type of condemnable presented with epilepsy and was non morally intelligent. Second, the insane felon, Lombroso suggested that this type of felon was non a condemnable since birth like the old type but had become a condemnable due to some sort of physiological alteration which affects their morality doing them unable to “discriminate between right and wrong” ( Lombroso, 1872-1944. , p 75 ) .
Examples of felons in this class include those who are kleptomaniacs, nymphomaniacs, accustomed rummies and kid maltreaters. Another type of condemnable outlined by Lombroso are criminaloids which have few of the throwback features or stigmata even though they are a signifier of born felon they are non every bit baleful as those who fall into the class of the born felon. However, they do present with different stigmata that born felons do non such as early phalacrosis or gray. Although the existent difference between born felons and criminaloids is at that place differing psychological traits.
The chief difference being that the criminaloid single starts piquing subsequently on in life and will ever hold a ground behind the offense ( Lombroso, 1872-1944 ) . The last illustration, felons of passion, categorises those who commit offenses because they are “urged to go against Torahs by a pure spirit of altruism” ( Lombroso, 1872-1944. , p118 ) they are non at all like the other types of felons as they merely commit offenses out of the best purpose and are characteristically good.
The physical features of the felons of passion are frequently attractive and soft while their psychological traits are that of an overly good, holy person ( Lombroso, 1872-1944 ) . Another negative with the work of Lombroso is that he may hold “detected possible Hydes in distinguished Jekylls” ( Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, 1909 ) by over underscoring happening certain features in persons and bring forthing the hypothesis that everyone with such a feature will be or is a condemnable.
Beccaria differing belief, that an single chooses to perpetrate offense, lead him to believe that for society to be sustainable such a pick should be met with a penalty and so in 1866 Beccaria published an essay entitled ‘on offenses and punishments’ . Within this essay he expressed his thoughts on condemnable behavior and what should go on to those found to hold broken the jurisprudence. Briefly put Beccaria believed that penalty of offense should be inevitable, consistent, proportionate and Swift if it is to discourage an person from perpetrating offense.
By inevitable Beccaria means that if an person is found to hold committed a offense there should be no inquiry as to whether they should or will have a penalty as Beccaria believed that the certainty of a penalty had a deterrent consequence regardless of the badness of the penalty ( Newburn, 2009. ) . By consistent he means that everybody irrespective of category, ethnicity or gender should be given the same penalty for the same offense, so that certain persons do n’t believe that they can”count upon arbitrary lenience from judges” ( Hayward, Maruna & A ; Mooney, 2010, p. ) .
By proportionate Beccaria believed that the penalty should suit the offense, this means that penalty should non be excessively inordinate merely for the interest of retaliation as the “severity of the penalty should merely be sufficient to as a deterrent” ( Tierney, 2009. , p. 46 ) . In order to be a hindrance of condemnable behavior Beccaria besides believed that penalty should be fleet, this means that the penalty should be delivered rapidly and non be delayed.
Beccaria besides expressed his thoughts on judicial anguish and the usage of the decease punishment as a penalty for condemnable behavior. Beccaria believed that both were incorrect as they went against natural rights theory. In respects to torment, he believed that it is incorrect because if the person who is being tortured is physically or mentally weaker they are more likely to squeal to something they didn’t do and may implicate another person who is besides guiltless.
This lead Beccaria to proposition that if anguish is the manner of finding an person ‘s guilt or artlessness so a mathematician would be better at make up one’s minding this than a justice due to them being able to foretell or theories the sum of anguish a certain person may be able to get by with before squealing ( Hostettler, 2011. ) . In respects to the decease punishment, Beccaria was the first individual of that clip to publically knock the violent death of an person as a agency of penalty for a offense.
He believed that the province had no right to take anothers life because while Beccaria believed in societal contract theory ( that we give up certain freedoms to an authorization in return for some sort of protection ) he believed that no individual would manus over the right to populate for the protection offered. Beccaria besides believed that the decease punishment was non a sufficient hindrance to halt other people from perpetrating offense, which for him was the primary function of a penalty taking him to the sentiment that the penalty of decease for a offense “is non merely immoral, it is useless” ( Hostettler, 2011. p. 55 ).
However, although Beccaria held this belief he did let for an exclusion to be made due to one of two grounds, either the person still poses a hazard to the outside universe while imprisoned, or when the decease punishment is seen as the lone agencies by which to discourage others from perpetrating such a offense ( Beccaria, 1764. ) . Lombroso besides held a differing position on penalty and the decease punishment to that of Beccaria’s.
Lombroso believed that when an throwback person commits a offense “society has the right to support itself from this sort of delinquent” ( Mazzarello, 2001. p. 983 ) this includes a belief in the decease punishment which Beccaria was strongly against, even though Lombroso believed that criminalism was non a pick but determined as persons were born felons due to the statement that “man defends himself from wild animate beings without faulting them for non holding been born lambs” ( Mazzarello,2001. , p. 983 ) . However, Lombroso and his theory of the insane felon was influential in altering how those deemed ‘insane’ were dealt with in the Italian justness system as “measures were developed for the mentally unqualified unsafe offender” ( Ramsland, 2009 ) .
Although Beccaria and Lombroso have many differing positions and theories in the survey of criminology and belonged to different schools, they were and still are strongly influential in reforming the justness and penal system. For illustration Beccaria ‘s thoughts from ‘On Crimes and Punishments’ have been “incorporated into the United States constitution” ( Hayward, Maruna & A ; Mooney, 2010. , p. 7 ) and Lombroso’s thought that we have free will to take whether to take portion in condemnable behavior can still be seen in more recent free will versus determinism arguments ( Hayward, Maruna & A ; Mooney, 2010 ) .