Theories can be considered tools that aid in our quest for a deeper knowledge of both ourselves and the world we live in. Theories frequently represent reality rather than what ought to be the case. The role of the criminal justice system and those engaged in it in one way or another are topics covered by criminological theories, which are not an exception to this description of theories. In criminology, theories can be used to explain crime orchestrated by a large social unit as well as explain crime at and individual level which is termed as the smaller unit. In order to developing a better understanding of criminology, the effectiveness of the theories should be considered and ensure that indeed the theories are validly selected, entail a rational and logical point of view, be as concise and straight forward as possible and cover a wider scope of the concept of crime.
The understanding of crime can be drawn from a variety of perspectives hence there are several theories that shaped the understanding of what can be termed as crime or not, some of these theories include the critical criminology and the biological positivism theories which shaped much of the understanding of what a crime is and who can be said to be responsible for crime, what criteria is used to determine crime (Parmelee, 2012). Without these theories and other criminology theories these questions could not be answered, thus the need to discuss and understand the concepts in cooperated by these theories. Crime is a broad concept that needs to be understood from various angles and point o views, this paper therefore analyzes the various interpretations of crime in a bid to understand why crime exists in and why people engage in crime with reference to two criminological theories; critical criminology and biological positivism (Anderson, 2015).
Comparison and contrast between critical criminology and biological positivism
Critical criminology is regarded as a theoretical perspective that tries to discredit the traditional approaches to criminology and tries dispute the traditional claims of understanding criminology that based its arguments on false beliefs about crime and assumptions. The critical theory of criminology takes a conflict perspective in understanding the concept of crime which tries to give an historical perspective of crime, the origin of crime and nature of crime. According to critical criminologists, crime was regarded as a form of inequality as a result of class and social status hence law and the punishment of crime was as a form of creating of creating inequality. Critical criminology often derives its explanation of what crime entails from the existence of unequal distribution of wealth and power and from the existence of various social classes in the society that leads to divisions and discrimination with regards with social class. Crime according to this theory is orchestrated by the social classes that feel that they are superior than the others. The less disadvantaged in the society are the people who feel the pinch of crime who include women and the ethnic minorities. Criminology according to this theory is under the control those in power which suggests that crime can be blamed on the authorities (Shoemaker, 2010).
Crime according to critical criminology should therefore be understood from a broader critical perspective. This requires one to step outside the normal scope of thinking and think of crime from a broader and wider perspective, taking into consideration various perspectives and points of view such as the genesis of crime and why criminal engage in crime so as to understand the concept of crime. It involves taking into consideration the assumptions that have been left out in defining crime as well as a closer consideration of what the existing criminal justice system entails. The understanding of crime according to this theory should be based on the rational understanding of critical issues in crime such as the laws that are formulated to govern the scope of criminality and how to change these laws in order to in cooperate the various perspectives and rational point of views from which crime ought to be understood (Schmalleger, 2012). This should entail serious questioning of the of the existing ideologies on crime and restructuring and implementing new ideas that in cooperate the various critical and rational concepts of crime.
Biological positivism on the other hand applied scientific methods to study crime through a study of the physical characteristics associated with criminals that according to biological positivists such as Lombroso were inherited and present at birth. The biological positivists tried to study and relate this characteristics using scientific methods to try and understand the concept of criminality. Positivism is a term used to refer to the application of scientific methods to study human behavior. Biological positivists tried to create a definition of crime based on individual characteristics and genetic differences which according to the positivists could distinguish criminals from noncriminal (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012).
Cesare Lombroso one of the most prominent biological positivists believed that biological stimuli and individual characteristics are responsible for explaining human behavior. Together with other biological positivists they generated the idea that human behavior could actually be measured and quantified so as to determine what makes them engage in crime, there is therefore the need to approach crime and criminals from a neutral and objective perspective. The idea of the existence of a consensus in the society with regards to what laws and norms should be adhered to was not ignored by biological positivists. The positivists believed that the society consist of the perceived “normal people” who represent the consensus and then those who deviate from the norms and laws of the society normally referred as the deviants and basically develop into criminals. Lombroso and other biological positivists studied skulls of people as well as criminals in their quest to link individual characteristics to crime.
Understanding Street Gangs, Riots and Sexual offenders
Both critical criminologists and biological positivists agree on the fact that crime should be determined not only from a single perspective of studying criminology but rather the study of crime should be multi-faceted meaning that crime should be defined from various perspectives such as the study of the origin of criminology, what makes individuals engage in crime, the laws and standards used to curb crime as well as the changes in the criminal justice system. An application of the theories discussed above to the understanding of the concepts of the existence of street gangs, riots and sexual offending therefore suggests that we ought to understand these forms of crimes from various perspectives and not just condemn these acts but try to understand why individual engage in these forms of crime as well as analyze what is there in the criminal justice system that can be done to neutralize and control these forms of crime (Conklin, 2013).
Biological positivists and critical criminologists also agree on the fact that crime is fueled by those in power and also the highest in the social class stratification who tend to oppress those who are under them with the use of the power bestowed to them. An application both biological positivism and critical criminology therefore in the understanding of the existence of street gangs, riots and sexual offenders would justify that indeed that the existence of these forms of crime can be blamed on the existence of class differences as well as misuse of power by those in power who use the low class and the less fortunate in the society to commit crime.
Conclusion
Crime can be significantly reduced if we approach the various perspectives and causes of crime as well as develop a clear understanding of what is considered criminal activity and what is not. A consideration should also be made on the changes in crime trends so as to control it.
References
Adler, F., Mueller, G. O., & Laufer, W. S. (2012). Criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G. (2017). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application.
Anderson, J. F. (2015). Criminological theories: Understanding crime in America.
Anderson, J. F. (2015). Criminological theories: Understanding crime in America.
Conklin, J. E. (2013). Criminology. Boston: Pearson.
Georgoulas, S. (2012). The politics of criminology: Critical studies on deviance and social control. Berlin: Lit.
Hogg, R., & Carrington, K. (2013). Critical Criminology. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Parmelee, M. (2011). Criminology. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Digital Library.
Rafter, N. H., Posick, C., & Rocque, M. (2016). The criminal brain: Understanding biological theories of crime.
Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology today: An integrative introduction. Boston: Prentice Hall.
Shoemaker, D. J. (2010). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, R. D., Haines, F., & Eisler, L. D. (2013). Crime & criminology: An introduction. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (2014). Criminological theory. Boston: Pearson.
Williams, K. S. (2012). Textbook on criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winfree, L. T., & Abadinsky, H. (2010). Understanding crime: Essentials of criminological theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Rafter, N. (2009) The Origins of Criminology: A Reader, London, Routledge.
Young, J. (2002) ‘Critical criminology in the twenty-first century: critique, irony and the always unfinished’ in Carrington, K. and Hogg, R. (eds) Critical Criminology: Issues, Debates, Challenges, Cullompton, Willan, pp. 251–74.
