L 6 early theories of crime 1 Flashcards
pre-18th century theories of crim
- inspired by religious beliefs + supersition.
unusual phenomena due to evil spirits. - belief that pathology in human behaviour must be due to evil spirits
judeo-christian teachings offer 2 explanations for role evil spirits played in sinful behaviour
- temptation : have free will, act the way we want. if devil tempts us, we should be strong enough to resist due to righteousness in beliefs
- possession: ppl who do wrong must be possessed by evil spirits.
2 objectives in blaming social problems on the devil
- diverted attention from failing of elites + placed blame on individuals who were “possessed”
- those in power made themselves indispensable by saying only they could stop the Devil
social upheaval pre-18th century
unexplainable events were occurring causing social unrest.
religious/political elites blurred the lines between sin + crime
those who challenged status quo -?
branded as heretics and subject to extreme punishment
inquisition + witches as scapegoat
inquisition was the transition from feudal system (with ultimate rulers) to capitalism ( dispersing power throughout)
- accused were women who were economically independent and lived alone. threat to male power. = witch hunts reinforced social hierarchy
the enlightenment
-scientific revolution caused a change in thinking = Age of Reason
- focus on systematic doubt, empirical and sensory verification of ideas. challenge + doubt the church.
= creation of scientific method. and ideas shifted from fanaticism and religious superstition
enlightenment philsophers’ view of society
- free and rational human beings
- people enter into social contract: obedience of ppl = protection and serving best interest by govt.
= limits on ppl’s power - contributes to movement thru europe to reform governance + criminal justice
Cesare Beccaria’s : Essay on Crime + Punishment
- said what?
- criticized the cruelty, inhumanity, and arbitrariness of the justice system.
- unjust + inhumane treatment of ppl was counter to ideals of Enlightenment
- social contract not realized
- calls for humanitarian reform
- resulted in Classical School of Criminology
Roots of Classical theory + Enlightenment
people voluntarily enter a social contract with the state.
- avoid state of nature = utter chaos
- give up some freedom for safer society
- state had to provide protection but could not violate the rights of citizens
- citizens required to obey the rules or face punishment
new theory of causes of crime
- people broke the law because it advanced their own interests.
- based on assumption that people are rational beings who calculate the consequence of their actions.
theory of the “rational” criminal
penalties deter people from breaking the law (criminality is unattractive, costly, penalized
- influenced by social contract, if respect justice system will follow + justice system must avoid excessive + unfair punishment
- punishment should fit the crime + should be proportional to the harm done to society = most effective deterrent + fairest way to punish. severe enough that there is less gain from crime.
- swift + certain
specific reforms of the classical school
- punishment fit the crime.
- no execution for minor offences
- criminal matters dealt with in public according to the dictates of the law
- reduce power afforded to judges
- laws accessible to all
- separate the lawmaking power of the legislature from the role of judges
reforms provided the foundation for modern criminal justice system:
- equality before the law
- guarantee of one’s right
- establishment of fixed penalties
- due process safeguards
- separation of judicial + legislative systems
limitations of classical school
premised on theory of deterrence : prevent crime by fear of punishment. (but changing penalties =/= effective in decreasing crime)
view of “free + rational human being” ignores realities ppl face (decisions constrained by situations. past-experiences influence, irrationality in circumstances)
equal punishments was problematic. - no discretion/flexibility. not equitable.
mandatory minimum penalties/sentencing in canada
- requires judges impose a specific type and minimum length/extent/severity of sentence to an offender upon conviction for specified criminal offences (unless crime has no MMS)
debates about MMS not on test
- arguments in support
for: sentencing disparity (with MMS - reducing disparity); reducing judicial discretion; exercise public will in democracy
MMS purpose
- relates to what theory?
- is it new?
- mostly related to what?
- “get tough on crime” approach
- relate to positivist theory
- not new, many more added over time.
- many related to drugs
- deter people from crime because consistent punishment for same crime
debates about MMS
- argument against
against: constitutional concerns (against right from cruel + unusual punishment & right against life,liberty, security), ineffective at deterring crime (research shows bc unknown) ; disappearance of proportionality in sentencing (not one size fits all); no room for exceptions; cost (MMS - less likely to plead guilty; more trials are costly. with MMS - more in prison = costly) ; racial disparity; grounded in politics
prison = more likely to re-offend. college for criminals = more hardened.
most ppl thought MMS to some was too strict , unjust & need judges to be able to give lesser sentence that what’s applied by all.
