3.2: Classical Theory

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 47902

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} $

$ \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} $

$ \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}$

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}$ $\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}$ $\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}$ $\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}$ $\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}$ $\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}$ $\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}$ $\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}$ $\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}$ $\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}$ $\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}$ $\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}$ $\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}$ $\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}$ $\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}$ $\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}$ $\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}$ $\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}$ $\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}$ $\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}$ $\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}$ $\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}$ $\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}$ $\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}$ $\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}$ $\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}$ $\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}$ $\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}$ $\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}$ $\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}$ $\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}$ $\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}$ $\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}$ $\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}$ $\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}$ $\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}$ $\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}$ $\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}$ $\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}$ $\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}$ $\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}$ $\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}$ $\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}$ $\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}$ $\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}$ $\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}$ $\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}$ $\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}$ $\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}$ $\newcommand{\lt}{<}$ $\newcommand{\gt}{>}$ $\newcommand{\amp}{&}$ $\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}$

Classical Theory

The classical school of thought is referred to as “classical” for a couple of reasons. One reason is that at the time this theory was proposed, it was seen as a very radical idea but it has stood the test of time and so it has become a classic. Another reason is that the beginning tenants of this theory were proposed at a time often referred to as classicalism in the art world or other genres because people were just beginning to understand their own creativity, art abilities, and destinies. In the past, it had been the church or your birth order which decided your future. But now, people were insisting that they had a choice in determining what their future might be. Very radical thoughts indeed!

Image 3.1 (Cesare Beccaria)

If you agree that people make choices and in a sense can guide their own destinies than you might find yourself agreeing with classical theory. Classical theory is a rather straightforward and somewhat simple theory. It is also the theory upon which our entire American criminal justice system is founded. Theorists such as Beccaria in Italy and Bentham in England spoke out against the harsh laws imposed by the monarchy on the common people. They insisted that a “just” criminal justice system could be established merely by understanding what motivates human behavior.

Image 3.2 (Jeremy Bentham)

So what motivates human behavior? According to the classical theorists there are three main tenants to their theory.

If people have choices about their careers and their futures, then they also have the option to choose between law-abiding or lawbreaking behavior. So what is the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal? A choice about how to behave. But what do we base our choices on? Well that leads us to point 2.
The classical theorists argue that all decisions are merely a cost versus benefit analysis. Your choice to read these notes was probably based on a decision that you will probably do better on the test if you take the time to read the notes first. The “cost” of reading the notes is outweighed by the benefit you will receive when you earn a good grade. If a person thinks crime will pay, they will probably commit the crime. If they believe the costs outweigh the benefits, then they will not do the crime. Which leads us to point 3.
In our criminal justice system legal punishments are the primary costs. Now this does not mean that legal punishments need to be extreme, as that is what these theorists were fighting against with the monarchy, but rather they should be balanced based on the three C’s. Okay, so the words do not all begin with the letter C, but they sound like C. Just like the 3R’s of education—reading, writing, and arithmetic—do not begin with the letter R, but it is an easy way to remember it.

Severity

As the crime becomes more severe in nature, the punishment should be more severe to match. For instance, the punishment for bank robbery should be more severe than the punishment for shoplifting a candy bar.

Certainty

The more certain and individual is that they will be caught the less likely they are to do the crime. For instance, if you are not handicapped you would be less likely to park in a handicapped parking spot, even though it is large and close to the entrance, if there was an officer patrolling the lot. If there was no officer around and you are only going to be in store for a moment then maybe you would? Even though you clearly see the sign saying the possible penalty is $500 so the severity is not a question, but the certainty might be.

Celerity (speed)

Celerity is the old English word for speed. The theorists felt that the punishment needs to quickly follow the action for the human being to learn from the event. For instance, if your dog were to bark in the middle of the night for no good reason and you got mad at him in the morning what would he learn? Probably the dog would learn to fear the smell of coffee or the sight of your fuzzy bunny slippers but it would not know that your bad mood was result of its barking during the night. Certainly humans learn in a slightly more complicated fashion than dogs but the general principle still holds. If a criminal is being punished an average of eight months after the commission of the crime do they really understand that this punishment is a result of the poor decision they made eight months ago, or are they likely to blame something more immediate like the “poor quality” of their attorney or the “unfairness” of the judge?

For the visual learners, the above points are summarized in the graphic below. This theory, though among our oldest, is still very influential today. It is often used to justify a get tough policies, an increased number of police on patrol, and the use of incarceration.

Figure 3.2

This theory though among our oldest, is still very influential today. It is often used to justify a get tough policies, an increased number of police on patrol, and the use of incarceration. If an individual makes a bad decision and commits a crime and gets caught hopefully they will learn from this experience that crime does not pay and they will not commit crime in the future. This notion is referred to as specific deterrence. This individual will be scared away, or deterred, from committing crime in the future. When we read or hear about an individual is being punished for the crime they committed, it reinforces our and the general public’s idea that crime does not pay. Being scared away from crime after watching what happens to others is referred to as general deterrence. For instance, have you ever noticed on a road trip that when one motorist is pulled over for speeding all the cars around them will automatically slow down—at least for a little while? We see someone getting a ticket (specific deterrence) and we know we are afraid of getting one (general deterrence) and so we choose to follow the law.

Social choice theories are contemporary offshoot's of classical theory. They argue that crime is not a random phenomenon but that it is typically well thought out and planned in advance. So is this a good theory? If our justice system is based on this theory perhaps this theory can be tested by seeing if our system is working? Actually, we cannot test the theory by looking at the system because perhaps the system is not implementing the three C’s as correctly as the theory would like. Sometimes when a theory is taken to its most extreme we can look at it again and decide if it still makes sense. An Englishman by the name of Graeme Newman wrote a critique of our justice system in a book called Just and Painful. In the book, he argues that incarceration is the wrong choice for a deterrent. He feels pain is a much better deterrent. He suggests that everyone should receive electric shock as punishment for their crimes. Electricity can be highly regulated than a mild shock for a minor crime to a shock which would cause death for a major crime. Because our system would save money by not having to run prisons we could instead have more officers out on the streets. Now what do you think?

Search

Text Color

Text Size

Margin Size

Font Type