Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCHOOLS OF CRIMINOLOGY - Legal Vidhiya - Legal Vidhiya
SCHOOLS OF CRIMINOLOGY - Legal Vidhiya - Legal Vidhiya
SCHOOLS OF CRIMINOLOGY
January 11, 2022
Categories: Criminology
Tags: CESARE, CLASSICAL, CRIMINALS, criminology, FERRI, GAROFALO, GILLIN, LOMBROSO, NEO-
CLASSICAL, POSITIVE SCHOOL
INTRODUCTION
While explaining the meaning of ‘Schools of Criminology’, Sutherland pointed out that it connotes the system of
thought which consists of an integrated theory of causation of crime and the policies of control implied in the
theory of causation. Each school of criminology tries to explain the causation of crime and criminal behavior in its
own manner and suggests punishment and preventive measures for the same. It must also be stated that each of the
school represents the social attitude of the people towards crime and criminal during the given time period.
The principle of divine intervention especially through ordeals was in vogue ancient India as well. The oaths and
ordeals played a very important role in the ancient judicial system in determining the guilt of the offender. A
general belief surrounding these rituals was that “when the human agency fails, recourse to divine means of proof
becomes most inevitable”. The validity of these rituals has been questioned since the ancient times; such was in
Purvapaksa. The system, however, fell into disuse with the advent of British rule in India and subsequent
rationalization of the penal law.
i. Man’s emergence from the State’s religious fanaticism involved the application of his reason as a responsible
individual. This theory is based on the assumption that an individual can control his conduct by exercising
his power of will and mind, meaning, the human behavior is ‘self-generated’. The fear of punishment can
bring a change in human will and persuade him to desist from committing crime.
ii. It is the act of an individual and not his intent which forms the basis for determining criminality within him.
In other words, criminologists are concerned with the act of the criminal rather than his intent.
iii. The writers of this period accepted punishment as a principal method of infliction of pain, humiliation and
disgrace to create fear in man to control his behavior.
iv. Prevention of crime was considered more important than the punishment. Beccaria, in his work on “Crimes
and Punishments” denounced retributive basis of punishment and observed that the aim of punishment
should be to prevent criminal from committing new crimes against his countrymen, and to keep others from
doing likewise.
v. The right of the State to punish the offenders in the interest of public security was advocated during this
period. Relying on the principle of hedonism, it was pointed out that individualization was to be the basis of
punishment. In other words, punishment was to be awarded keeping in view the pleasure derived by the
criminal from the crime and the pain caused to the victim.
vi. The exponents of classical school believed that criminal law primarily rests on positive sanctions. They
abhorred torturous punishments and were against the arbitrary use of power by the judges
The contribution of classical school to the development of the rationalized criminological thinking was by no means
less important, but it had its own pitfalls. The major shortcoming of this school was that it proceeded on an abstract
presumption of free will and relied solely on the act without devoting any attention to the state of mind of the
criminal. It erred in prescribing equal punishment for the same offence thus making no distinction between first
offenders and habitual criminals and varying degrees of gravity of offence.
i. Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by recognizing that certain extenuating
situations or mental disorders deprive a person of his normal capacity to control his conduct. Thus, they
justified mitigation of equal punishment in cases of certain psychopathic offenders.
ii. Neo-classists were the first to bring out a distinction between the first-time offenders and recidivist. They
supported individualization of offender and treatment methods which required the punishment to suit the
psychopathic circumstances of the accused.
iii. The advocates of this school started with the assumption that man acting on reason and intelligence is self-
determining person and therefore, is responsible for his conduct. But those lacking normal intelligence or
having some mental depravities are irresponsible to their conduct and therefore, should be treated differently
from the responsible offenders.
iv. Thought the neo-classists recommended lenient treatment for irresponsible offenders, they certainly believed
that every offender, whether responsible or irresponsible, should be kept segregated from the society.
v. It is through this school that attention of criminologists was drawn for the first time towards the fact that all
crimes do have a cause.
vi. Neo-classists adopted subjective approach to criminology and concentrated their attention on the conditions
under which an individual commits crime.
The main contribution of this school lies in the fact hat it came out with certain concessions in the ‘free will’ theory
and suggested that an individual might commit crime due to certain extenuating circumstances which should be
duly taken into consideration at the time of awarding punishment. As to the shortcomings of this school, it must be
stated that the exponents of this school believed that the criminal, whether responsible or irresponsible, is a menace
to the society and therefore, needs to be eliminated from it.
There exponents of this school were three eminent Italian criminologists, namely, Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele
Garofalo and Enrico Ferri. It is for this reason that this school is also called the Italian School of Criminology.
i. The Atavist or hereditary criminals – Lombroso also termed them as ‘born-criminals’. In his opinion born-
criminals were a distinct type who could not refrain from indulging in criminality and environment had no
relevance whatsoever to the crimes committed by the Atavist. He considered these criminals as incorrigible,
i.e., beyond reformation. According to him, offender or the criminal reflected a reversion to an early and more
primitive stage of mankind when individuals were both mentally and physically inferior. They resembled
those of apes and possessed ape-like characteristics. He enumerated as many as sixteen physical
abnormalities of criminal some of which were of peculiar size and shape of head, eye, enlarged jaw and cheek
bones, fleshy lips, abnormal teeth, long or flat chin, retreating forehead, dark skin, twisted nose and so on.
ii. Insane Criminals – The second category of criminals according to Lombroso was insane criminals who
resorted to criminality on account of certain mental depravity or disorder.
iii. Criminoids – These were the third category of criminals according to him. The criminals of this category were
physical criminal type and had tendency to commit crime in order to overcome their inferiority in order to
meet the needs of survival.
While analyzing cause of crime, Lombroso laid great emphasis on the biological nature of human behavior and thus,
indirectly drew attention of criminologists to the impact of environment on crime causation. The importance of
Lombroso’s work lies in its scientific methodology and his rejection of ‘free-will’ theory.
i. Physical or geographical;
ii. Anthropological; and
iii. Psychological or social.
Thus, Ferri emphasized that criminal behavior is an outcome of a variety of factors having their combined effect on
the individual. According to him, social change, which is inevitable in a dynamic society; results in disharmony,
conflict, and cultural variations. As a result of this, social disorganization takes place and traditional patterns of
social control mechanism totally break down. In the wake of such rapid social changes, the incidence of crime is
bound to increase tremendously.
Ferri emphasized that a criminal should be treated as a product of the conditions which played his life. Therefore,
the basic purpose of crime prevention programme should be to remove conditions making for crime. He worked
out five-fold classification of criminals, namely:
i. Born criminals;
ii. Occasional criminals;
iii. Passionate criminals;
iv. Insane criminals; and
v. Habitual criminals.
He suggested an intensive programme of crime prevention and recommended a series of measures for treatment of
offenders. He asserted that punishment could be one of the possible methods of reforming the criminal. He favored
indeterminate sentence keeping in view the possible chances of inmate’s re-adjustment in the community.
i. Murderers whom he called “endemic” criminals lacking sentiments of pity and probity;
ii. Violent criminals who are affected by environmental influences such as prejudice of honor, politics and
religion indicating lack of pity;
iii. Criminals lacking in sentiment of probity such as thieves; and
iv. Lascivious or lustful criminals who commit crimes against sex and chastity. They have deficient moral
perception.
As a member of the Italian judiciary, Garofalo was well acquainted with the then existing criminal law and
procedure in the administration of criminal justice and recommended death, imprisonment for life or transportation
and reparation as three modes of punishment for criminals. He strongly pleaded for elimination of habitual
offenders who were incapable of social adaption as a measure of social defense.
Trade in his theory of ‘imitation and suggestions’ pointed out that criminality is learnt through three distinct laws of
imitation, i.e.,
He emphasized that as the society grows and population becomes denser, the deviant behavior would be oriented
more towards short term behavior called fashion rather than custom which signifies long term behavior.