Chapter I

Criminology
Schools of
The
reveals that human
medieval periOd
societies and early mysticism and
all human
of prinitive religious
history predominated by
T thinking in
were
those days was
regulated through
superstitions
myths,
and religious
tenets prevailing

a t t e n t i o n was devoted
that little
relations
This in other words, meant in the causation of
in a particular society. of the offender
environment and
psychology of those who
to the motive. principle for the guidance
definite
absence of any were often
crime. Moreover, in administration, punishments

were concerned
with the criminal justice until the end of
irrational. This situation prevailed
haphazard. arbitrary and in human thinking
and evolution
Thereafter, with the change
seventeenth century. cause of criminals and
certain social reformers took up the
of modern society. This finally led to the
devoted their attention to analysis
of crime causation.
as a branch of knowledge
through development of
emergence of criminology
different schools of criminology.
was first
generally accepted that a systematic study of criminology
It has been
taken up by the Italian scholar, Cesare Bonesana Marchese de Beccaria (1738-94)
who is known as the founder of modern criminology. His greatest contribution to
the science of criminology was that he for the first time proceeded with the study
of criminals on a scientific basis and reached certain conclusions from which
definite methods of handling erime and criminals could be worked out. Thus, the
"theories of criminology' or "the schools of criminology' are of a later origin.
Explaining the meaning of the term/'School of Criminology' Sutherland pointed out
that it connotes the system of thought which consists of an
causation of crime and of policies of control implied in the
integrated theory of
adherents of each school try to explain the causation
theory of causation. The
of crime and criminal
behaviour in their own way relying on the
theory propounded by the exponent of
that particular school. It is, therefore, evident
that each school of
explains crime in its own manner and criminology
suggests punishment and preventive measures
to suit its ideology. It must be stated that
each of the school
attitude of people towards crime and criminal in a represents the social
In an attempt to find a rational given time.
theories have been explanation crime, a
of
propounded. Multiple factors such as evil large number of
Lredity, economic maladjustment etc. have been spirit, sin. discase.
ther to explain deviant behaviours. put forward either
With the advance singly or
enetic explanation
mono
ot human
conduct is no
of behavioural
sciences.
IS to adopt t an eclectic view about longer valid and the modern trend
the
criminologists still tend to lay greater emphasis genesis of crime. However. some
exclusive resort to correctional methods for the treatment
uySicaloftraits
offenders. SO
in order to justify
n
oenerally accepted that a
combination of variety of factors such as
42
 The Schools of
Criminology
43
social. economic. cultural, moral, ethical, biological,
physical, technological, etc. are
contributory to crime causation, therefore, incidence of crime cannot be attributed
to any sngle tacto. As poinnted out
by G.B. Vold, some prominent factors affecting
crime causation are physical-built or defornmity. rcligious faith, moral
emotional disturbance. ntantilism. imbecility.
frustration, birth trauma, masochistic death
wishes. nfidelity. teeblemindedness, lust for sex.
power or money.' etc.
Theseheterogeneous actors known to be
criminality needed to be organised, arrangced andassoCiated with crime and
integratcd by mean o
explanatory theories systematically explaining the causatin of crime and
criminality.The sCIentific explanation of criminal behaviour are stated in the form
of different theories. known as various 'Schools of
Criminology'.
L. Pre-classical School of Criminology
The period of seventeenth and
eighteenth century in Europe was dominated by
the scholasticism of Sainr Thomas Acquinas
(1225-1274). The dominance of
religion in State activities was the chief characteristic of that time. In political
sphere. thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke were concentrating on social contract as
the basis of social evolution. The
concept of Divine Right of King advocating
supremacy of monarch was held in great esteem. As scientific knowledge was yet
unknown. the concept of crime rather vague and
was
obscure There was a general
belief that by nature is simple and his actions are controlled by some super
man
power. lt was generally believed that a man commits crime due to the influence of
some external spirit called "demon' or 'devil. Thus. an offender commits a
wrongful act not because of his own free will but due to the influence of some
external super power. No attempt was, however, made to probe into the real causes
of crime. This demnological theory of criminality propounded by the exponents of
pre-classical school acknowledged the omnipotence of spirit, which they regarded as
a great power. They considered crime and criminals as an evidence of the fact that
the individual was possessed of devil or demon the only cure for which was
testimony of the effectiveness of the spirit. Worships, sacrifices and ordeals by
water and fire were usually prescribed to specify the spirit and relieve the victim
from its evil influence. Trial by battle was common mode of deciding the fate of
criminal The right of society to punish the offender was, however, well recognised.
The offender was regarded as an innately depraved person who could be cured only
by torture and pain. The evolution of criminal law was yet at a rudimentary stage
Hobbes suggested that fear of punishment at the hands of monarch was a sutficient
deterrent for the members of early society to keep them away from sinful acts
which were synonymous to crimes. Thus, the theosophists, notably St. Thomas

Acquinas and the social contract writers such as Donte Alighieri, Machiavelli,
Beccaria's
Martin Luther and Jean Bodin provided immediate background for
classical school at a later stage. The pre-classical thinking, however, withered away
with the lapse of time and advancement of knowledge.
in vogue
The principle of divine intervention especially through ordeals was
in tne
in ancient India well.The oaths and ordeals playcd a very important role
as
justifiCation
ancient judicial system in determining the guilt of the offender. The
Crmunology d
1. Vold G.B. Criminology at the cross-road, The Journal of Criminal Law,
Police Science. Vol. 42 No. 2 (July-Aug 1951) p. 157.
 Criminology and Penology agency
human

the Though these

"when
that
belief i n e v i t a b l e "

imiliar were

advanced for these rituals was most mind, they

becomes mo derm

divine m e a n s of proofb a r b a r i o u s
countries till thirteenth

fails. recourse to to the

practices appear to be most irrational and Christian coun and it
was

most ordeals
in of
were in existen
universally accepted and gnored
the system

such
entury.' The Roman law completely ancient
a u t h o r i t i e s

that
forbidden in Quran. questioned
even by argued
repeatedly
ordeal was
The validity of trial by Manu it
has been G o d s . great
sages
of
practised by
e v e r since the time worked
as Purvapaksa but
and have been pra
have
ordeals
of Brahma that
ordeals are the creations pointed
out and others
Vatsa
Medhatithi further Vasistha.
and all thoughtful persons. of with the
are examples disuse
since fime of sages and there h o w e v e r . fell
into
efficiently The system law.
such tests with success. of the penal
who tried r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n

British rule in India

and subsequent
of
advent
The Classical School
modern
2. ot
Beccaria, the pioneer
century the
eighteenth
During the middle of of criminality by
rejecting
his naturalistic theory ot the
Criminology expounded on mental phenomenon
He laid greater emphasis much
Omnipotence of evil spirit. the individual. Thus. he was
crime to free will' of
individual and attributed of his time which placed
reliance on
philosophy
intluenced by the utilitarian As Donald Taft rightly put
t,
hedonism, namely, the "pain and pleasure
theory".
chOICe to commit
causation in terms of tree
this doctrine implied the notion of
The man tenets of
crime byrational man seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
below
classical school' of criminology are noted
fanaticism involved the
i )Man's emergence from the State's religious
individual. The theory is
Iapplication of his reason as a responsible
based on the assumption that an individual can control his conduct by
exercising his power of will and mind Thus, human behaviour
including the behaviour is 'self-generated and 'self-control. The tear
of punishment can bring a change in human "will and persuade him to
desist from committing erime.
(ii) It is the act of an individual and not his intent which forms the basis
for determining criminality Within hin. In other words,
are concerned with the "act of the
criminologists
criminal rather than his 'intent
Still, they could never think that there could be
causation.
like something crime

it) The classical writers accepted punishment as a

infliction of pain, humiliation and disgrace to create
principal method ot
control his behaviour. 'fear in man to

iv) The propounders of this school. however, cORSIdered

rime more important than the prevention of
punishment
stressed on the need tor a Criminal Code in for it.
They therefore.
France. Germany and
Italy
. A Dubois Hndu Manners, Customs &
Ceremonies (1936) p
2 (uoled trom Dr S.N.
Pendse's Oaths & Ordeals in 66
3. The main exponents of Dharmashasura
Classical School were William (1985 ed .
pp 84
Bentham ( . Romilly (1757-1878). Blackstone (1723-80).
Rossi Rane
Gorraud, etc. Feuerbach (1775-1833). Jeremy
Robert Peei
 The Schools of Cniminology 45

to systematise punishment for forbidden acts. Thus the real

(Contribution of classical school of criminology lies in the fact that it
underlined the need for a well defined criminal justice system.
Beccaria, in his historic work on CRIMES AND
PUNISHMENTS
denounced retributive basis of punishment and observed that the aim of
punishment should only be to prevent the criminal from committing
new crimes against his countrymen, and to keep others from doing
Tikewise. Therefore, the the method of inflicting them.
punishments and
Should be close in
proportion to crime so as to make the most
efficacious and lasting
impression on the mind of men and the least
painful impressions on the body of the
(v) The advocates of classical
criminal
school supported
the of the State to
right
punish the offenders in the interest of public security. Relying on the
hedonistic principle of pain and pleasure, they pointed out that
individualisation was to be the basis of punishment. This in other
words meant that
punishment was to be awarded keeping in view the
pleasure derived by the criminal from the crime and the pain caused to
the victim from it; For the
punishment to be efficacious, it is enough
that the disadvantage of the
punishment should exceed the advantage
anticipated from the crime: in which the emphasis should be on the
certainty of punishment and the loss of the expected benefit.
Everything beyond this, accordingly, is surplus and. therefore,
tyrannical.
(vi) The exponents of classical school further believed that the criminal law
primarily rests on positive sanctions. They were against the use of
arbitrary powers of Judges. In their opinion the Judges should limit
their verdicts strictly within the confines of law. They also abhorred
torturous punishments. Thus, judicial discretion is of seminal valuc
while awarding the maximum punishment, reasons must be detailed
and specific.
Thus, classical school propounded by Beccaria came into existence as a result
of the influence of writings of Montesquie, Hume. Bacon and Rousseau. His famous
work Essays on Crimes and Punishment received wide acclaimation all over Europe
and gave a filip to a new criminological thinking in the contemporary west. He
sought to humanise the criminal law by insisting on natural rights of human beings.
He raised his voice against severe punishment, torture and death penalty|Beccaria's
Views on crime and punishment were also supported by Voltaire as &result of
which a number of European countries redrafted their penal codes mitigating the
rigorous barbaric punishments and some of them even went to the extent of
abolishing capital punishment from their Penal Codes.
The contribution of classical school to the development of rationalised
criminological thinking was by no means less important, but it had its Own plulai
OThe major shortcoming of the classical school was that it proceeded on an abstract
presumption of free will and relied solely on the act (i.e.. the crime) wilnout
devoting any attention to the state of mind of the criminal. It erred in prescou

C.Beccaria Essays on Crime & Punishment (1804) pp. 4-6.

2. Scn P.K. Penology-Old and New (1943) D. 44
 46 Criminology and Penology
between first.
distinction
making no offence
for offence thus the
gravity of
Pushnent same
and habitual criminals degrces of
ottenders
iowever,the greateut
and varying
greatest achievement of this school of crimn without
Cver. the to
administer
was easy
suggested asubstantial criminal policy which of Becctrtd
Beccaria
to the credit
Dunishment. It goes based On
s rt of arbitrary were
poSition .criminals which
earlier concepts of crime and
need for concenrag o
he
l ca on the
tallacies and myths and shifted emphasis punisii
ous determine his guilt and
of an offender in order to criminologists
to
come
perSOnality
views provided a background for
the subsequent
led ne
curtas causation which eventually
a rationalised theory of crime
ut wn
foundation of the positive criminology and penology.

3. Neo-classical School SOon

school did not survive
for long. It was
h e free willl theory of classical in ignoring
realised that the exponents of classical school
faultered in their approach
offenders and the
the indiVidual differences under certain
situations and treating first
crime.
habituals alike on the basis of similarity of act or be a
was considered to
of sentences
During the classical era, the imposition
routine exercise because the law ordained specific
punishment for specific offences
However.
and judge had no discretion except to award
the prescribed punishment.
neo-classists for the first time recognised the
need for variations in sentencing
the offender. The
age, mental conditions, etc. of the
OJudges depending on sex,
idiots.
neo-classists asserted that certain categories of
offenders such as minors,
in matters of punishment
insane or incompetent. had to be treated leniently were
criminal act because these persons
irrespective of the similarity of their This tendency of
incapable of
appreciating the difference between right and wrong.
mental depravity was indeed
neo-classists to distinguish criminals according to their
a progressive step inasmuch as it emphasised
the need for modifying the classical
view. Thus. the contribution of neo-classical thought to the science of criminology
neo-classical school of criminology can be
has its own merits. The main tenets of
Summarised as follows
(i) Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by
that certain extenuating situations or mental disorders
recognising
deprive a person of his normal capacity to control his conduct. Thus
they justified mitigation of equal punishment in cases of certain
psychopathic offenders. Commenting on this point, Prof. Gillin
observed that neo-classists represent a reaction against the severity of
classical view of equal punishment for the same offence.
ii) Neo-classists were the tirst in point of time to bring out a distinction
(ii) between the first offenders and the recidivists. They supported
ndividualisation of offender and treatment methods which required the
shment to suit the psychopathic circumstances of the accuscd.
pu
Though the act, i.e., the criminal act still remained the sole
mining factor for adjudging criminality without any regard to the
the neo-classists focused at dny
least csome attention or
intent, but
causation indirectly.
The advocates of this school started with the basic assumption that
(iii)
 The Schools of Criminolog 47

man acting on reason and intelligence is a self-determining person and

therefore, is responsible for his conduct. But those lacking normal
intelligence or having some mental depravity are irresponsible to their
conduct as they do not possess the capacity of distinguishing between
good or bad and, therefore, should be treated differently from the
responsible offenders.
(iv) Though theneo-classists recommended lenient treatment for
irresponsible" or mentally depraved criminals on account of their
incapacity to resist criminäl tendency but they certainly believed that
all criminals, whether responsible or irresponsible, must be kept
segregated from the society.
()Tt is significant to note that distinction between responsibility and
irresponsibility. that is the sanity and insanity of the criminals as
suggested by neo-classical school of criminology paved way to
subsequent formulation of different correctional institutions such as
parole. probation, reformatories, open-air camps etcin the
administration of criminal justice. Thus, 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. It must, however, be noted that though
this causation was initially confined to psychopathy or psychology but
was later expanded further and finally the positivists succeeded in
establishing reasonable relationship between crime and environment of
the criminal.
(vi) Neo-classists adopted subjective approach to criminology and
concentrated their attention on the conditions under which an individual
commits crime.
Thus, it would be seen that the main contribution of neo-classical school of
criminology lies in the fact that it came out with certain concessions in the free
will theory of classical school and suggested that an individual might commit
Ccriminal acts due to certain extenuating circumstances which should be duly taken
into consideration at the time of awarding punishment Therefore, besides the
criminal act as such, the personality of the criminal as a whole, namely, his
antecedents, motives, previous life-history, general character, etc., should not be lost
Sight of in assessing his guilt. It may be noted that the origin of jury system in
criminal jurisprudence is essentially an outcome of the reaction of neo-classical
approach towards the treatment of offenders.
As to the shortcomings of neo-classical school of criminology, it must be
stated that the exponents of this theory believed that the criminal, whether
responsible or irresponsible, is a menace to society and therefore, needs to be
eliminated from it. As Saleilles observed: "the protection of society from crimes
must be ur primary concern". He considered responsibility as a concept of social
organisation which the exponents of neo0-classical school seek to convert into
metaphysical and abstract notion without corresponding reality. ( These abstract
notions of free will' and 'responsibility' cannot furnish legal ground for Judges and
juries' to form a basis for their discretion.)
1. The origin of Jury System in Criminal Justice System is essentially an outcome o the
reaction of new-classical approach towards the treatment of oflenaeTd
 48
m o n o g

enetic explana
e n e t i c

Of
view ah
the
4. Positive School sciences,
an tic view
eciectic
about the
b e l h a v i o u r a l

adopt
n c e of
With the advane
and a
new
trend to
nineteenth
century, certain French
enesis of crimelost
gradually develop oof tthe offend
offender
human condu
Onduct
its validity
developed.
By was
the neither free will
n e i t h e r free
will of cause of
gradually that it
was
crime
but the real ca
establishing comimit
in
doctors "
were:
e
successful

which
actuated him to
criminal.
Some hrenologists
phre
nor his innate depravity the
features of and
enthuS1astically
establ.

criminality lay in t h r o p o l o g i c a l functioning

of brain ctioning of hro:
of brain.
and functioning
uried to demonstrate theo
rale thetorganic
and the
structure

between criminality criminology.

a co-relationship of
positive school
of the sitive school
of posi
T ied to the emergence
the
advocates
non-criminals,

Differentiating criminals
from
Physical type, (2
criminal
namely, (1)
to four distinct types, disadvantaged type.!
trbuted criminality socio-economic
type. and (4)
Mental type. (3) Psychopath were three
eminent ltalian criminologists
of this school
he main exponents It
and Enrico Ferri. 1S
for this reason
Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo
amely.
that this school is also called the Italian School of Criminology.
Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909)
in physical terms
The first attempt to understand the personality of offenders
was made by Lombroso of the Italian school of criminological thought, who is
the originator of modern criminology. He was educated in medicine and
regarded as
became a specialistin psychratry. He worked in military for sometime handling the
mentally afflicted soldiers but later he was associated with the University of Turin.
i s first published work was L'Umo Delequente which meant "the criminal man".
It was published in 1876
and consisted of 252 pages, the fifth edition of which
came out in 1897 in 1903
pages, He was the first to scientific employ methods in
explaining criminal behaviour and'shifted the emphasis from crime to criminal.
Lombroso adopted an objective and empirical approach to the
criminals through his anthropological experiments.After an intensive study
physical characteristics of his patients study
and later
of
on of criminals, he
definite conclusion that criminals came to a
and therefore, developed a physically inferior in the standard of growth
were
tendency for inferior acts. He further
criminals are less sensitive to and pain generalised that
sufferings of others." therefore, they have little
Through his
biological and anthropological regard for the
Criminals Lombroso justified the involvement of Darwin's researches on
determinism in criminal behaviour. He classified theory of biological
categories criminals into three main
i The
Atavists hereditary or
horn-criminals.In his opinion criminals.-Lombroso also termed them
born-criminals were of a distinct type who
rain from indulging in criminality as

he crimes committed by the and environment had no could not

relevance
Atavists. therefore, considered whatsoever
hles. i.e., beyond reformation. He,
re version to an early and more In his
view, offender orthese criminals
the criminal
individuals were both mentally and physically primitive stage of mankind when
inferior. They
apes and possessed ape-like characteristics.
Lombroso's resembled those of theory used
1. Vold G.B. : Theoretical Criminology (Oxford In to
Ed. p. 64.
physical
2. Taft Criminology 4th
 The Schools of 49
Criminology
characteristics as indicators of criminality. He enumerated as nany as sIXteen
ohysical abnormalities of a 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. Though he
his theory of physical anomaly in later years but his emphasis throughout his work moderated
was on human physical traits which also included biology, psychology and
environment. He revised his theory of atavism in 1906 and held that only one-third
of eriminals were born criminals and not all the criminals. Finally,[he conceded that
his theory of ataviSm was ill-founded and held that they were in fact occasional
criminals
Enrico Ferri Jsubsequently/ challenged Lombroso's theory of atavism and
demonstrated that it was erroneous to think that criminals were incorrigible. He
believed that just as non-criminals could commit crimes if placed in conducive
circumstances so also the criminals could refrain from criminality in healthy and
crime-free surroundings.
(ii) Insane Criminals.-The second category of criminals according to
Lombroso consisted of insane criminals who resorted to criminality on account of
certain mental depravity or disorder.
il) Criminoids.-The third category of criminals according to him, was
those of criminoids who were physical criminal type and had a tendency to commit
crime in order to overcome their inferiority in order to meet the needs of survival.
ombroso was the first criminologist who made an attempt to understand the
scientific methods in
personality of offenders in physical terms He employed
to criminal. His
explaining criminal behaviour and shifted the emphasis from crime
from normal persons and
theory was that criminals were physically different
inferior animal world. The contribution of
possessed few physical characteristics of be summed
Lombroso to the development of the science of criminology may briefly
up in the following words.
the individual personality of the
"Lombroso, laid consistent emphasis over
favour in subsequent years and
criminal in the incidence of crime. This view gained individualisation in
devised to attain the aim of
modern criminological measures are that the
therefore, been rightly commented
the treatment of criminals." It has
on the internal factors,
on the external factors, psychologists
SOciologists emphasise denominator--the "individual".
while Lombroso held that both had
a common
the
of crime,
causes
Lombroso greater emphasis
laid on
While analysing drew attention of
nature of human behaviour and thus, indirectly
biological environment on crime causation.
Criminologists to the impact of
stated that at a later stage Lombroso himself was
tmust. however, be atavism and, therefore, extended
his
his theory of
Convinced about the futility of
well as economic situations of criminals. Thus,
determinism to social as
theory of which subsequently paved way
and objective in approach
he was positive in method propounders or

to formulation of multiple-causation
theory of crime by the
SOciological school of criminology contemporaries
of the
or

English criminologist, who was one

Goring, an of criminals. ATter
out his own researches on the psychology
Lombroso, also carried non-criminals he conciudcu u
between the criminals and
4 Series of comparisons suggested by Lombroso.
fHe
like 'physical-criminal type' as
Uere was nothing
 50 criminologenie
nic, depending
more or less
were
people that crimina lity
attacked the idea
that
He opposed ased the view
bet
could
be
physical
characteristics.

has
illustrated the
differ
he difference
he views
their
inheritedSkatherine S. Williams

and Goring by an example

drawn

the argument
et-ball.
from basket-ball

might be
If we
th. apply
held by Lombroso players, they are
would be th
basket-ball
Lombrosian theory to s argument
the whereas Gorng
abnormal because they are tall, stature.' Goring, how ey haya
their tall T, agreed
because of
been selected for that sport method and supported lattej "'sgreed
supported the lath view
and inductive View
with Lombroso's
statistical

often mentally depraved. He

also commended Lombrow
Lombroso ommended for his
that criminals were
assertion that central theme of penology
Was neiher
crime nor punishment
punishment, but the
individual.
French criminologist and social psvchol.
cryGabriel de Tarde, the eminent
measurements on which he formulated
hieISt,: gist
critised Lombroso's anthrometric
of criminal behaviour, and offered a social explanation of crime/He assertoy
at
criminal behaviour is the result of a learning procesS, therefore, any speculati
regarding direct relationship between physical appearance and criminal propensitiee
of criminals would mean overlooking the real causes or criminality. He also
denounced the proposition of phrenologists who tried to establish a correlation
between the skull, the brain and the social behaviour of a person.
By the time of Lombroso's demise in 1909 it became abundantly clear that his
his
theories were over-simplication of facts and rather naive, hence the notion that
criminal is physically atavistic-type lost all credence. T assumption that
some nexus between atavism and criminal behaviour had no
he there is
scientific basis. The
modern positivism in criminology has
there is little scope for
developed its w n systematic views in which
as 'Lombrosian
Lombroso's atavism. Some modern writers even speak of it
myth' in criminology. The critics notably, Lindesmith and
even alleged that Lombroso's Levin
faulty assumptions were
responsible for hindering the
growth of scientific
criminology for few more decades.
Criticising Lombrosian views, Prof. Sutherland observed that
attention from crime as a social by shifting
Lombroso delayed for fifty phenomenon to crime as an
individual phenomenon,
years the work which was in
origin and in addition, made no lasting progress at the time of its
Be that as it
contribution of his own."
may, it hardly needs to be
Lombroso to the reiterated that contribution
development of
criminology is
of
Commenting on this
point Donald
Tafi observed, "the
by
less significant. no means
work lies in the
great intluence it had importance of Lombroso's
practice". The importance of Lombroso's upon criminology and
also upon penal
and his rejection work lies in its
of
free-will theory. scientific methodology
Enrico Ferri (1856-1928)
Another chiet exponent of the
Ferri. He challenged Lombrosian positive school of
view of criminology was Enrico
1 Katherine S. Willams criminality. Through his scholarly
ext
Sutherland & Cresseyne Book Criminology (First Indian on

3. Taft Criminology (1959). Principles of Criminology (6th Reprint, 2001) 14

Ferri's "Criminal p. 80.
p.
Ed) p. 55.
Mussolini's regime,sociology"
rerri
is
an outstanding work
prepared a in the field of
popularly called the 'Ferri Projec new Penal
Code for ltalv in criminoiog
1921. This was
 The Schools of Criminology 53
oriented towards short term behaviour called fashion
more
rather than custom which
signifies long term behaviour.
Despite the fact that the views expressed by Gabriel Tarde were
nearer to truth. they were discardcd as an over
logical and
simplifiaction of facts.
Anappraisal of Positive School of
Criminology
It would be seen that the
out of the reaction
positive school of criminology emerged essentially
against earlier classical and neo-classical theories. The advocates
of this school completely discarded the
theories of omnipotence of
wvli on the ground that they were spirit and free
attributed criminality to anthropological,
hypothetical and irrational.
Alternatively. they
physical and social environment. The
greatest contribution of positive school to the
in the fact that the attention of development of criminal science lies
the individual. that is, the
criminologists was drawn for the first time towards
personality of criminal rather than his act (crime) or
punishment. This certainly paved way for the modern penologists to formulate a
criminal policy embodying the
principle of individualisation as a method and
reformation. Thus, positivists introduced the
science in the field of methodology and logic of natural
criminology.
With the predominance of
positive school, the emphasis was shifted from
penology to criminology and the objects of punishment were radically changed
inasmuch retributory methods were totally abandoned. Criminals
as
now to be
Treated rather than_punished. Protection of society from criminals were was to be thee
primary object which could be achieved by utilising
different classes of criminals in varying reformatory methods for
degrees.
school is said to have given birth to modern
It is in this context that
positive
sociological or clinical
regards criminal as a by-product of his conditions and experience of life.
school which

The positivists suggested elimination of only those criminals who did not
respond favourably to extra-institutional methods. The exponents of this school
accepted that there could be extenuating circumstances under which an individual
might be forced to commit crime. Therefore, besides looking to the crime strictly
from the legal standpoint, the judicial authorities should not lose
sight of the
circumstantial conditions of the accused while determining his
guilt and awarding
punishment.
The
positive school differed from the classical school of
criminology in the
following manner
Classical School Positive School
(1) This school defined crime in legal (1) It
terms.
rejected legal definition of crime
and preferred sociological
definition.
(2) It placed reliance on free-will theory (2) It explained crime in terms of
as an explanation of crime.
biological determination.

. Gabriel Tarde : On Communication and Social Intluence, (1969) pp. 3-4.

 Criminoog
treatment m
54
(3) It
a d v o c a t e d
treatment

i n s t e a d of
thods for-
punishme
punished and
definite criminals

deterrent
and criminal be
(3) It believed in and held
that
for each
offence
ty of
to gravity of his
hisecrime
punishment
all
criminals according but
Cqual
punishment

committing
the samne
for
oflence. according
associated with it.
to the
circumstances
greater emphasis On
(4) It laid
(4) personality of the offender rather
on
attention
foussed greater act.
rather than
criminal
(4)lt the act than his
me, namely, exponents
the criminal. The
main Were
(5) Garofal,.
main
exponents
of
classical
Lombroso, Ferri and
( ) The century doctrine
Beccaria and Bentham.
was a
19th vhich
whi..

school were
which (6) It on scientific method of
century dogma emphasised
(6) It was a 18th criminal shifted emphasis fron
attempted to
reform the study and
order to protect to
criminaand from
Justice system
in crime
discretion corrective methods of
criminals against arbitrary retribution to
of judges. treatment.

5) Clinical School of Criminology there is greater

with the development of human psychology
More recently, This branch of
emotional aspect of human nature.
emphasis on the study of
understand the criminal behaviour
has enabled modern criminologists to remarked that
knowledge
Gillin, therefore, rightly
of offenders in its proper perspective. Prof

the theory of modern clinical school on

the side of crimogenesis presupposes
inheritance conditioned in his development
offender as a product of his biological
the time of
been exposed from infancy up to
by experiences of life to which he has
commission of crime. Thus, clinical school takes
into account variety of factors.
the to correctional
further suggests that the criminals who do not respond favourably
Itmethods must be punished with imprisonment or transportation for life while those
who are merely victims of social conditions should be subjected to correctional
methods such as probation, parole, reformatories, open-air camps, etc. Thus, briefly
speaking, individualisation has become the cardinal principle of penal policy in
modern penology. The main theme of clinical sch0ol is that personality of man is a
combination of internal and external factors, therefore, punishment should depend
on personality of the accused. This is known as correctional trend of reformation
through individualisation.)
(6) Sociological School of Criminology
Before concluding this discussion, a word must be said about the recent
sociological school of criminology which seeks to locate causation of crime in
social environment. As stated earlier, Tarde
was the first to reject the
anthropological approach of poSIEIVIsts and held that crimes were the outcome of
human tendency to imitate others. Sociologists, however, carried their
and attempted to co-relate variatons n researches
Crime rate to changes in social organisation.
They successfully established tnar ouner
nolitical ideologies, density ofractors
such as
mobility, culture, religion,
population, employment situations., etc.)
have a direct hearing on the incidence of crime in given a
society. Placing reliance