Who thought Up Positivist Criminology?

By Lynn A. Granata

In The 18th Century, the theories of criminology were based on the rationale of human behavior.  Beccaria was the first individual to postulate this theory in history.  What does this mean? You may ask.  Beccaria was an Italian criminologist who wrote theses on his findings.  However, it is unknown where he experimented hands on to derive such theories.  It is speculated that he visited the then lunatic asylums that sprung up all across Central Europe at the time.  Furthermore, Beccaria felt that it was truly a personal choice for an individual to break the law. Rational choices were to obey the law, back then is all that was known about the why, what, where, and how crime occurs.  Thus irrationality was the one and only reason to explain the motive behind criminal behavior. In the 19th Century, history turned the page in believing in free will and rationality alone.  The 19th century sought to find out that there was more to it than just not following the rules.  Science became the new discovery at this time.  The developed world was becoming advanced with the induction of factories, technology, and mass consumption. So the focus of control shifted from individual inner (psychic) forces to the social forces on what causes crime in general.

A new Italian philosopher came along and discredited Beccaria.  He is Cesare Lombroso. I was wanted to make a note, Beccaria was a classical criminologist.  Lombroso was the actual founder of positivist criminology. Lombroso began by applying biological methods and tools to the social issues to examine the causes of crime through natural scientific methods. The positivist believes in objectivity while coming to conclusions through analyzing data.  In other words, the scene of a crime itself, for example the discovery of a human corpse in a wooded area would require police and detectives to go by environmental variables as well as internal ones. One good understanding of this concept is how insects, such as fly larvae or maggots can help solve a crime. There are so many others, the ocean tides, the look of sand and dirt near the body, can tell a lot about the time and circumstances when the murder occurred.

Getting back to Lombroso, if not for him, there would be no such thing as DNA discovery and the study of forensic science. Today, these techniques are useful, thank God in formulating and gathering evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who is/was responsible for a murder in a court of law. In the past, too many innocent individuals were accused of a crime and sent to the gallows or a life time of suffering in prison.

 But, today, there are too many situations and a lot of shades of gray.

Lombroso also theorized that criminals were born defectives. His opinion consisted of the physical appearance of a person convicted of a crime, such as the shape of their heads, large prominent nose, small ears, more facial hair than usual, etc. This is called atavism, it means a throwback to primitive features and functions. Atavistic individuals were considered born criminals, judging by their facial and other bodily traits, an ape-like appearance, instead of standing upright, these individuals walked slumped over like a primate. Later, however, Lombroso's theory was discredited. Because not all convicted criminals exhibit primitive traits like a monkey. Ted Bundy, for instance looked quite normal and distinguished.  He was in fact an aspiring young lawyer to be until he got into a boat load of trouble. 

I will conclude that a long time ago, if certain people exhibited strange behavior it wasn't abnormal to look for an explanation as to why they did.  If not for these older but absurd views, we would still be holding innocent people culpable for something they didn't do. We indeed have come a long way, baby!

Reference

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Criminal Investigation (Guy Antonozzi, 2003).