This post examines the Positive and Classical Schools of criminological

thought. While stemming from philosophical roots, these two Schools of

crime are based on different assumptions and vary in their approach to
law breaking. There are several different theorists with varying
perspectives who have contributed to each theory, yet disparity exists
between the Schools and in their application. The essay is critical of the
theories, exposing what is missing from them and finding faults.
Comparisons are made between the Schools and show the difference
between them and in the way they operate on crime within society. In the
evaluation of each theory their strengths and weaknesses are discussed
and their specific value found while considering their overall worthiness
for application today The classical School, in my understanding pertains to
the key idea that every man has a free will and rational choice. In
Classical theory every person is subject to a social contract with the state.
It assumes that all men are equal and that their committing of crime is a
reflection of their free (logical) choice. Criminals choose to break the
social contract and to be criminal. The individual has the autonomy to
weigh up the alternatives and consequences. The Positive School, as I see
it, is a theory based on scientific method and the idea that certain result
of physiological and social conditions predestine a person to criminality.
Criminal behaviour physical or mental defects, which are prevalent in
criminals. The attributes of the criminal type are different and inferior to
those of the non-criminal. The individual is not fully in control of his own
actions
Now that I have introduced the two Schools of thought I will give an
example of some faults in Classical Theory and then several criticisms
concerning Positive theory The Classical School of thought addresses legal
concerns only within the black and white parameters of the law. It
assumes that the law has the consensus of the society and that the law
equates to the morals of the majority. The Classical School applies the
same legal standards to all cases. By reproducing the same system of
justice and standards of law the Classical theory does not account for
individual differences and goes no further than to lump these differences
"under the name extenuating circumstances" (Enrico Ferri, 1901) The
Classical School is at work when a criminal is arrested for an offence. The
criminal will be swiftly brought to justice, given a punishment to fit the
crime, which discourages recidivism, and deters others from offending.
This swiftness makes the Classical theory effective, it does not delay
punishment or elongate a sentence. Classical theory can be relied upon
for its sentencing and this makes it a workable theory. On the down side in
most cases, the courts look at identifying the crime not why it occurred.
However as Ferri discussed the public want to know the reasons for a
criminal occurrence. The Classical School doesn't take this into account
but for exceptional circumstances where for example there is a plea of
insanity and it is missing this aspect in its theory. The positivists suggest
not only a criminal disposition, but Lombroso suggests there are born
criminals with an atavistic nature. This theory implies that some people
are born defective and could easily lead to discrimination of certain types

of people with certain attributes. By putting criminals and non-criminals

on different level, the Positive School engenders inequality. This type of
thinking could ultimately lead to genocide or other means of eliminating
"defectives".
The positivists are scientists. They share a medical point of view of
criminality. The positivists work within a private system of psychiatrists,
and mental health professionals and liken all criminality to a mental
illness. Offenders become dependent on the doctors to cure them. The
tendency is not to consider them as individuals but as a collective of
treatable inferior criminal types. Positive Criminology places these people
in the hands of the medical fraternity. By labeling as treatable all criminal
types and considering them different to non-criminals, Positive
criminology is apportioning power to a private system and this can lead to
an elitist management of criminal behaviour rather than a just system.
There are differences in the two Schools of thought A Comparison of the
Classical and Positive Schools will show that the theories differ in the way
they address crime The Classical School is prevalent in the police system,
and courts, while the Positive School comes play in corrections or
sometimes sentencing The main distinction between the two are that the
Classical School works with the Criminal Justice system and is of a legal
nature, the Positive School with mental health professionals and
corrections, and is medical related The first with matter of fact way to
prevent and deter others from it and the second treats the criminal, The
School believes in free will and rational choice, while the Positive School
denies it and contends determinism and that some people are born
criminals. According to the Classical system once a crime is committed it
becomes punishable, on the other system, a person is treatable before
they commit crime. Persons with certain attributes have the potential to
comm crime are treatable before they actually commit an offence, A clear
is the Positive Schools tendency to provide indefinite treatment, while the
classical system hands determinate sentence according to its precedent.
Both theories rely on social consensus. The Classical School uses written
law and legislation while the Positive school remains within the existing
structure society While the two Schools of thought differ in the way they
are applied, they have their own specific Since they are separate theories
I will deal with their evaluation separately The Classical School of thought
has changed the face of the legal system, through the contributions
leading theorists and it provides a thoroughly workable system that seems
fair and equitable which accessible to society. I would choose this system
over the Positive School of thought as it provides determinate sentence,
which fits the crime, and maintains that a person is innocent until proven
provides a consistent measure to prevent crime and deter crime. The
Positive School uses objective science to show causes of criminality. This
formula denies the subjective world of the individual and his freedom of
choice, reducing him to a limited set of measurable attributes and
liabilities to commit crime, It is not appropriate to draw conclusions about
a person on the basis of his physical or mental characteristics. It is useful

only in that it provides a form of proof for its assumptions. Were there no
Positive theory the causes of crime wouldn't be addressed and the causes
of crime remain. Classical theory is the law. The law and its consequences
arc there and the Classical School of thought directs the way it is executed
Both Classical and Positive theory inextricably linked to social justice. In
conclusion, the Classical and Positive Schools of thought are two different
entities, which work separately. They are very different in their nature and
the way they manage crime. No theory can work perfectly all of the time
and there are always exceptions. While there are faults and f with the law
would not work without. While they are not perfect, they do well and have
the elimination of crime I favour Classical School over the Positive School
because of its consistency but both are necessary to uphold law and order.