A Comparative Analysis of Classical Theory Neo Classical Theory and Rational Choice Theory in Criminology   Introducti

A Comparative Analysis of Classical Theory Neo Classical Theory and Rational Choice Theory in Criminology

Introduction

The Classical Theory is a product of the enlightenment era when scholars started questioning the indiscriminate and repressive criminal justice systems. The theory is based on the premise that human beings are rational actors that have free will and are capable of making decisions on both legal and illegal behaviors. Crime is thus perceived as a choice that has been made by considering the possible pleasure and the possible pain. Punishment in this context is aimed at preventing future crimes, and not to revenge. The focus is placed on severity in favor of certainty swiftness and proportionality of punishment. This school of thought had a powerful impact on the formation of legal systems in the present world by encouraging equality and equal punishment (Cullen Agnew and Wilcox 2018).

Cesare Beccaria is considered to be the main theorist of Classical Theory. In On Crimes and Punishments he held the view that in order to make informed decisions the laws must be clear concise and publicly known. Beccaria was an advocate of the idea that punishment must not be excessive since it would serve as a counterweight to the advantages of crime and that too much punishment destroys legitimacy. He was a great opponent of the use of torture secret accusations and the death penalty as he considered them as unjust and ineffective. His focus on confidence of punishment as opposed to severity of punishment stands out in the deterrence based policies to this day. The ideas of Beccaria represented a transformation of the moral judgment to the rational governance in criminal justice (Cullen et al. 2018).

The Classical Theory was extended by Jeremy Bentham in his utilitarianism philosophy. Bentham hypothesized that pleasure and pain drive all human actions. His theory of hedonic calculus implied that people consider the duration certainty and scales of pleasure or pain prior to taking action. This theory was directly applied to deterrence theory since it dictated how crime could be deterred through punishment. Critics though point out that in the model of Bentham we make the assumption of a certain degree of rational calculation, which may not be realistic in the context of the making of decisions in the real world. Social pressures of emotional impulses and lack of information tend to corrupt rational assessment. In spite of these critiques Bentham ideas have been relevant to policy debate on punishment and deterrence (Akers and Sellers 2019).

The Neo Classical Theory developed when scholars realized the shortcomings in Classical assumptions. Although it still believed in the free will it did not deny the fact that people have varying abilities to make rational decisions. Independent variables like age mental health cognitive ability and situational stressor factors were included in crime explanations. This view encouraged the notion that wrongdoers must be brought to book but not dealt with in a similar manner. Consequently, the Neo Classical Theory endorsed the discretion of judges and personalized punishment. It enabled the courts to address the circumstances of intent and reduced responsibility but not accountability. Such a flexibility was a major departure of strict Classical ideals (Akers and Sellers 2019).

The main contribution of the Neo Classical Theory is that it is balanced between the structure and compassion. It maintained the discouraging role of punishment and acknowledged the complexity of humans. This strategy impacted the creation of defenses like insanity and juvenile justice systems that provide a distinction between offenders according to capacity. Critics however complain that discretion may bring bias and inequality to sentencing outcomes. Discrimination in the exercise of discretion can be a negation of the Classical concept of legal equality. Nevertheless, the Neo Classical Theory is still very entrenched in the contemporary justice systems. It can be defined as a connection between the ideals of philosophy and realities (Cullen et al. 2018).

Rational Choice Theory is a modern development of Classical thought that is more empirical. It presupposes that people decide on the cost perceived benefits but puts more weight on situation than on legal aspects. Offenders are considered to be decision makers to respond to the constraints in immediate opportunities and risks. This theory points out the effect of the environment in the determination of crime. Such mechanisms as targets visibility guardianship and effort needed are critical in decision making. Rational Choice Theory thus does not focus on offender motivation but crime circumstances (Cornish and Clarke 2020).

The Classical Theory Rational Choice Theory does not make the full or perfect rationality assumption. It is considered that decision making is limited and biased by time constraints of information and activities of routine. This makes the theory more realistic and relevant to daily offending. The Rational Choice Theory has stood out especially in the situational crime prevention techniques. Improved lighting surveillance access control and hot spot policing are some of the policies based on this framework. These are strategies meant to minimize crime through pain and exposure and maximize gain. Due to this fact, Rational Choice Theory has been directly applied to real-world crime prevention (Cornish and Clarke 2020).

In the comparative analysis of the three theories, it is possible to notice a few important differences. Classical Theory puts much emphasis on punishment that is based on legal structure and moral responsibility. Neo Classical Theory is an adjustment to this method and takes into consideration personal differences and situational constraints. Rational Choice Theory also extends the analysis to the area of crime opportunity influence on behavior. The similarity between all three theories is that choice is a factor in offending. They however vary in their degree of emphasis on rationality structure and environment. The three are the most traditionally policy oriented and empirically driven rational choice theory (Cullen et al. 2018).

The works of Beccaria and Bentham are still considered as the basis, however, they are not similar in terms of priorities. Beccaria paid attention to justice fairness and legal reform whereas Bentham paid attention to calculation utility and efficiency. Such a decision of Beccaria is more justified and ethical since it puts more emphasis on legitimacy and proportionality. The hedonic calculus developed by Bentham is a helpful abstract but simplistic approach to human behavior. The early ideas are bettered by Rational Choice Theory which has included situational realism. It accepts the fact that criminals can be rational agents operating in limited conditions. This ensures that it is more flexible to current trends of crime (Cornish and Clarke 2020).

Rational choice theory is the most hegemonic theory in modern criminology and criminal justice practice that I use. Its principles are reflected in the present-day policing corrections and prevention strategies. It does not only use punishment but minimizes the chances of crime. This is consistent with evidence based policy making and effective intervention. This is the reason why classical and Neo Classical theories are still relevant in explaining the basis of law and moral responsibility. Nonetheless, they are less able to deal with complicated and dynamic crime conditions. The Rational Choice Theory is the most practical and influential theory but it also extends Classical roots.

References

Akers R. L. and Sellers C. S. (2019). Criminological theories introduction evaluation and application 7th ed. Oxford University Press.

Cornish D. B. and Clarke R. V. (2020). The reasoning criminal rational choice perspectives on offending 2nd ed. Routledge.

Cullen F. T. Agnew R. and Wilcox P. (2018). Criminological theory past to present essential readings 6th ed. Oxford University Press.