Criminology

1 Pages 310 Words

The way “Classical Criminology” was viewed was that if the punishment was of public notice they were scaring the people from committing crimes. Beccaria believed that people wanted to commit crimes but wanted to avoid being tortured. He felt that criminals received some type of thrill and pleasure while committing the crime.

The criminal thought that the thrill he received while committing the crime, was well worth the torture he or she would receive if he were caught. Criminals did not think of the outcome at the time of the act, only once he or she was caught would they think of what is about to happen.

I believe that “Classical Criminology” and “Positivism’s” would have to difficult to compare, because classical states that they like the thrill they receive while committing the crime and the punishment is worth all that pain they will receive if their caught, but if you look at it like this, if they don’t get caught they have received the pleasure of their life and will eventually continue till they get caught because it’s a easy way of life. Positivism’s say that the feature on a person can tell us that they are criminals, how? It might be the genes from their parents or other family members in the past. I would have to disagree on this theory. Just because my grandparents were criminals, I have to be a criminal no! Society and current events in a family can help change a person’s future, this is why it’s important for each generation of children to try to better it s family circle.

I would go with Durkheim. Everyone is different and we would definite have a boring society if everyone went around with white collar image, and law enforcement agencies wouldn’t have a job to do....