Criminology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 3

Criminology - turn up ExampleDiscussion The key ideological disparity between positivist theorisers and classical theorists is how the two categories distinguish how some individuals are increasingly more prone to crime than new(prenominal)s. For instance, classical theorists believe that individuals engage in barbarous acts entirely on their give birth will while positivist theorists assert that people open crimes outside their free will (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 45). holy school of thought that developed in the seventeenth century anchored on philosophy of utilitarianism. Cesare and Jeremy, as well as other classical thinkers, believed that human beings cave in free will to direct the choice of their actions, and the deterrence is anchored on the idea of a person as a hedonist being that seeks satisfactions and prevents discomfort, and a reasonable calculator estimating the cost and advantages of each actions results (Hagan 10). Therefore, the school of thought objects the chances of ir ableity and involuntary desires as triggering aspects. In addition, they believe that punishment (of adequate difficulty) put up prevent human beings from criminal acts, as the loss (sentence) outweighs advantages, and the difficulty of penalty should be equal to the offense. Classical philosophers suggest that the more swift and precise the penalty (sentence) is, the more efficient it is in preventing crime attitudes. Cesare and other classical philosophers asserted that criminal attitudes or behavior could be reduced through human spirit basics (OBrien and Majid 47). According to classical theorists, criminal behavior is regulated by peoples self-interests. Theorists argued that rational human beings join a social contract where they recognize that maintaining a harmonious society would avail them. Cesare and his colleagues want to minimize criminal acts and behavior through reforms to the system of criminal punishment that they saw as hostile, unreasonably exces sive and ineffective deterrent. The key purpose of sentencing was to deter criminal behavior among people. Classical theorist believed that the most crucial efficient deterrent from crime would be abrupt penalties instead of a commodious sentence of trials (Shteir 10). They considered criminal acts as irrational behaviors that resulted from individuals who could not behave from their free will or in societys interests. They contended that penalties should be constantly imposed for certain criminal acts, with no unique circumstances, to usher people that crime will cost them since there are fixed effects. Classical school proponents sought fair and equal justice for crime suspects. Prior to classical ideology, judges punished offenders at their own interests irrespective of the crime severity, an act that made some people perceive the system of a criminal sentence as tyrannical. Consequently, Cesare and his colleagues struggled for penalties for certain offenses to be controlled by legislative arm and forbid unleashing power. They believed that if legal officers could substance abuse legislatively authorized penalties, trials would be swift and there would be fair justice because offenders would receive scurrying and fair punishment (OBrien and Majid 50). The classical theorist thought that combating crime is increasingly crucial than punishment, but by setting clear system of punishment offenders would utilize their reasoning to realize that criminals behavior is against their self-interests. Similarly,