Analysis of Crime from Abstract-Focused Positivism Theory - Research Paper

Introduction

This paper aims to analyze crime from the abstraction-focused objective Positivism theory. The positivistic school of thought advocated for the quantification of criminal behaviour by the use of the scientific methodology. This approach thereby studied the underlying traits of criminals and determined the generalizable causal factors of crime. The non-consideration of contextual factors and its strive for absolute ontological realism are some of the criticisms positivism continue to face. Positivism in criminology was founded by Cesare Lombroso alongside Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo - while following in the footpaths of the father of Sociology Auguste Comte.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In this paper, the author shall attempt to link this scientific framework of understanding crime to the various social realities (based on the typographies of crime). The author shall discuss the foundational arguments by the thinkers in positivism and its paradigmatic scientific method. The discussion also allows us to acknowledge criticisms on the positivist viewpoints and the openness to complementation by other sociological theories.

Theory

Auguste Comte was the founder of the positivist theory. His attempts to explain the world and social life through objective facts made him gravitate closer to the methodologies of the natural sciences of inquiry. As a result, he came up with a field of study that will allow proponents to explain various sociological phenomena using generalizable theories.

Disciples of Auguste, working to understand the criminal mind, isolated Biological, Psychological and Social positivism as possible causal shreds of evidence for the distinct existence of criminal minds in society. Darwin, for instance, determined that the characteristics of an individual exist in their genetic composition. People are thereby born either as criminals or not. Evolutionary evidence by Darwin indicated that certain traits in the human chromosomes could determine their characters, which they may pass down the generations.

Furthermore, other analysts working on intelligence as well as physical traits of individuals also noted from studies that criminals were biologically distinguishable from the non-criminals. These analysts - including Cesare Lombroso - postulated that criminals often possessed physically degenerate traits as well as lower intelligence. Low emotional intelligence is associated with the criminals as they prove easily irritable and aggressive.

It is, however, essential to note that most of these biological positivism postulations have grown out of favour in the academic world due to high levels of inconsistencies.

The next probable sub-theory in positivism is the psychological perspective. Theorists in support of this viewpoint believe that potential criminals experience mental illnesses or a general weak moral strength. The theorists claim that various personality disorders are responsible for the criminalization of an individual. A portrayal of certain psychotic or neurotic behaviours may generally imply rowdy and criminal traits in the subjects.

The final sub-theory in positivism involves society. In an attempt at pattern recognition and abstraction, theorists claimed that society works as a social phenomenon. As such, crime is an expected component of society. The deviant characters in the social setups, thereby only serve to test the society in terms of its morality boundaries.

In all sub-theories under positivism, we note that the attempt is always to arrive at objective truths and principles. These principles guide the inferences from any future empirical observations. The aim here is to develop a theory about crime or criminals. Such developed theory allows scientists and proponents in the field to understand what to look out for in criminology. The existence of scientific-backed guiding philosophies minimizes human bias in identifying criminals.

While the theory tries to standardize the conceptualization of criminal activities, it fails to recognize the relational interactions of causational factors. The quantitative generalization of crime and criminals dehumanizes them and fails to consider the external reasons for their behaviours. This generalization error has been a persistent weakness of the positivism that continues to raise concerns among the humanistic schools of thought. Inferences based on the complete immersion of the analyst into the context of the crime and criminal are essential if the analyst is to understand the complex relationships inside the social settings.

Above all, positivism holds on to the belief of complete behavioral determinacy by such factors that may be theorized by the experts within the scientific realm.

Application

This section explains the applicability of the theory of positivism to the four subcategories of crime. We describe the crimes as an effect of the underlying principles and their ontological realism behind their existence. The immediately following sub-sections describe the various crimes individually.

Violent Crimes

The subcategories of biological, psychological, and social positivism all make some effort to understand the underlying intrinsic factors that finally would lead an individual to act in a particularly violent manner. In Biology, individuals appear to be naturally inclined to fall on either side of the continuum - either as violent or not. Their genetic coding determines what they finally turn out to be.

This biological theory, therefore, does little to help with the correction of such individuals. The individuals violent traits can, however, be identified early enough through behavioral analysis (UNODC, 2020; Finkelstein, 2000). Factors such as the emotional intelligence of the individuals accompanied by physical size are identifiable factors for violent behavior (Bernard, 2019; Mooney, 1970).

These postulations about genetic predisposition to crime and emotional intelligence and body sizes have, however, have lost significance thanks to later adoption studies. Empirical analyses do not reveal any significant correlations between these causal factors and violent behaviors in individuals (Finkelstein, 2000).

Property Rights

In this subsection, we discuss the provisions of legal positivism regarding property ownership in society. Being overly objective and scientifically grounded, legal positivism relies heavily on the separability thesis - that the law and morality are not necessarily in any form of overlap.

Berggren (2006) determines the compatibility of legal positivism with property rights. He theorizes that legal positivism requires the strengthening of property rights. Such rights must, however, base themselves on the foundations of existents laws rather than on natural laws such as the laws of metaphysical nature. Objective laws are thereby the foundations of property rights in the first place. Jeremy Bentham (1931) went so far as to claim that; "Property and law are born together and die together. Before the laws, there was no property; take away the laws, the property ceases" (pg.113).

For property rights to exist; therefore, the theorists in legal positivism advice that we should not leave any laws or overlaps to free will, chance, morality, and metaphysics (Mooney, 1970). We must instead clearly outline the regulations that authorize individuals to sanction state authority on a particular property. Citizens shall only see the state as the originator of property rights protection.

Legal positivism does not in any way impede private property rights whatsoever. It only aims to institute some conventional ways of understanding such property ownerships and rights under conventionally accepted laws (Berggren, 2006).

Some scholars, however, fault positivism for encouraging servility, socialism, and discouraging liberation (Hayek, 1960). Legal positivism protects Private property rights using laws determined by conventions as regular and realistically applicable. Such protests against the laws are as such over-reactive. Positivism allows for the adoption of moral rights in property rights, as long as moral rights form part of the universal property laws.

White-Collar Crimes

Crimes committed in the context of ones business or profession can also be studied objectively through positivistic approaches. We find the motivation behind such a crime on a desire to obtain money or avoid losing money fraudulently. Sociologist Edwin Sutherland first explored the field of criminal study in 1939 (Gul, 2019).

The basic positivistic generalizations of white-collar crimes include the age group, social status, and gender (Braithwaite, 1985) - though the gender variable may currently receive a mixed reaction in society. It is, however, apparent that needy members of the community, as well as juveniles, are incapable of committing these class crimes. On causation, positivism can only postulate that white-collar crimes are a result of the unending greed of the classists in society. The desire is an innate feature of these individuals and, as such, form part of their genetics - as earlier claimed by Darwin.

Another generalization of white-collar crimes appears from Sutherlands conceptualization. Sunderland postulates that individuals pick up Criminal behavior while in association with people that seem to accept such action and away from those who respond to it unfavorably (Matsueda, 1982).

The older and wealthier members of society who commit such crimes are thereby in the companion of peers who consider such crimes as favorable. Theorists, however, claim that these crimes considerably reduce when individuals start to consider national values over individual ones (Braithwaite, 1985).

Finally, questions arising from which industries experience the most white-collar crimes are the easiest to study and generalize (Braithwaite, 1985). There is, as such, a significant amount of empirical study in this dynamic. Companies with the more pronounced inspectorate services experience considerably more scientific and criminological attention. It is as easy to uncover corporate fraud in such companies.

Public-Order

Siegel (2006) described public order crime as such a crime that hinders or influences the efficiency of society. This type of crime is dependent mainly on the shared norms of society and acts as a deviation from such shared values. Such crimes include those that are done by individuals in a public space and contravention of conventional moral wisdom. They do not directly cause harm to a tangible victim but appear to contravene moral codes of conduct.

Such crimes are nonconventional, and their judgments become dependent on non-universal assumptions (Finkelstein, 2000). As such, quantitative analysis of right and wrong in a particular society is the only mode of information that may guide positivists into theorizing this criminal school of thought. While inter-relational classical theories mostly analyze these crimes better, positivism can still build general biological, psychological, and social explanations for their originations.

Through social positivism, such deviant crimes to public order become a natural way for the social system to test for acceptability. In such a case, objective laws based on empirical evidence are essential while putting these crimes in check. Such requirements must thereby accompany the existent dynamics within society and the moral values therein (Siegel, 2006).

Crime Prevention

From the discussion of the impact of positivism on the four categories of criminology, this next section attempts to apply positivistic principles in the interventions of various crimes. The practitioners and theorists clearly state the theoretical evidence to determine how a quantitative theory-based approach to...