Category: Criminology

The Zodiac Killer is perhaps one of the most mind-boggling serial killers to have graced the United States. To this day we are unaware of his identity. He started killing in the 1960’s-1970’s. Jake Gyllenhaal starred in the movie “Zodiac” and played a man by the name of Robert Graysmith. We learn a lot about the Zodiac Killer and how he operates theoretically but never his true identity.

The Zodiac killer committed multiple murders classifying him as one of the most notorious serial killers. He scared the whole population of San Francisco California leaving bodies all over the place. He would taunt media and police with letters of code that people such as Robert Graysmith and Paul Avery could not decipher. The movie does a really good job of showing the behind the scenes of trying to solve these ciphers and the amount of pressure that laid on the San Francisco Police Department. The Zodiac was said to have committed 37 murders. Crimes such as these are considered to be mala in se crimes. These are acts that are strictly forbidden and highly deviant. (Schram and Tibbetts, p. 5, 2018)

What could have driven someone to murder 37 people? As we try to figure out the internal and external factors it is extremely hard in the Zodiac Killers case. We are simply unaware of his identity. We cannot be sure of his childhood, trauma, or past. Those things are typically used to discover the motive and what makes a serial killer tick. Clearly the Zodiac Killer like most serial killers was a psychopath. The causes of psychopathy remain a mystery. We don’t even have a satisfactory answer to the question of whether psychopathy is a product of Mother Nature or a feature of upbringing (Brogaard, 2012).

There are two theories in particular that stand out when it comes to the Zodiac Killer. One of them being Hans Eysenck theory of crime and personality. He discovered what is called the PEN model. PEN stands for psychoticism, extroversion, and neuroticism. These are all things that can easily be applied to the Zodiac Killer. Psychoticism is associated with being aggressive and unempathetic. Extroversion is linked to being sociable and lively. Which made it easy for the Zodiac to kill his victims. Neuroticism is linked with anxiety and depression (Schram and Tibbetts, P. 170-171, 2018).

The next theory that can be associated with the Zodiac is Lykken’s Psychopathy and Crime. There are a few differences between a psychopath and a sociopath. A man by the name of David Lykken was able to distinguish them. A psychopath refers to people who are anti-social and that behavior may be a problem within their subconscious. A sociopath refers to people who’s antisocial tendencies developed it from a defect instead of socialization. We can presume that Zodiac would fall under the psychopath category as do most serial killers (Schram and Tibbetts, P. 182, 2018)

The Zodiac left a lot of turmoil on the state of California as a whole. The repercussions were leveling. It left the city scared for years after the killings stopped. They were actually able to decipher one of his messages that read “I like killing people because its so much fun”. The crazy part is not knowing who the zodiac killer was or is for that matter. There are theories that claimed the Zodiac Killer stopped killing. The FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime has noted that serial killers may stop if something changes in their lives. Perhaps coming so close to getting caught on the night of Stine’s murder scared Zodiac onto a safer path (Kettler, 2019).

Like most psychopaths there is not much anyone can do unless it is before they are classified with psychopathy. It typically starts at a young age with signs of violence towards animals, quietness, and thing such as wetting the bed even. In the case of the Zodiac I do not believe there is anything that could have stopped him. Based on his letters to the police and media he seemed to get quite a bit of self-pleasure out of murder. If we knew more about the Zodiacs identity, we might be able to narrow down some possible issues that could deter him from further participation in criminal activity. It is a shame we do not know the facts but that is simply what makes the Zodiac so interesting compared to most serial killers.

In my opinion I do not think there is anything that could deter the Zodiac from committing crime other than early intervention. I believe that once you are deemed a psychopath it is impossible to not be one anymore. “Zodiac” was quite an interesting film but researching the actual Zodiac Killer was fascinating. It is a case where a lot is left to be discovered and learned. It is not like any other old serial killer research. You are left with nothing but a mystery that will probably never be fully solved.

References

1. Brogaard, B. (2012, December 7). The Making of a Serial Killer. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201212/the-making-serial-killer.
2. Kettler, S. (2019, October 10). Why the Zodiac Killer Has Never Been Identified. Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/news/zodiac-killer-murder-identity.
3. Schram, P. J., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2021). Introduction to criminology: why do they do it? Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

There have been many theories that have contributed to the development of criminology. The classical school of criminology theories investigate free will and rehabilitation, Bentham and Beccaria were influential theorists in classical criminology. The positive school of criminology theories explore biological explanations for crime. Lombroso was a key figure within positive criminology and is credited as the ‘father of criminology’.

During the 18th century in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment classical criminology was established. Classical criminology focused on the idea that people had the free will to commit crime and that people evaluate the risks to determine their actions. The classical school brought the progressive thoughts of radicalism and utilitarianism. Classical criminology promoted decency, and fair treatment rather than punishment. Classical criminology had great effect on criminological theory, also on criminal justice practice. Classical thinking changed the way punishment was given. Punishment given fitted the crime, the use of capital punishment decreased, this included the use of torture and corporal punishment. In Cesare Beccaria’s thesis ‘Crimes and Punishment’, he stated that criminology should focus on social control and order over moral and religious beliefs. Beccaria felt that punishment should be appropriate to the crime committed. Some of the core principals of classical jurisprudence as stated by Beccaria are that the extreme use of punishment does not discourage criminal behavior, he believed it increased it. He also believed that the severity of the crime should determine the punishment handed out and, that punishment should be carried out quickly and effectively, to create a close connection between crime and punishment. Beccaria had three concepts to reform the criminal justice system. Certainty, how probable it is that punishment will occur. Celerity, how quickly punishment is carried out. Severity, how much punishment is carried out. Beccaria felt that the criminal justice system to be harsh, unfair and that the punishment wasn’t based on the crime, it was based on the individual giving out the sentence. Beccaria believed that punishment should only be handed out to deter others from committing crimes.

Classical criminologist Jeremey Bentham believed that punishment was required, however he agreed with Beccaria’s thinking that punishment should fit the crime. Bentham felt punishment shouldn’t inflict too much pain, only enough to deter crime. Bentham and Beccaria wrote about the pleasure pain principle. Bentham and Beccaria believed in the idea that individuals think about the pleasure they would receive carrying out actions and avoiding pain. They felt individuals broke the law in the hopes to receive something of value, such as money. Bentham believed that to deter crime that the pain of the punishment had to exceed whatever pleasure was given from committing crime. Bentham came up with the idea of panopticon prison model. The panopticon is a circular building designed to be able to watch prisoners and observe their behaviors. Bentham was shocked by the barbaric conditions of prison systems, so Bentham designed the panopticon system to improve the failing prison systems. Due to the way the panopticon was designed ensured that the prisoners were under constant surveillance. Bentham stated that due to the constant surveillance, that it would be illogical for the prisoners to act in a criminal way, whilst being closely watched.

In comparison, the positive school of criminology which was founded in the 19th century focused on the theory that crime wasn’t a choice, that it was a result of biological aspects. Cesare Lombroso is often referred to as the founder of positivist criminology. In contrast to the ideas in classical criminology of free will and prevention of crime, Lombroso’s theories focused more on identifying the physical attributes of the criminal man rather than looking at ways to deter crime. Lombroso’s criminal typing drew on the thoughts of Charles Darwin, he discovered that criminals shared various physical attributes. Lombroso’s theories linked to biological positivism which concentrated on physical features and appearance. Lombroso’s criminal typing was popular at the time due to the ‘deep-rooted cultural prejudices’, this theory also appealed to the upper classes as it fitted their view of the ‘criminal classes’ (Maguire, Morgan, Reiner, 2002). Lombroso believed that criminals had certain physical characteristics such as thieves had flat noses, murders had ‘beaklike’ noses and that head shape and size contributes to criminal behavior. This indicates that Lombroso believed that you were born a criminal, and if you had these physical features you were predisposed to have criminal behavior. Lombroso believed that females were less advanced than men. He described the normal woman as being a decent mother, powerless and reliant on men. Lombroso used biological facts such as women’s brain and bodies being a smaller size, to suggest that women are subordinate to men. Lombroso believed that criminal behavior in women stemmed from sexuality, thus making prostitution the most common crime committed by females. Lombroso stated that women mainly became prostitutes due to sexual desires, rather than other social explanations. Lombroso described prostitutes as having physical attributes such as small foreheads, over-weight and being lefthanded.

Bentham and Beccaria theorists within the classical criminology both disapproved of the death penalty. Lombroso’s thinking completely differs from Beccaria and Bentham. Lombroso agreed with the death penalty as he felt society had the right to protect itself from those who commit crime. Lombroso believed that criminals were ‘atavistic’ as they had stopped developing at an early stage, meaning there was no chance of rehabilitation.

In conclusion, although the classical school of criminology and the positive school have differing theories. They were all still prominent in the development of criminology. Our justice system and penal laws have been influenced by ideas from classical criminologists Beccaria and Bentham. Positive criminologist Lombroso has gone on to influence other criminologists such as Ferri and Garofalo. The most significant difference between these schools of criminology is that classical school is primarily founded on free will and claims crime is a choice. Whereas positive criminology insists that crime is a result of factors outside of the individual’s control, such as physical appearance.

Classicist criminology is a theory of criminal behavior and supports theorists in finding solutions to crime and deviance. The main principle of classicist criminology is that people have free will in making decisions and that punishment can be a deterrent for crime, so long as the punishment is proportional and is carried out promptly. The classical school of criminology was developed by Cesare de Beccaria and Jeremy Benthem during the 18th century; they sought to reduce the austerity of the 18th-century judiciary systems. Beccaria stated that “it is better to prevent crime than to punish them”. During the era, Europeans utilized capital punishments such as being whipped, tortured, hanged, and beheaded in consequence of crime and deviant behavior resulting in, “classical thinking emerged in response to the cruel forms of punishment that dominated the times as enlightened approaches to be taken towards crime and punishment” (Roufa, 2011). In comparison, during the 18th-century woman was punished for acts of adultery but in modern-day society, adultery is not breaking the law or is forbidden suggesting that classical schooling has had a positive impact on modern-day society. Bentham’s writing ideologized human behavior and theorized the pleasure-pain principle, which supports the theory that criminals are rational, they weigh up costs and therefore should create deterrents that slightly outweigh what would be gained from the crime. therefore, if the gain from the crime exceeds the consequences of punishment, then the criminal will choose to commit the crime and suffer the consequence to have that temporary gain.

Classicist criminology is based on four key principles which are: individuals have the will and rationality to act accordingly to their own will and desires, individuals will calculate the rationality of the crime based on the benefits of the crime versus the consequence of the crime, severity of the punishment should be determined by the severity of the crime to deter others and reduce crime, punishment should be swift and appropriate to deter others and reduce crime (Roufa, 2011). These principles for classicist criminology continue to play a key role in criminal justice systems today. “Since the introduction of the classical school of criminology, the use of capital punishment, torture and corporal punishment has declined” (‘Classical’, 2012), it has been shown that classicist criminology has made great leaps in the justice system as before punishments were implemented, people were tortured as well as other forms of punishment but now such punishments are dated. Research has shown that in Europe and America imprisonment has been used as a deterrent to encourage offenders to understand their behavior. As a result, “growth of prison as a major system of punishment to take punishment away from the body and instead punish the mind and soul, to changing one’s outlook and views of their criminal behavior” (‘Classical’, 2012). Classicistic criminology has, however, not made such advancements in as many countries, for example in Afghanistan the death penalty, as well as physical punishments, are still active in today’s society. The idea of avoiding physical punishment links to hedonism where the assumption that people seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, is because once an offender has experienced imprisonment, they are less likely to repeat a crime due to the thought of returning there. In comparison, classicist criminology has been referenced in the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, an example can be found in the 8th Amendment that makes, ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ unlawful and unconstitutional.

Even though classicist criminology suggests that criminals commit crime because of their free will and choice, the justice system has presented weaknesses and that the theory, “puts the blame for the crime problems squarely on the shoulders of the individual, and not on society as a whole”, (See, 2004). The theory suggests that people know what is right and wrong and can therefore sum up the pros and cons of committing a crime, not everyone commits a crime because of their free will. Such scenarios may occur with mental instabilities, poor impulse control, low IQ, or the need for survival. An example is through perceptual deterrence where an individual refers to what they believe the likelihood of arrest to be, and how severe they believe the punishment of the crime will be. If that person was to suffer from schizophrenia, then their judgement may be disproportionate to how severe the crime is and therefore have the lack of free will. This suggests that the classicist theory has implemented that people can rationally understand the pros and cons of committing a crime and has therefore placed those who cannot theorize the consequences in a state of misunderstanding and wrongdoing. The theory makes no indications or suggestions to the fact “there may be biological factors stopping an individual from thinking or behaving rationally” (‘Classical’, 2012). A need for survival demonstrates a lack of free will and conflicts with the theory of classicist criminology. This is because if someone was to steal food this would be viewed as a crime and therefore be punishable with a fine or imprisonment, however, the circumstances of the theft may be misunderstood and therefore the pleasure-pain principle is overruled by the prevention of starvation. On the other hand, compared to the past, when someone stole food, they would have limbs cut off or depending on what is stolen put to death. This shows how classical criminology has made improvements to the present justice system.

Reiman’s statement “the rich get richer, and the poor get prison” shows a discrepancy in how the rich and the poor are treated throughout the criminal justice system. The poor are more likely to be discriminated against and evidence has shown that throughout history, the law has favored the more economically wealthy. Corporate crimes are more likely to be committed by the wealthy and are also given more leniency even when the crime is damaging to society and the environment. When an adult or child of the working class was to commit similar crimes, they would be disproved of because of their financial status. The pleasure-pain principle would suggest that the middle-class have no consideration for the punishment that they would experience. This is because due to the criminal justice system showing more bias towards the middle-class, they do not take into consideration the potential punishments. Also, according to Reiman (2007), “the poor are also treated more harshly in the courts with a poor defendant being more likely to be found guilty than a wealthier defendant”. This further demonstrates how classical criminology benefits the wealthy, this is because when under the same conditions and potential punishment the poor are more likely to be prosecuted due to the fact that they have greater economic status. Therefore, the criminal justice system has had near to no change when it comes to economic bias thus suggesting that classicist criminology influences the rich to become richer with little consideration of the punishments.

Classicist criminology has great application and significance to the modern-day criminal justice system. It provides a key structure for criminal behavior and suggestions for punishments and crime control. Although the classicist theory was developed in the 18th century it can still be implied to the 21st century, a prime example being how America’s justice system was founded. Currently, convicts are serving time that is proportional to the crime they committed; however, classicist criminology does not take into account social factors. Such social factors include poverty, drugs, mental instability and because such factors are not seen as the social norm, there are no given exceptions for convictions. The principle of punishment to be appropriate to deter others and reduce crime consists of many factors which can affect one’s free will and their rationality towards crime. Bentham’s pleasure-pain principle produces awareness as well as guidance for present-day society and the justice system. It produces awareness for society to rationalize the potential punishments compared to the crime they commit. The pleasure-pain principle has contributed to the criminal justice system via appropriate sentencing of crimes that are slightly outweighed, to create a rational deterrent for society.

Feminism is more than a view or perspective but a movement. As the question points out, it is a movement with a multitude of perspectives. Feminism traces its roots to male dominance and oppression, which according to Patricia Hills led to a movement to end male chauvinism and ensure equal rights for all and also to eradicate the ideology of dominance.

According to Naffine, feminist criminology is the integration of feminist perspectives into criminological studies. During the late 20th century, the majority of social sciences were considered to be masculine, including criminology, which has historically been missing female-focused perspectives. Due to this, this essay examines whether a consensus is needed between feminist perspectives in criminology and if they emerged from traditional theories.

The so-called ‘malestream’ approach to women and crime connected women and positivism, embracing biological, sociological, and psychological positivism. Lombroso was an important representative of biological positivism, as he stereotyped female offenders based on their physical characteristics, e.g. He classified female offenders as more masculine. In addition, he noted that the skull anomalies of female offenders are not unlike those of normal women but rather like those of men with a ‘virile cranium’. Further, he analyses women’s generative phase in connection with their menstrual cycle; this theory has also been adopted by Otto Pollak, where females are reminded that they can never be men during menstruation. This triggers women to commit crimes.

This particular theory remains unproven, but the Law has acknowledged a portion of this theory by taking pre-menstrual tension into account in cases of brutality, manslaughter, arson, and theft. There have been cases where premenstrual tension has led to murder being reduced to manslaughter, as noted by Susan Edwards and Gary Luckhaus. Regina v English begins with defendant, an Eastern barmaid with 45 prior convictions, stabbing her fellow barmaid three times through the heart. She then crushes her man to death by smashing her car up against a utility pole after an argument with him. This is one of many cases where defendants have reduced their criminal responsibility by pleading premenstrual tension, according to Dalton.

In addition, women who have recently given birth experience postnatal depression as a result of hormonal changes. The crime of infanticide would appear to be equally applicable to a man with primary responsibility for the child, yet only women are permitted to use this defense and their punishments as reducing sentences to probation Regina v Craddock. The case shows that this is not a special defense, but rather compassion for the women involved. Fathers, who committed infanticide, were treated with contempt, as savage tyrants.

Furthermore, the view of W. I.Thomas’ work on women and crime is based on psychological positivism, he was of the opinion that women in domestic spheres committed fewer crimes, he also believes middle-class women committed fewer crimes than low-class women, not because they were immoral, but because they were simply amoral. Freud asserted that women commit crimes, because as girls, they become jealous because they do not have a penis, so basically grow up to resent men and thus, become exhibitionists who commit sexual crimes.

Finally, women and crime come under the gaze of social positivism because according to Merton and Grosser, men are supposedly power-hungry and money-oriented, whereas women are socialized to pursue marriage and children over a lucrative career, which encourages women to commit crimes against men.

Even so, feminist perspectives within the field of criminology have challenged a number of established theories, concepts and assumptions. In classical criminology, women and crime are portrayed as androgynous, fail to comprehend the complexities of gender and sex. According to researchers, only 18 females are convicted of serious crimes for every 100 males. Crime and delinquency remain highly correlated with age and sex, and these factors outweigh class, race, and employment status.

Women’s liberation and the emergence of feminist criminology are part of the second wave of feminism, the first wave being the suffrage movement following the end of the world war. I think it is necessary to acknowledge that feminism consists of a number of schools of thought which each explain the oppression of women differently, including: liberal feminism, radical feminism, Marxist feminism, black feminism and post-modernist feminism. As a result, there is no universal feminist explanation for women and crime, yet they do tend to share one thing in common: rejecting the term ‘victim’ to characterize women’s oppression instead using the term ‘survivor’.

By rejecting Lombroso’s and Ferrero’s biological positivist account of criminality, Carol Smart inaugurated the feminist critique of classical criminology. Hence, Smart argues that the sexism of women heavily affects sentencing, incarceration, and punishment, and thus there is discrimination in the sentencing, incarceration, and punishment of women. She blames personnel in the criminal justice system for the stereotype that believes women will become mad if they go against their biological nature of passivity or compliance and commit certain crimes. Additionally, Addison Morris asserts that the biological and psychological positivist theories do not explain at all why women commit crimes.

The feminist critiques have made a significant contribution to theoretical criminology in three specific areas. The first is the female emancipation debate, in which Adler and Simon state that women’s liberation or emancipation causes crime. Although critics have noted that the rate of male violent crime has continued to rise faster than the rate of female violent crime, this view has been critiqued as being a myth. This status is taken to be only a historical overlap by Box and Hale.

As far as the invalidation of the leniency hypothesis is concerned, Pollack stated that women are treated leniently by the criminal justice system because of the notion of chivalry, however, critics have overturned this hypothesis, as Farrington and Morris discovered that women’s court leniency towards them was a result of their lower criminal records. The Scottish sheriffs, Carlen found, viewed female offenders as ‘failed mothers’ more easily when justifying imprisonment. According to Downes and Rock, rather than being treated leniently, they are being overprotected and overcontrolled.

As a final point, Hirschi’s control theory extension to the context of women and crime is responsible for the emergence of gender-based theories. In Heilensohn’s view, there are a number of formal and informal barriers that restrict women from committing crime, including practical and ideological restrictions imposed by family life. In familial roles, women serve as agents of control for men; yet they are themselves controlled both in and out of home, functioning chiefly within the private sphere, resulting in depression and self-abuse.

In addition to considering the feminist critiques contribution to theoretical criminology, it is necessary to examine the criticisms of the feminist movement itself because of its lack of unity; lack of unity has led to the fact that the main focus of modern feminism is focused only on studies of prostitution, rape and domestic violence. Diverse feminist opinions exist regarding prostitution, which can either be supportive or critical. Prostitution is considered a private business transaction by liberal feminists, and it is a choice of the woman herself. The radical feminists view prostitution as a form of exploitation that places the woman in a subordinate position, reducing her to a sexual object for the pleasure of men. Among Marxist feminists the view is that prostitution becomes a rational choice for the women in capitalism. However, Pateman agrees with liberal feminists that prostitutes are not wage laborers, but rather independent contractors.

To summarize, while it’s evident that feminism comprises a number of perspectives, as there are differing races, ethnicities, cultures, and sexual orientations of women, it cannot simply be viewed as one point of view. To do so would lead to gender essentialism, i.e., characteristics defined as women’s essence are shared by all women everywhere, since that’s not the case, which is not true.

With the help of feminist criminology, the essay will explore society’s stereotypical view of gender roles in light of the statement that criminology is a male-dominated field that overlooks the importance of female offenders. Further, this essay will compare the types of crimes committed by women and men, and why this might be. It will also look at case studies of female serial killers and how it may impact the view on them being more important than originally believed.

Braithwaite (1989) observed that crime is committed disproportionately by men, and the Home Office (2001) notes only 19 percent of known offenders cautioned or convicted by the criminal justice system are women. This statistic has remained stable for the past decade, which could suggest that women’s crimes are not held to the same priority as men’s crimes (Walklate, 2004). During childhood, families, schools, and society may instill stereotypical views on gender roles that function as a self-fulfilling prophecy of gender roles. At a certain point in a boy and girl’s life, they would have internalized certain roles, such as when girls were given dolls and boys were given construction or car toys, and this would have a huge impact on how they interact with these toys in the real world that they then act out.

Criminal psychology often overlooks female offenders because it tends to find some crimes are dominated by men rather than women. This may be attributed to the ‘feminization of poverty’, where males are more likely to commit violent or sexual crimes, whereas women are more likely to commit property and theft crimes. In proportion, female offenders tend to steal to make ends meet for their children, while some male offenders who commit burglary and theft do so for the same reason (Walklate, 2004). Nevertheless, the reason why poverty has such a major impact on women more than men has still not been fully explained. Due to stereotypes about gender, a female who commits the same crime may be more understood than a male, simply because she is perceived to be ‘innocent,’ and as a result, treated more leniently by law enforcement. In general, females are not viewed as bad people when they make a mistake, but rather as individuals who have simply made a bad decision – this is rarely the case for males. Due to the more violent crime associated with males and the non-violent crime associated with females, males are deemed as more threatening and harmful to society.

As Brown (1986) pointed out, the more the focus is solely on the woman and crime, the more mainstream (male stream) criminology will feel untouched by criticisms of feminism and will already presume that their narratives are accurate (Walklate, 1995). Criminology faces a problem here since female behavior is most likely measured against some masculine norm that may not offer a framework adequate to explain crime for men, women or both.

In general, this study proposes that just because criminology has neglected or failed to adequately explain female crime, it does not mean that it has performed better than men. It suggests that even though female crime has been overlooked, it does not mean that male crime has a greater validity for explaining it. Criminology being a male-dominated field could be biased due to the fact that it has had little time to devote exclusively to explaining female crimes (Walklate, 1995, p.13).

According to case studies on female offenders, criminology should not be considered a male-dominated discipline, since women are equally capable of committing serious crimes. As an example, Myra Hindley was convicted of murdering five children and sentenced to life in prison. Several explanations for her behavior were given, including her violent childhood and her submissive love for her partner at the time. Another prominent case was that of Joanna Dennehey, who was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of three men. Considering that these two cases contradict the notion that women are innocent, sensitive, nurturing, and weak, these cases are extremely important when discussing the notion that criminology is a male-dominated discipline. As these cases demonstrate, females can be just as threatening and harmful as males.

Prior to the 1970s, the study of crime and deviance was largely a male domain. Feminist criminologists proposed these ideas in the mid-1970s. As a critique of existing male stream criminology, firstly, “showing how women have been neglected, misrepresented, and how they may be integrated back into existing theories”, secondly, “to present new areas of study” and, thirdly, “a way of bringing gender to the forefront and especially the role of men in crime” (Carrabine et al., 2009, p.106). In the twentieth century, the feminist movement made women more visible as professional criminologists and as subjects of criminological studies. Feminist criminologists made their first contribution of criminology began by establishing critiques on the male-based theories; not only were the theorists men, but they only wrote and researched about men, and when considering women offenders they had a very sexist perspective.

On the other hand, feminist criminology has been heavily critical of mainstream criminology, and Heidenshohn (1996) stated bluntly that the mainstream and tributary criminology “has almost nothing to say about women” (Newburn, 2017, p.308). While criminology has ignored the female offender within society in the past, feminist criminology has emerged to combat this perception of a male stream criminology and use research and studies to explain the female offender and women’s treatment in the criminal justice system.

Lombroso concluded that there were fewer ‘born criminals’ than males when he studied the female criminal. In order to explain why women commit fewer crimes than men, it was suggested that they are less developed, are therefore more primitive, and as a consequence are less likely to degenerate as a result. Lombroso argued that the most common form of regression for women is prostitution (Newburn, 2017, p.309). As a contrast, Otto Pollak proposed that “women are actually more criminal than men”. They are just more devious and cunning, which allows them to cover up their crimes more effectively (Carrabine et al., 2009, p.107). Because there is not a clear interpretation about the female offender towards criminal offences, this implies that because there is not a clear interpretation about the female offender, it lacks adequate and valid content, which makes it very difficult to analyze and less significant to research on within criminology.

In recent years, feminist criminologists have become increasingly interested in how women are treated by the police, courts, and prisons in ways they are not handled by men. Women who appear before a court face what is referred to as ‘double deviance’ and ‘double jeopardy’. As a result of the low crime rate among women, this has important ramifications, because women who have offended are seen as having transgressed both social norms and gender norms. As rule-breakers and role defiant, they frequently receive the sort of treatment they deserve (Carrabine et al., 2009). Since the advent of feminist criminology, criminology has not only focused on male offending, but has also used theory to make us see that female offending has some relevance within the criminal justice system.

In conclusion, the discipline of criminology has traditionally been dominated by males because research has shown that men tend to commit serious crimes that are considered serious by the criminal justice system. Females, on the other hand, tend to commit non-violent, less serious crimes that are not considered harmful to society. Nevertheless, case studies show that female criminals can be equally as violent as male criminals, and this should not be overlooked, especially since female crime rates have increased in recent years.

Within this essay I will be discussing whether criminology is a science and the reasons as to why some individuals’ opinions may differ. Criminology can be defined as the study of the creation of laws, laws being broken and with both of these factors in mind it also involves the reactions and behaviors caused by society. Criminology is not only linked to laws that have been broken and criminal behavior, it can also be linked to the variety of behaviors and different levels of sanctions which can also interest criminologists. There are three main parts which make up the study of criminology which are; the study of crime, those that commit the crime and the study of the criminal justice system/penal system. Science is knowledge which has been built up overtime which can be used in day-to-day life. It can mainly be used to experiment new topics and hypothesize on different aspects as well as being used to create evidence. Science helps us to understand both the natural and social world. Criminology and science may be combined as they often complement each other in a way, which can be beneficial when solving crimes, etc. (Newburn, T., 2007).

A principal reason in which some individuals may believe that criminology is a science is because there is use of scientific methodology. For example, observations, measurements and assessments are all used to access crime. They all use disciplines such as biology, sociology and psychology as part of this (Thomas J. Bernard). Another reason as to why criminology is a science is because all of the fields of criminology use some kind of research. Within science, research one of the main techniques in which information is gathered and it is both reliable and a useful source. Because criminologists require useful sources in order to become reliable shows that it is evident that science is needed within criminology. A theory which backs up the fact that science is used within criminology includes Lombroso’s theory. Lombroso mainly focused on the science of criminals. Such as believing that you can be born a criminal and this can be shown through physical features including large or small eyes and an expressive face. Another reason as to why criminology is a science is because science is very often used when solving and looking into crime scenes. For example, fingerprints are often taken in the majority of crime scenes to find and match, this is then put into a database. This technique would not be possible without the use of science and analytical data. As well as this, science must be applied when analyzing an individual’s DNA for example through DNA profiling. This is because DNA profiling plays a major role in criminology and has been proved to be a very effective way of solving or looking into crime scenes. As well as this, other forms of DNA can be found through forensic scientists playing their part and collecting samples using a range of scientific techniques.

However, it is also said that criminology is not a science due to the fact that it is an umbrella term which means that groups of words are placed into only one category (Martin D. Schwartz, Walter S. DeKeseredy, 2014). Criminology is actually a study that uses a range of complimentary sciences including sociology, psychology and biology. Each of these complimentary sciences are useful in different ways and can be used to. For example, there are different theories which can be used within each complimentary science including Skinner’s theory within psychology. This theory is mainly linked to behaviors and how they are created. He found that looking at the causes of an action and their consequences is the best way to understand why all individuals have different behaviors (Saul McLeod, 2018). Another reason as to why criminology is not a science is because most things in science tend to be stable. This therefore means that the scientific rules tend to remain the same and stay reliable and predictable. However, criminology is not at all stable due to the fact that no one can actually predict the future of crime. As new types of crimes arise, society will change. Also, science is the same across different communities, cultures and countries however crime differs across the world due to the different levels of complexity (what is a crime in some countries may not be a crime in another). Another reason as to why criminology is not a science is because what we know as the legal systems and penal systems are not very scientific and they also tend to dispute the knowledge and statistics that we know about psychology.

In conclusion, there is more evidence to show that criminology is a science. This is because the majority of criminology involves the use of science due to the fact that in order to find evidence within a crime scene for example, scientific techniques are needed. Science is mostly based on evidence and this is key within criminology. Criminology uses scientific techniques including DNA profiling as well as scientific theories which can help to back up information. However, criminology is not a science in some ways due to the fact that it is linked to complementary sciences instead which includes psychology and biology. This therefore means that social science is used rather than pure science, there is a difference between the two. Science is stable whereas criminology is not which could also imply that criminology is not at all scientific. Overall, criminology is more of a science as there is more evidence and theories to support this.

Kidnapping is the act of abducting someone and holding them captive. There are many reasons people have for kidnapping another human being which range from greed all the way to religion. Though while the reasons may vary wildly the methods often do not as rope, manpower, and a vehicle are all that is really needed to carry out the act (Concannon, D., 2013).

According to NYA International, a London-based kidnap and extortion response consultancy, every year there is an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 kidnappings, detentions and extortions that happen globally (Rose, J., 2011).

There are many criminological theories that could explain kidnapping although within this essay only three will be expanded on. These are rational choice theory, strain theory, and containment theory. These three theories will be explained in the context of kidnapping and the broader of crime.

The first of the three theories, rational choice theory, is a contemporary version of classical theory that states that individuals use rational calculations to make rational choices and achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own personal objectives. When in the context of crime this means that a person will use rational calculations to determine whether committing a crime is worth the risk of getting caught, and the subsequent punishment. Rational choice assumes that when a person commits a crime it is purposive and rational. Meaning emotions do not come into play, and all factors are taken into consideration (Clarke, R., & Felson, M., 2004).

When it comes to kidnapping, rational choice is a great explanatory theory as most of the reasons for kidnapping come from a rational viewpoint, rational choice excels at explaining. When looking at money as a motivator for kidnapping, rational choice allows us to see how a person can rationalize the risk of jail versus the risk of not being able to support themselves. Or in the case of repeated kidnapping the understanding that with their experience comes a more comfortable outlook on their own ability to avoid capture by authorities (Clarke, R., & Felson, M., 2004). Rational choice works best when explaining politics as the cause for kidnapping. As political kidnapping is still common among less developed countries that are rife with corruption. Nigeria works as a great example for kidnapping both for money and for politics (Sherman, P., & Thiel, K., 2018).

The second of the three theories, strain theory, states that certain strains or stressors increase the likelihood of a person committing a crime. These strains are caused by a mismatch of social goals and socially acceptable ways to achieve those goals, which then lead to negative emotions which include anger, frustration, and resentment. These emotions cause the person to respond in a variety of ways. The first of which is to conform, finds themselves using approved means to pursue approved goals. An example of which is where they work a nine to five job in hopes of buying a house. In contrast to innovation, where a person uses disapproved means to pursue approved goals, in this case a person may deal drugs with the hope of buying a house. Ritualism is where the person abandons the approved goals but still conforms to the approved means. This means a person will still work that nine to five job with no hope of buying a house or any related goals. Retreatism is where both the approved goals and means are rejected. So, a person won’t buy into the dream of a house of work a nine to five job, instead finding other means and goals. Rebellion is where a person challenges the approved goals and means. The best example of this is a literal rebellion, where the status quo is rebelled against. Crime involves itself with retreatism, rebellion, and innovation. These responses are used to reduce or escape from strain, seek revenge against the source of strain, or alleviate the negative emotions caused by the strain (Agnew, R & Brezina, T., 2010).

Strain theory when in the context of kidnapping is used to help contextualize the reasons for it and ways in which it can be resolved. As strain theory focuses on different strains and the responses to it, first one must look at the generally accepted reasons for kidnapping (Agnew, R & Brezina, T., 2010). These are money, religion, politics, and sex (Concannon, D., 2013). When it comes to money, strain theory can be a great as it allows us to understand how people can decide to kidnap when they are in poverty and lack the money to support themselves, and when while someone may be able to support themselves, they still rely upon kidnapping to further themselves (Vowell, P., & May, D. ,2007). It does this by showing the goals that cultures associate with wealth and money are not very achievable to those in poorer countries. And once a person hits rock bottom the strain may cause them to innovate into becoming an abductor and kidnapping someone (Otu, S., & Nnam, M., 2018). Though when looking at politics strain theory becomes less able to hold up as there is no strain associated with the kidnapping and potential murder of a corrupt politician by the masses. Though strain theory does come into play when talking about kidnappings done by said corrupt politician (Pamela, W., & Cullen, F., 2010).

The third and final of the three theories, containment theory, says that a string of external social factors and internal factors help to effectively insulate express individuals from committing a crime even when certain social variables cause others to commit crime. What this means is that there are forces that promote deviance and forces that promote conformity. And these forces can be both external and internal. Internal forces refer more to a person’s qualities while external forces are more social factors like peer pressure (Hauhart, R., 2017).

Containment theory when in the context of kidnapping is best connected to the motives of sex and attachment. The sex motive for kidnapping means that usually the act of sexually assaulting the victim is the main goal of the crime rather than the act of kidnapping them. This is usually because the abductor finds themselves unable to contain their desire for the victim but retaining enough self-control to formulate the idea that kidnapping might be their best option. Attachment refers to the kidnapping of infant’s usually for a misplaced sense of love for a stranger’s infant. Or the abduction of one’s own infant after losing a custody battle. When it comes to the kidnapping of another’s infant the abductor is often married or living with their partner; their partners’ desire for a baby or the abductor’s desire to provide her companion with ‘his’ baby may be the motivation for the abduction (Infant Abductions, 2019). Though when it comes to kidnapping one’s own child due to losing custody. Containment theory explains it very well as a lack of internal qualities that help insulate the abductor from abducting their own child (Hauhart, R., 2017).

Out of all three theories presented, strain theory works best when explain kidnapping because it contextualizes commonly held reasons for kidnapping as well as conform with the areas that have the highest rates of kidnapping (Pamela, W., & Cullen, F., 2010).

Once again harkening back to money as a source of motive for kidnapping, poverty is a great strain to get a person motivated into innovating into kidnapping (Agnew, R & Brezina, T., 2010). Whereas rational choice theory would postulate that the abductor made the rational calculations about the costs and benefits of kidnapping as a route to escape poverty. And for those under the poverty line the answer would have kidnapping come up as a bad choice when it comes to escaping poverty (Clarke, R., & Felson, M., 2004). As laws in third world countries where kidnapping is most prevalent have become increasingly harsh to combat the rise (Otu, S., & Nnam, M., 2018). While containment theory would argue that a poverty-stricken person would lose moral forces that one would adhere to when not finding it hard to live day-to-day (Hauhart, R., 2017). Though strain theory comes out on top of containment due to its inclusion of the stressor of society while containment merely focuses on the moral factors that society imposes upon its members.

Though when one takes away the idea of poverty and instead looks at kidnapping as a way to make it rich, strain theory becomes an even better fit within a capitalist society that looks at wealth as the ultimate goal for a person in society. So, while an abductor may lack the means to meet up with societies goals, innovation can help them meet the goals (Hauhart, R., 2017). Whereas rational choice would find that kidnapping in such a situation isn’t the correct. Because the benefits of the wealth are heavily outweighed by both the chances of being caught, and the consequences of being caught (Clarke, R., & Felson, M., 2004). Containment theory fits in with the idea of making oneself wealthy through ransom. As a lack of any social factors compared to internal qualities would make kidnapping and ransom a cinch (Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F., 2010).

Strain theory finds itself slightly different when it comes to political kidnapping, as rather than society’s goal being a big house or lots of wealth. It is power and authority. This still fits within innovation though, as power and authority are things highly valued by society and can be set as a societal goal. Which turns kidnapping into an innovation (Concannon, D., 2013). Rational choice theory is right at home with political kidnappings as when they are carried out, it is in a cold and calculated manner with minimal risk of backlash and repercussions (Clarke, R., & Felson, M., 2004). Containment theory finds itself slightly lost due to the idea that within a corrupt government that finds kidnapping common would have a culture surround that (Hauhart, R., 2017).

Strain theory helps to explain religion quite handily when it comes to kidnapping, because when talking about religion as the specific reason for the kidnapping it falls under rebellion. An example of this is the Boko Haram who in April 2014, kidnapped 276 schoolgirls from the town of Chibok, Nigeria (Sherman, P., & Thiel, K., 2018). Boko Haram neither agreed with the societal goal of education nor the method to attain it, going to school. And so, to remedy that they ‘rebelled’ and kidnapped the 276 schoolgirls. Rational choice theory would find such an idea lacking, as the choice to kidnap such a large number of girls with no true benefit to the abductors goes against the idea of rational thinking. Because the kidnappings were first, to stop those girls from getting an education, and second to serve as a warning to those who continued to wish to have an education (Sherman, P., & Thiel, K., 2018). Containment theory finds itself fitting less with religious kidnappings. As external social factors would find that Boko Haram breeds a community where such a thing is perfectly acceptable. Rather than containment theories idea that a lack of such external social factors must be present to allow for a crime to take place (Hauhart, R., 2017).

In conclusion, strain theory provides the best explanation of kidnapping. It also allows for us to look into solutions that cut down on the amount of kidnapping in society. But, while out of the three theories presented, Strain theory is the best for describing the reasons for which kidnapping occurs, it is far from a comprehensive theory about kidnapping. Though these solutions may not be able to be implemented as something like increasing the penalties for kidnapping may not work in countries that find a corrupt government. The recommended solutions that strain theory offers is to first create jobs. As poverty no longer becomes a strain if a person has a job to support themselves. Though in some countries that may need to come with an increase in minimum wage. Though while strain theory is great taking a page from rational choice theory is good to help us decide to train strong anti-kidnapping agents and have serious punishment for abductors.

References

1. Agnew, R., & Brezina, T., 2010. The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory. 1 edition SAGE Publications Ltd. doi10.4135/9781446200926.
2. Clarke, R., & Felson, M., 2004. Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory. Volume 5. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick, New Jersey.
3. Concannon, D., 2013. Kidnapping: An Investigator’s Guide. 2nd edition, Elsevier Inc.
4. Forest, J., 2012. Kidnapping by Terrorist Groups, 1970-2010: Is Ideological Orientation Relevant? Sage Journals, 58(5). doi10.1177/0011128712452962.
5. Glenn, S., 2019. The ‘Kidnapping’ of Hildy McCoy: Child Adoption and Religious Conflict in the Shadow of the Holocaust. Jewish Social Studies, 24(3), 80-123. doi10.2979/jewisocistud.24.3.04.
6. Hauhart, R., 2017. Containment Theory. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice. doi10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0096.
7. Otu, S., & Nnam, M., 2018. Does Theory Matters: Constructing an Integrated Theoretical Framework to Describe Kidnapping for Ransom in Nigeria. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 40, 29-38. doi10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.010.
8. Ozdemir, P., Tanhan, F., & Ozdemir, O., 2018. Rational Choice Theory in Psychiatry. Current Approaches to Psychiatry, 10(4). doi10.18863/pgy.362157.
9. Rose, J., 2011. The Global Kidnapping Epidemic. Risk Management, 58(3).
10. Sherman, P., & Thiel, K., 2018. True Teen Stories from Nigeria: Surviving Boko Haram. Cavendish Square Publishing LLC, New York, NY. Available from: ProQuest E-book Central. [31 October 2019].
11. Vowell, P., & May, D., 2007. Another Look at Classic Strain Theory: Poverty Status, Perceived Blocked Opportunity, and Gang Membership as Predictors of Adolescent Violent Behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 70(1), 42-60. doi10.1111/j.1475-682X.2000.tb00895.x.
12. Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F., 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.
13. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2019. Infant Abductions. Viewed 30 October 2019.

As criminology continued to ignore the victim in the study of crime, victimology emerged to give equal attention to victims. Victimology is the study of the relationship between the victim and the criminal. The development of victimology satisfied a gap in criminological research and had a significant impact on the study of crime. After all, “you cannot seek to understand the psychology of the criminal if you do not first understand the sociology of the victim” (Wertham, 1949).

The term ‘victim’ has roots in early religious notions of sacrifice, suffering and death (Dussich, 2006). Defined as recently as 2015 “as a person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence” (Justice, 2015).

In the mid-19th century, the burden of justice fell on the victim. Under the principle of lex talionis, an eye for an eye, victims achieved justice through retaliation or retribution (Daigle, 2017). The victim remained central in criminal proceedings, until the industrial revolution, when a shift in criminal law saw the state assume the position of the entity harmed by crime, placing exacting the price of breaking legal codes on the offender over the resolve of victims. As the victim lost their position in the criminal justice process, they gained the attention of a range European scholars and lawyers, who sought to understand the process and victimization, focusing on the relationship between criminal and victim.

Early work in victimology attempted to determine what differentiates a victim from a non-victim. Assuming the victim played a role in their victimization, researchers developed typologies to examine the degree of responsibility held by the victim. The first systematic appearance of victims of crime appeared in Von Hentig’s ‘The Criminal and His Victim’. Criticizing the static and unidimensional nature of criminology, Hentig stressed the need for a new approach that paid equal attention to victims. Von Hentig’s typology argued that by virtue of structural characteristics, some people were more likely to be victimized than others. Identifying 13 categories in total, women, children, the elderly and the mentally ill were all identified as being more likely to be victimized as a result of their innate traits (Hentig, 1949).

Widely considered the father of victimology, attorney Benjamin Mendelsohn coined the term victimology in the 1940s. He noted, during interviews with witnesses that victims and offenders often knew each other. Mendelschon adopted a more ‘legalistic framework’ in developing his typology, focused on the degree in which the victim was responsible for their victimization. Mendelssohn’s ideas of victim culpability developed into victim precipitation. Victim precipitation seeks to demonstrate that crime does not exist in a vacuum and that victimization involves at least two people, the victim and the offender (Daigle, 2017). This explanation of victimization was empirically investigated by Marvin Wolfgang, in his classic study of homicides in Philadelphia from 1948 to 1952. He examined 558 homicides and found in 26% of all homicides in Philadelphia; the victim was the direct positive precipitator. Wolfgang found commonalities between such murders including, al prior relationship between victim and offender, the shared gender of both parties, male, the consumption of alcohol and the conclusion that many of these murders often began as minor altercations (Wolfgang, 1967). Amir (1967) argues that in some cases of rape, victims are not all always the passive party. By dressing provocatively or pursuing a relationship with a perpetrator. Amir alleges that the victim often contributes to their victimization. The concepts of lifestyle and victim precipitation have formed the core of much of the traditional victimological thought. Reasonable way of understanding any incident given the nature of the law (Walklate, 2007).

Unlike the concept of victim precipitation, victim facilitation occurs when a victim unintentionally makes it easier for an offender to commit a crime — differing from victim provocation, where without the actions of the victim, a crime would not have taken place. In ‘The Victim and His Criminal’ (1968), Steven Shafer wrote that victims had a ‘functional responsibility’ to not provoke others into victimizing them and an active attempt to prevent victimization is essential. Based on Von Hentig’s theory of personal characteristics and Mendelssohn’s ideas of precipitation developed a typology of his own. Schafer placed victims in groups based on how responsible they are for their victimization. Seven categories, ranging from the unrelated, political, socially and biologically weak victims, to the self-victimizing, proactive and precipitative victims, were identified.

Apart from the attention victims received in the role they played in their victimization, victims movements sought to increase the position both publicly and politically. Penal reformers, such as Margery Fry, were instrumental in the improvement of services for victims through significant policy changes (Dignan, 2005). Similarly, the charity Victim Support, sort to help victims of crime in their community, recognizing the criminal justice system largely ignored their needs. The increased visibility of crime victims in the media signaled a shift in focus from offender to an emphasis on the impact suffered by victims and their families (Dignan, 2005). The ‘ideal’ victim is the one that generates much sympathy from society and readily given the complete and legitimate status of being a victim (Chrisie, 1886). In British culture, Madeline McCann could be considered the ideal victim. A young, white girl from a middle-class family, stolen from her bed in the middle of the night, while holidaying in a foreign country. In contrast, Rui Pedro, an 11-year-old Portuguese child went missing from Northern Portugal in 1998, while riding his bicycle, is virtually unknown. The differences in media responses to these cases shows that victims must have power and visibility if they are to gain legitimacy as victims (Chrisie, 1886).

Victimology often combines contrasting voices. As a result, several theoretical perspectives developed, which sought to explain different perspectives of victimology. Radical victimology emerged as a direct critique of traditional victimology. It argued that current images of victimology involve the state rather than the victim and seek to serve a conservative crime control agenda (McShane & Williams III, 1992). Like Mendelssohn, who stressed a ‘victimology concerned with all victims’. The radical strand is concerned with the role of the state alongside the law in producing victimization (Walklate, 2007, p. 177). As those in power decide who and what is criminal, they can escape persecution by deflecting attention away from their crimes (Benard, 1881). Indeed, corporate fraud, which causes enormous damage to the US economy, remains a top criminal priority for the FBI (FBI, n.d.). The radical perspective has garnered criticisms over a tendency to be more ideological and empirical and focus on human rights over scientific evidence (Benard, 1881). Indeed, this strand’s failure to break free from the positivist perspective, it sought to criticize, is demonstrated through its concurrent use of crime surveys. While the radical perspective may fail scientifically, its success in fighting for all victims, including those of the state, secures it a necessary position in modern victimology.

The study of crime victims has become essential and indispensable in developing a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena of crime (Fattah E. A., 2000). As criminal behavior is dynamic, a dynamic approach, where the offender, event and victim are inseparable elements of a situation is required. The importance of situational factors, like the close link between victims and offender behavior, offers great promise for transforming criminology. Furthermore, where there has been a specific victim, an examination of that victim is entirely necessary for understanding why a crime has occurred. Additionally, according to Anttila (1974) the study victims provide further valuable information. Frequency, patterns and likelihood of victimization are indispensable for the creation of victim policies and programs. Indeed, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, introduced in 2006 and informed directly by the study of victims, detailed the level of service, which victims can expect from criminal justice agencies.

Victimological research also better informs societies in their duties to victims of crime. Indeed, the emergence of crime surveys, saw researcher rely on victims to recall their experiences and importantly, whether they had involved authorities. Crime surveys unearthed the extensive nature of victimization and exposed the reluctance of victims to report crime. Crime surveys in England and Wales are now essential sources of information (Davies, Francis, & Greer, 2017).

Modern criminology is paying more attention to the concept of opportunity. As crime does not exist it a vacuum, opportunities provided by victims to commit crimes can be managed and used for prevention. As this directly influenced by the behavior of victims, their collective behavior may have substantial impacts on crime rates. Victim-based prevention strategies can be implanted using this concept and have numerous advantages over offender-based ones, particularly the primary role of the victim (Fattah E.A., 2000). The victim and offender are also not as different as previously thought. “They are homogeneous and overlap to a large extent. Indeed, yesterday’s victims are often today’s offenders and today’s offenders are frequently the victims of tomorrow” (Fattah E. A., 2000). The only answer to break the cycle victimization is study.

While victimology is a relatively new discipline, its impact on the study of crime is significant. Its research fills an enormous gap in our knowledge about the phenomenon of crime. It satisfies a need felt by researchers for practical and systematic information about crime victims. Indeed, no valid theory of criminal behavior can afford to ignore the victim. “To try to do so would be an attempt to explain a dynamic and interactionist form of human behavior in a unilateral, unit dimensional and static manner. Therefore, the study of the victim is, and will always remain, an integral part of criminology” (Fattah E. A., 2000).

Works Cited

1. Amir, M. (1967). Victim Precipitated Forcible Rape. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 58 (4), pp.493-502.
2. Anttila, I. (1974). Victimology: A New Territory in Criminology. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, 5, 7-10.
3. Benard, T. J. (1881). Distinction Between Conflict and Radical Criminology, Volume 72, Issue 1. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, pp.362-379.
4. Chrisie, N. (1886). Ideal Victim. In N. Christie ‘From Crime Policy to Victim Policy’, Ezzat A Fattah (ed) (pp.17-30). New York: St Martin’s Press.
5. Daigle, L. E. (2017). Introduction to Victimology. In L. E. Daigle ‘Victimology: The Essentials’, Second Edition (pp.1-13). Sage Publications.
6. Davies, P., Francis, P., & Greer, C. (2017). Victims, Crime and Society: An Introduction. In P. Davies, P. Francis, & C. Greer ‘Victims, Crime and Society’, Second Edition (Eds) (pp.10-27). London: SAGE.
7. Dignan, J. (2005). Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw- Hill Education.
8. Dussich, J. P. (2006). Victimology- Past, Present and Future. Resource Material Series No. 70, pp.116-129, Simon Cornell, ed.
9. Fattah, E. A. (1976). The Use of the Victim as an Agent of Self-Legitimization: Toward a Dynamic Explanation of Criminal Behavior. Victimology (1), 29-53.
10. Fattah, E. A. (2000). Vital Role of Victimology in the Rehabilitation of Offenders and Their Reintegration into Society. From Resource Material Series No. 56, pp.71-86, Hiroshi Iitsuka and Rebecca Findlay-Debeck, eds.
11. FBI. (n.d.). What We Investigate: White Collar Crime. Retrieved from FBI.gov: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime
12. Goodey, J. (2005). Victims and Victimology. Research, Policy and Practice. Essex: Pearson Longman.
13. Hentig, H. V. (1949, May). The Criminal and His Victim. Pp. viii, 461. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. Social Forces, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp. 445–446.
14. Justice, M. O. (2015). Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.
15. McShane, M. D., & Williams III, F. P. (1992). Radical Victimology: A Critique of the Concept of Victim in Traditional Victimology. Crime and Delinquency Volume:38 Issue:2, pp.258- 271.
16. Schafer, S. (1968). The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility. New York: Random House.
17. Walklate, S. (2007). Handbook of Victims ad Victimology. Willian Publishing.
18. Wertham, F. (1949). The Show of Violence. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 18, pp.516- 518.
19. Wolfgang, M. E. (1967). Studies in Homicide (Ed). New York: Harper & Row.

The classical school of criminology was developed in the eighteenth century, predominantly by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, where this idea of classical thinking emerged as a way to explore the nature of criminal justice as well as to diagnose the nature of criminal behavior as before the eighteenth century there was no secular theory or specialist body concerned with this. Criminology as a whole is based on modern ideas that led to the Enlightenment, these Enlightenment thinkers championed many new radical concepts that had never been thought of before. According to Beccaria classical criminology assumes that people have free will and are therefore ultimately responsible for their own actions, this is in conjunction with the concept of ‘rational principles’, which make sure the penalties of the crime will outweigh the advantages, so we are steered away from self-interest and towards a person moral reasoning (Radzinowicz, L. 1966).

The Enlightenment plays a key function in understanding where criminology collectively is derived from and Foucault (1975) argues this change of popular attitudes towards physical punishment and therefore crime and criminal justice was the result of the influence of this set of ideas known as the Enlightenment. The radical new concepts involved anti-clericalism which meant these thinkers opposed the rights of the church and religion to tell us what is good or bad, true, or false and moral or immoral, this is because they believed the authority of the church was being used to reinforce superstition and irrationality inside of people’s heads, such as demons, devils, and virgin births. A second radical concept was rationalism; the idea that the knowledge we have should be based on observation, experiment, and induction rather than being based on faith, speculation or on the holy books. Lastly, Enlightenment thinkers were part of a political movement of legal and constitutional reform which undermined sovereign power, and gave us a new political language of rights, citizenship and provided us with the idea that people were not subjects of power and authority, but they are individuals with natural rights. This movement in political language allowed people to not see themselves as subjects i.e., people who existed simply to serve the sovereign. These ideas were important for the development of criminology as Enlightenment thinkers were the very first people to define society as a specific object of study and regard the community as something you can understand rationally, through observations and the collection of data. The thinkers argued that society was not mysterious or the product of God’s plan, rather society was something which had objective natural causes. These ideas mark out the start of a scientific approach, which without the Enlightenment would not be possible, therefore without this we would not have the understanding we do today of crime and the criminal justice system.

Classical criminology is predominantly concerned with explaining crime rationally, thus naturalistically, so it gives us the very first natural understanding of crime as coming from natural sources, hence the first secular understanding therefore one which is not religious based (Blaikie, D., 2014). Before the 18th century people explained natural disasters as punishments from God or from the spirits from their various wrongdoings, this is known as spiritualism. Secondly, those who committed crimes were often thought to be possessed by evil spirits or demons, this concept arose from the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Spiritualism was also the most dominant view in the feudal period, where these spiritualistic beliefs became integral to criminal justice and to an elaborate range of judicial methods, which were used to deal with people who were accused of committing crimes. This leads onto the fact that in the premodern world, the understanding that the world was ultimately run by supernatural forces gave rise to specific methods of trial and punishment (Vold, G. B., and Bernard, T. J., 1979) These methods were comprised of trial by combat, trial by ordeal and compurgation, all which involved God finding you innocent. Trial by combat consisted of the victim or their family members to fight the offender or a representative of the offender, and it was believed that the victory would go to the innocent, if they believed and trusted in God, therefore God protecting the virtuous. Trial by ordeal was where the accused would be subjected to life threatening situations in order to discover their innocence or guilt, this could be through trial by fire, whereby the accused would have to handle a hot stone and carry it over a certain distance, if the wound they received healed within a certain time frame the person would be innocent as God intervened and assisted with the healing process. Lastly, compurgation allowed the accused to have a respected member of society such as a high ranking noble, or local vicar swear under oath that the person must be innocent, the idea behind this was that no one would swear under oath because of their fear of gods punishment (Oppenheim, J., 1985) Classical criminology therefore replaced all these ideas to do with spiritualism into naturalistic explanations of crime (Vold, G. B., 1958). The classical perspective states that there are two natural impulses built into human beings, these are reason under which morality falls, and passion under which egoism falls, the free will philosophy also sets forth that criminals will voluntarily place ‘passion’ before ‘reason’, thus meaning the criminal justice system whilst is based on reason, is fundamentally about deterrence. Deterrence is all to do with making sure the penalties of crime will outweigh the advantages, so we are steered away from self-interest and towards moral reason. In our knowledge and understanding today of crime and the criminal justice system we still adopt many of the ideas that were contributed by the classical tradition. An example of this would be the presumption of innocence, and that it should be a guidance of justice, meaning the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, this concept is a main factor in our criminal justice system today. The idea of utility or retribution without gratuity, we adopted over time, due to the trial by ordeal combat in the medieval times through to the death penalty being abolished in 1965 in the UK to now in our CJS where we truly endorse the concept that the severity of the punishment should be limited and should not go beyond what is useful for the purposes of retribution, therefore avoiding unnecessary cruelty but still being harsh enough.

Overall, the classical tradition of criminology unequivocally provided us with the first modern understanding of crime and criminal justice, from the Enlightenment period through to Cesare Beccaria introducing and being the most influential classical theorist. Without the contribution of classical criminology for our understanding of crime and the criminal justice system, we would not be where we are today when dealing with criminals. Although we still have further to come within the CJS, classical criminology played an extensive role in where we are in present-day society.

This essay will explore the nature of criminology; defining its meaning will give us a better understanding of the topic. Criminology involves humans and society, it shares all the uncertainties presented in fields that study the constantly developing and changing individual (Paris, 1948). Criminology is an experimental science that investigates all elements of crime; this includes crime anthropology, crime sociology, crime prophylaxis, criminal psychology, penology, and crime policy (Artuk, Mehemet, E., 2018). Science develops as a natural selection that works by combining a system for managing information with creativity and unpredictability, as well as empirical validation, which characterizes the scientific method (Jaffe, 2009).

The social context is the foundation for interpreting crime as a social construct. While crime is done by an individual, it is nonetheless very significant to society to the point where the society is ascribed to the actual fulfilment of the crime. It is thought that the environment might impact an individual’s liking to engage in crime. This notion is also closely tied to the concept of knowledge as a social construct. Knowledge is seen to be socially produced and even prone to various sorts of politically motivated fabrication (Savage, Brearly, 2007). Throughout history, it has been regarded that criminality is a product of the offender’s decision. However, it was out dated by positivism, which argues that rather than crime being a matter of choice, it was a cause of illness of some type. Crime is caused not by the individual’s choice of the perpetrator, but by something wrong with them. Indeed, they were compelled to commit a crime and had no option in the issue (Garland, 2002).

The idea of crime is so complicated that it cannot be described by a particular theory; there have been a variety of theories to try to explain the concept of crime in connection to persons and society. Behaviorism theory also known as the theory of learning was founded by John Broudus Watson in 1912. It says that all behaviors are taught through contact with the environment through a process known as conditioning. As a result, behavior is just a reaction to environmental stimuli (McLeod, S., 2020). It uses tactics of natural sciences to search for legitimate relations between behavior and the observable social and physical environment (Jensen et al., 2021). Skinner (1938) suggests that the criminal is influenced or taught to behave ‘badly’ by the genetic makeup of the person and/or the environment in which they surround themselves, such as school, social media, home environment, or potentially prison. Being around convectors can influence the offender’s behavior and thus making them act criminally. He regards the mind as an unscientific explanation because of the status as an inference from the behavior that it was supposed to be explained. While the psychological theory has redefined the mind in two main ways during the 1970s, Skinner observed that this redefinition has not solved the issues raised by scientific needs. In one description, mental processes were transformed into cognitive processes, a metaphor-based on computer operations; people are said to ‘process’ information by ‘encoding, decoding, storing, and retrieving’ it. All of these theorized activities, however, remain assumptions from the behavior that they are purported to explain. There is no independent observation of these hypothetical actions (Jensen et al., 2021).

Psychodynamic theory is a psychological theory that aims to explain how personality is formed, with a focus on how the conscious and unconscious intellects interact. It was initially introduced by Sigmund Freud, offers three components of the personality: the ID, the ego, and the superego. The ID is exclusively concerned with needs and desires in the here and now, regardless of practical consequences. The ego mediates between the wants of the id and the realities of the outer world. The superego, or conscience, directs the ego’s choices by imposing moral judgments as well as other laws acquired from the outside world (Bill et al., 2020). Personality plays a massive role when a criminal offends, it can determine how the offender will react to the crime, and how well the crime was thought out. If it wasn’t thought out properly.

Classicism gives responsibility to the criminal arguing that they have the rational choice to commit; it is their individual decision to offend (Mercadal et al., 2020). While positivism argues that it’s not the criminal’s fault because criminal behavior is inherited through genes, so it is predetermined if an individual is going to commit by his/her nature. Lombroso was regarded as the ‘father’ of positivist criminology, he focused on the biological factors of crime, observed the criminal body, and said that criminals have smaller skulls with marked deformities, physically taller and heavier, etc. He refers to crime as a natural phenomenon capable of being analyzed through objective, empirical research (Knepper et al., 2013). Over time Lombroso’s student Enrico Ferri expanded his work, unlike Lombroso who focused only on biological factors, Ferri broadened the search for the causes of crime, and he gave more emphasis to social, economic, and political factors that contribute to crime. Lombroso’s another student, Garofalo, who was interested in identifying criminal characteristics, but found Lombroso’s work to be inadequate and lack proof.

To conclude, the nature of criminology is explained by multiple factors including the social side where I explained that a criminal is more likely to offend when they are surrounded by an immoral environment. Behaviorism theory links to this because it says behaviors are educated through interaction with the environment. This uses the process of conditioning. Skinner states that the offender is influenced or taught the ‘bad’ behaviors through genetics endowment and/or the environment they surround themselves in such as school, social media, home environment, or potentially prison, which again links back to the social context and can link to the psychodynamic theory which explains personality which can again be determined by the nature of an individual. Lambroso argues that being a criminal is completely biological including what they look like, in his studies, there is not enough proof for this factor which is why his student Garofalo was more interested in identifying the criminal’s characteristics rather than the biology while Ferri just expanded more on Lambroso’s study. The classicist and positivist sides argue against each other whether it’s the biology or characteristics of the criminal that determines if they commit which can also help explain what the nature of a criminal is.