Positivist Criminology
What is Positivist Criminology?
Positivist criminology is a school of thought that emerged in the early 19th century as a scientific approach to understanding crime. Unlike the classical school, which views crime as a result of free will and rational choice, the positivist school believes that criminal behavior is determined by factors beyond the individual’s control—such as biological, psychological, or social influences.
Key Features of Positivist Criminology
Determinism: Crime is determined by external or internal factors beyond free will.
Scientific Method: Uses empirical observation and scientific techniques to study crime and criminals.
Individual Focus: Focuses on the individual offender’s characteristics (biological traits, psychology).
Rehabilitation: Emphasizes treatment and rehabilitation rather than just punishment.
Types of Positivism:
Biological Positivism: Crime due to genetic or physiological factors.
Psychological Positivism: Crime caused by mental disorders or personality traits.
Sociological Positivism: Crime explained by social environment, poverty, family, etc.
Historical Background
Cesare Lombroso (Father of Positivist Criminology): He argued criminals are "born criminals," identifiable by physical features.
Followed by sociological positivists like Emile Durkheim, who linked crime to social structures and anomie.
Case Laws Illustrating Positivist Criminology Principles
1. R v. Byrne (1960) – UK Case
Facts:
The defendant, Byrne, strangled a young woman during a state of irresistible impulse caused by a mental disorder.
Legal Issue:
Whether Byrne’s mental condition should reduce his liability from murder to manslaughter.
Judgment:
The court accepted that due to Byrne’s abnormality of mind (psychological positivism), his criminal responsibility was diminished. The defense of diminished responsibility was allowed.
Significance:
This case reflects psychological positivism where crime is linked to mental disorders affecting free will.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) – India
Facts:
In a criminal trial involving alleged professional negligence resulting in death, issues arose regarding the mental and psychological state of the accused.
Legal Issue:
Consideration of psychological conditions in criminal liability.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that scientific evidence about mental health and psychological conditions is vital to assess criminal intent and liability.
Significance:
Shows the judiciary’s recognition of psychological positivism and the need for empirical evidence in criminal trials.
3. R v. Wilson (1955) – UK Case
Facts:
The defendant was accused of manslaughter after killing his partner in a fit of passion attributed to extreme emotional disturbance.
Legal Issue:
The role of psychological factors in mitigating criminal liability.
Judgment:
The court accepted emotional disturbance (a psychological condition) as a mitigating factor reducing murder to manslaughter.
Significance:
Reflects positivist view that crime is influenced by psychological states, limiting free will.
4. S v. Zuma and Others (1995) – South Africa
Facts:
Defendants argued that their socio-economic background and poverty led to their involvement in crime.
Legal Issue:
Whether social conditions can be taken into account in criminal responsibility.
Judgment:
The court acknowledged sociological positivism, stating social environment influences criminal behavior and should be considered during sentencing.
Significance:
Highlights the sociological positivist perspective emphasizing the social determinants of crime.
5. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) – UK Case
Facts:
Survivors of a shipwreck killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Legal Issue:
Whether necessity (survival) can justify killing.
Judgment:
The court rejected necessity as a defense and convicted the defendants of murder.
Significance:
While not a direct application of positivist criminology, it contrasts the classical view of free will with positivist ideas that external conditions (survival) impact behavior. The case raised debates about the limits of free will.
Summary of How These Cases Reflect Positivist Criminology
| Case | Positivist Element Highlighted | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Byrne | Psychological abnormality reducing responsibility | Mental illness impacts criminal liability |
| State v. Praful B. Desai | Recognition of mental health in assessing intent | Scientific evidence matters |
| R v. Wilson | Emotional disturbance as mitigating factor | Psychology affects crime commission |
| S v. Zuma | Social conditions influence crime | Poverty and environment as causes |
| R v. Dudley and Stephens | Debate on free will vs. external pressures | Limits of classical vs. positivist views |
Conclusion
Positivist criminology provides a framework to understand crime beyond simple blame on free will, emphasizing how biology, psychology, and social factors influence criminal behavior. The courts have progressively incorporated these ideas, especially in assessing criminal liability and sentencing, showing a nuanced approach to justice and rehabilitation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments