Lombrosos Positivist Theory and Labelling Theory for Comparison of their Utility in Criminal Justice - Coursework Example

Critically compare the contributions two theoretical perspectives in criminological thought might make to our understanding of one contemporary debate in criminal justice. Abstract This paper chooses Lombroso’s positivist theory and the Labelling theory for comparison and examination of their utility in criminal justice through one contemporary debate. Lombroso’s theory presupposes that criminals are born and that they are the products of defective births in the evolutionary process which he calls “atavists’. His theory was greeted with great enthusiasm in his time of 19th century when the criminal justice system of Italy utilised his expert witness to convict suspects based on their physical features. Even Nazi regime of Germany took a cue from his theory to rout out its enemies. On the other hand, the labelling theory posits that people of certain antecedents are more likely to commit crimes. Applying the ideal characteristics of a good theory such as parsimony, scope, logical consistency, testability, empirical validity and policy implications, both the chosen theories sadly fail in their scope for policy considerations towards criminal justice. The contemporary debate in respect of police’s stop and search by mere generalisation as in labelling theory has also been criticised as not sustainable in the long run. . Introduction: Criminology is now a scientific way of enquiring why people commit crime. There are several criminological theories looking at crime in different perspectives of religion, journalism and philosophy. The criminology definitions vary across time and place. Philosophers, journalists usually examine one example of a crime incident and make conclusions and leave it at that. They do not compare previous similar incidents and make predictions for further scrutiny. But, scientific study involves hypothesizing to make predictions based on knowledge gathered and studies undertaken in the past. In non-scientific disciplines, criminology is one of the fields where predictions are made by observations and findings are applied to a larger body of knowledge supported by theoretical models. They are called social sciences. Scientific enquiry: Traditionally crime was being looked into religious perspectives which are dogmatic, authoritarian or based on reasoning by religious heads or scripts. Theories can be wrong but accurate predictions could be made just as in the case of early calendars, moon and star charts which were made without actually knowing what was happening. Only way to overcome this issue is to subject the knowledge and theories to scientific testing so that errors can be avoided. Criminological theories are constantly subjected to testing and continuously refined so as to find why people commit crimes. Crimes are defined in various ways. If legalistic approach is adopted, then possibility is that a crime in one jurisdiction need not be a crime in another jurisdiction (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 2-4). For example, prostitution is not illegal in Nevada but no so in other States of the U.S. though murder and robbery are crimes in all places. Thus acts that are mala in se which are evil in itself are universally considered as crimes. Others acts are crimes mala prohibita because they are evil and prohibited (Brown, Eshenshen and Geis, 2007). In Nevada, there was no compulsion to report to authorities if one witnessed a crime. Thus during 1990s, young man who saw his friend murdering a girl at a casino was not liable even though he did not report. Subsequent to this, Nevada made such acts criminal by a separate law. Control theory posits that all individuals are inherently greedy, selfish and violent i.e criminally predisposed. Another version is tabula rasa meaning blank state which posits that all individuals are born with no inhibitions as good or bad and they are subsequently influenced by positive or negative incidents in their lives or in the society around them. Differential association or reinforcement theory posits the same thought that a person born with a blank state learns to be good or bad depending on their experience after birth. Though assumption varies across the above said theories, the most popular of them is self –and social control theory which says that people are born selfish and greedy and must be trained to be good.(Brown, Eshenshen and Geis, 2007) Criteria used to validate a pure science theory is used for validating a social theory like Criminology also. Features of a good theory: The characteristics of a good theory are parsimony, scope, logical consistency, testability, empirical validity and policy implications. (Akers & Sellers, 2004) a) Parsimony: Parsimony refers to simplest way of explaining a phenomenon since criminal behaviour is highly complex and criminologists want to explain in highly simple ways. Low self-control theory is a very simple theory to explain the factor responsible for criminal activities. Proponents of this theory Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi have posited that every single act of crime or deviance such as from speeding, smoking, not wearing a seat belt, having several sex partners to heinous crimes like murder and armed robbery is invariably due to the low self-control factor. This has been disputed by subsequent models but remains a popular theory till this day for the last two decades. (Walsh and Ellis, 1999) Popularity of this model is due to its simplicity putting all in one single factor while all the others have multiple factors. Though this cannot explain white-collar crime for which some self-control is required to secure a white collar employment, it is better still to have a simple theory than a more complex one when other factors are equivalent. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 2-9) b) Scope: Next to parsimony, scope refers to the extent to which the theory seeks to explain the phenomenon. It is considered a better theory if scope is large. Since low self –control has the answer for crimes and deviance, scope of this theory is certainly wider when compared to some theories such as strain theory which explains only property crime or drug usage. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 2-9) c) Logical consistency: Logical consistency, the third characteristic of a good theory refers to the concepts and propositions it required to be explained with. A negative example of an illogical consistency is the claim of the father of modern criminology Cesare Lombroso that the most serious offenders are ‘born criminals’ and they can be identified by tattoos on their bodies.(Lombroso,1876) As tattoos are not a biological features, there is no consistency between his propositions. Another theory is that of feminist Freda Adler which says that as more women gain more employment, they will soon join their male counterparts in committing crimes.(Freda, 1975) This is not only illogical but also has been disproved of the fact that they commit fewest crimes even after getting opportunities of more employment today. Reverse is true because women who have not been benefited by employment alone commit crimes. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 9) d) Testability: Testability refers to a theory capable of being put to empirical and scientific testing. An example of a theory that cannot be tested is that of Freud’s theory of psyche which says that there are three domains namely the conscious ego, the subconscious id, and super ego, to the psyche. But these cannot be observed or tested. (Vold, n d) Though Freud’s theory can be an exception for being valid without being testable, it proves to be a disadvantage if a theory cannot be tested and observed. But it is a fact that all the established criminological theories have been empirically tested. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 9) e) Empirical validity: Empirical validity is some what akin to testability and refers to being supported by scientific research. Though all theories are testable, they are not necessarily testable empirically. Differential reinforcement theory is the one which has been empirically supported by various crime types. Empirical validity alone proves a good theory. Otherwise, the theory needs to be revised or discounted as not true. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 9) f) Policy implications: Policy implications refer to the practical use of the theory for being put to use. This can be used to suggest to authorities as to how to deal with crimes. For example, broken windows theory suggests that authorities should bestow their attention to trivial incivilities occurring in a given area which might reduce incidence of serious crimes. New York City Police has used this theory resulting in reduction of homicides by more than 75 % in the last ten years At this point it may be relevant to add that Lombroso tattoos may have indicated criminality at the time of his writing. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p 10-11) Problem statement: With this background, this paper seeks to critically compare the Lombroso’s theory with Labelling theory so as to help understanding of a contemporary debate in criminal justice. Lombroso’s theory: The above brief account of Lombroso is however not to undermine his contributions to the field of criminology. He is considered the father of modern criminology (Mannheim, 1972 p 232) though his concepts are not new. He just consolidated the contributions of his predecessors Beccaria, Guerre, Quetelet, Darwin, Marx and others. He was a doctor and psychiatrist and wrote his theory of “born criminal” or “atavism”. Since his theories were criticised for want of proof and not for his basic ideas, he revised them later including various environmental conditions. (Snyder, n d) His main idea was that criminals are separate human species sort of evolutionary “throw back” to an earlier stage of evolution. (Schafer, 1969, p126) He classified criminals into criminals, criminaloids, insane criminals and female offenders. This pathological perspective of his has origins to the history of demonic and classical perspectives. His theory is better known positivist philosophy i.e an idea that can be validated through science. His positivist philosophy marked the shift from classical criminology which era witnessed emergence of scientific methods that can be empirically tested to predict whether or not an individual would engage in a criminal behaviour. Italy which was his country had been experiencing social problems that included police, corruption, poverty, food prices and quality. Immigration and emigration to the cities and the “Southern Question” were also being witnessed. Southern question was related to southern Italy which had been suffering from stagnant economy attributed to racist ideas floated by the bourgeois.(Beime,1993 p 148) His theory was taken undue advantage of by the then rulers for whom it was convenient to assume that crime and recidivism were not attributable to social problems. Lombroso’s predecessors also had attributed deviance to pathology which could be traced back to the humoral theory of ancient Greece used to predict human behaviour. (Pfohl, 1994, p 104) Lombrosa had theorized that imbalance in human fluids influenced deviance in human behaviour. This led to the study of phrenology that examined human brain size and shape to determine criminality. (Arjunan, 2000) Kaspersson (ND) states that Lombroso has flawed in his conclusions invariably. Lombroso’s translated version of Criminal Woman, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman (2004) which Kaspersson studied gave rise his criticisms. Lombroso might be correct in saying that women are inferior to men both physically and mentally due to their incomplete development compared to men in which case he means to say that women are more atavistic than men. He has not clarified if normal women are equal to atavistic men. Or if the most developed women are inferior to atavistic men. Lombroso is claimed to have stated that women are not born criminal but born prostitutes. Atavism in women is manifest in their prostitution. Kaspersson says that the drawback in Lombroso’s approach is that he only relies on facts. However he concludes that Lombroso’s views are dubious but not boring and are very relevant even in today’s criminology. Besides, he says that women are not born criminals or born prostitutes but patriarchal victims. However, as seen above there are factors such as parsimony, policy implications etc to validate a theory. As for policy implications, Lombroso’s theory had a profound impact on policy. He was asked to testify in various criminal trials to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused or suspects. As in modern times of DNA or finger print methods, Lombroso relied on the visual stigmata that were perceptible in the suspects. He documented his expert witness on many criminal trials. In one of them, for example, he found one suspect as a perfect born criminal evidenced by his enormous jaws, frontal sinuses, zygomotta, thin upper lip, huge incisors, and unusually large head and hence he was convicted. Whenever Lombroso was not available, his students went to testify for such scientific determinations. His students such as Enrico Ferri and Raphael Garrofala joined the Fascist regime of Italy as a result in the early 1900s. The Nazist regime of Germany sought to remove “inferior groups” from society with the use of Lombroso’s predictions. Another policy development from Lombroso’s contributions are minor physical anomalies (MPA) which many Governments of the world have adopted to identify high risk of developmental problems in young persons of ages between 5 and 10. Some of the MPAs are Head circumference out of the normal range, Fine “electric hair”, More than one hair whorl, Epicanthus, a fold of skin from the lower eyelids to the nose appearing as droopy eyelids, Hyertelorism (orbital) indicating an increased interorbital distance, Malformed ears, Low-set ears, Excessively large gap between the first and second toes, Webbing between toes and fingers, No ear lobes, Curved fifth finger, Third toe larger than the second toe, Asymmetrical ears, Furrowed tongue and Simian crease. As these features are associated with developmental problems including criminality, Lombroso’s theory of stigmata is valid is even today to predict antisocial problems. However such deviations are readily accepted in medical science and not in criminology. (Tibbets and Himmens, 2009, p193) Modern studies have concluded that being unattractive indicates possibility criminal offending which is in alignment with the theory of Lombroso. (Agnew, 1984) Labelling theory: Labelling refers to informal labelling for subsequent delinquency invariably by the youth. The labelling theory deals with social reaction that is responsible for people to act in a particular way. The theory enquires into why some people’s behaviour is considered criminal while other people’s behaviour is not considered as such. Frank Tannenbaum was one of the first criminologists to take up these issues. Criminals are so called as they are caught and labelled as such. Those who are not caught, remain non-criminals. EdwinLamert has qualified Tannenbaum’s work by two new ideas namely primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is the original criminal act of the offender that results in application of the deviant label. Secondary deviance arises when a labelled offender internalises the deviant label for using it as a defence, attack or adjustment against problems caused by labelling. Howard Becker’s work on labelling theory became popular in 1960s and he held out three propositions. 1) That deviants and nondeviants have more similarities than differences. 2) Deviancy depends on the people’s reaction to it rather than the deviant behaviour itself. 3) And whether the deviant behaviour becomes moral or immoral depending on people’s reaction. (Regoli and Hewit, 2007 p101) The process of getting labelled which is similar to becoming a criminal involves commission of the deviant act followed by getting implicates and in turn branded with an appropriate label as a drug user, liar ,thief or as the case may be. Once the labelling is done, the offender is expected to commit even more such deviant acts in future. That is, a person labelled as a cheater is assumed to be apt to become a thief also. The labelling process thus pushes the deviant person to a stage of joining an organised group which desensitises itself of any inhibitions of deviancy. In the company of the organised gang, the deviant individual feels safe and becomes normal without the feeling of guilt or shame. (Regoli and Hewit, 2007 p101). Policy implications recently involved the U.K. Government’s measure of identifying about 125,000 such potential deviants from among English children of once or currently incarcerated fathers following a research finding that such children are more likely to commit crimes. But this measure of the Policing minister Hazel Blears to help such families with counselling etc received criticisms due to the apprehension that it would only further stigmatise the children as an offshoot of labelling theory. Such a well intentioned measure would only do more harm than good since constant sermoning of the children would only result in self-fulfilling prophecy. The child who receives some sort of an intervention by the counsellor, would eventually get a wrong message on being told that he should guard against becoming a criminal like his father. (Regoli and Hewit, 2007 p101). But according to life –course theory advocating interventions in such cases by targeting young people and prevent them from becoming potential deviants, the program of the policing minister may help some children and harm some children. (BBC News Online quoted in Regoli and Hewit, 2007 p101) Policy implications of labelling theory suggests such minor acts of deviance are best ignored so to avoid bringing the deviants under formal criminal justice system since according to this theory, intervention should be the last resort and rather diversion programs should be adopted wherever possible. (Regoli and Hewit, 2007 p103) Contemporary debate on stop and search by the police: A recent study involving labelling of young street children by McAra & McVie (2005) has concluded that targeting of certain categories of children by the police may result in unfairness. This practice though supported by the police rules especially the one relating to previous form and suspiciousness (keeping a wrong company) renders a sizeable population of young people to be seen as innately criminals and kept under permanent scrutiny. This kind of labelling a set of permanent suspects will have negative impact of the future behaviour of such young people who will rather sustain and reproduce the problems the enforcement authorities wants to contain. Similar police interventions in the form of stop and search people at public places put people to avoidable hardship to them. This, as a result, is a kind of reverse labelling the people who are Muslims as terrorists. It has been already seen that labelling is not a desirable practice in criminology since generalisation leads to hardship of majority just to single out a negligible minority. Recently a celebrity actor from India a heart throb of more than 100 billion people was detained for hours together at an airport in the U.S. just because his name had “Khan” to it. He was obviously mistaken for a terrorist suspect and was not let off even after he tried to explain his identity. The episode raised furore in the Indian media but did not evoke a positive response from the U.S. administration. It was not at all apologetic and insisted that the authorities followed the rules. (Telegraph.co.uk, 2009) Recalling Lombroso’s theory, it appears labelling theory is just an extension to it in that the former attributed certain physical features in humans to criminal tendency whereas the latter theory attributed certain behaviour, background or even names to criminal background. Such a policy implications results in not even a VVIP being spared of scrutiny by the police or for that matter any enforcement authorities. One study by Hirschi and Rudisill (1976) has sarcastically remarked that if the governments were to follow Lombroso’s theory, it is very easy to eradicate crimes by resorting to sterilisation and isolation of offenders as it would halt the procreation of individuals through inheritance of crime features. Conclusion: It would noteworthy that both Lombroso’s theory and Labelling theory have not been empirically tested though they have been tested without empirical analysis. As has been explained above in the opening paras of this paper about the robustness of empirically tested theories, it has to be concluded that both the theories sadly fail in their criminological policy implications, though these can be gainfully employed in sociological context for selective applications in behavioural sciences. It would be dangerous to blindly apply both the theories for criminological policy formulations. Police’s stop and search in suspected cases by generalisation of mere appearances, racial backgrounds would lead to anarchy and also inefficiency on the part of the law and order administration. The stereotyping of Muslims as suicide bombers and terrorists in the name of war on terror and Islam as justifying or sanctifying such actions as a part of labelling theory’s policy implications has left much to desired. The Muslim fundamentalists have played into the hands of the people obsessed with racism and Islam resulting in murders and mayhems. In the process the people affected are the ordinary Muslims humiliated by publication of their cartoons. As said above that labelling theory only aggravates what has been intended to be contained, the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists have led to racism and racist violence all over Europe. The instance of an Indian celebrity Muslim actor who was detained in the U.S. airport and literally confined for some time without being allowed to contact any one for help, in fact is married to a Hindu wife. It is these misguided labelling theory policy implications that are responsible for criminological polices going in the wrong directions. For crime punishment, these polices will have little value since the criminal justice system has to employ straight forward methods of trials and there is no room for decision based on criminological conjectures. For crime prevention, only the empirically tested theories of criminology may be applied for policy formulations for the obvious reasons. References Agnew Robert (1984), Appearance and Delinquency, Criminology, 22; 421-40 Arjunan Mahala (2000) Cesare Lombroso. Akers Ronald and Christine Sellers (2004) Criminological Theories, 4th ed, Los Angeles, Roxbury BBC News Online, “Youth Crime Plans ‘Could Misfire’”, available at accessed May 14, 2007 quoted in Beirne, P. (1993) Inventing criminology: essays on the rise of ‘homo criminalis’. New York: State University of New York Press. Brown Stephen, Eshenshen Finn and Geis Gilbert (2007) Criminology, Lexis Nexis, Cincinnati, OH, 6th ed Freda Adler (1975) Sisters in Crime, McGraw Hill, New York Hirschi Travis and Rudisill David (1976) The Great American Search: Causes of Crime 1876-1976, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 423; 14 Kaspersson Maria (no date) Reading Lombroso: Female Born Criminals or Patriarchal Victims? Available < http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17801672/Reading-Lombroso> accessed 14 Jan 2010 Lombroso Cesare (1876) The Criminal Man, Hoepli, Milan Mannheim, H. (1972). Pioneers in criminology (2nd ed.). Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. McAra Lesley and McVie Susan (2005) The Usual Suapects? Street Life, Young People and the police, Criminal Justice, 5(1):5-36 Pfohl, S. (1994) Images of deviance and social control (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Regoli M Robert and Hewit John D (2007) Exploring Criminal Justice, Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Schafer, S. (1969) Theories in criminology: past and present philosophies of the crime problem. New York: Random House Snyder Karl M (no date) Cesare Lombroso Theorist Paper, Florida State University Tibbets Stephen G, Hmmens Craig (2009) Criminological Theory: A Text/Reader, Sage Telegraph.co.uk (2009) Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan detained at US airport, available at accessed 13 Jan 2010 Vold George et al, Theoretical Criminology Walsh Anthony and Ellis Lee (1999) Political Ideology and American Criminologists’ Explanations for Criminal Behaviour, The Criminologist 24(1) 14 Read More