Bulletin of Omsk University. Series "Right". 2017. No. 4 (53). pp. 134-143.
DOI 10.25513/1990-5173.2017.4.134-143
CRIMINOLOGICAL SCHOOLS: FROM THE PAST TO THE FUTURE
CRIMINOLOGICAL SCHOOLS: PAST TO FUTURE I. M. KLEYMENOV
The methodological foundations of the main criminological schools of the past, present and future are characterized: classical, positivist, socialist, postmodern, integrative. The conclusion is formulated about the need to develop an integrative school of criminology, which is caused by the total criminalization of social relations in the modern world.
Keywords: criminology; free will; positivism; Marxism; postmodernism; integrative school of criminology.
Describes the methodological foundations of the major criminological schools of the past, present and future: classical, positivist, socialist, postmodern, and integrative. The conclusion is formulated about the necessity of development of an integrative school of criminology, which is caused by the total criminalization of social relations in the modern world.
Key words: criminology; free will; positivism; Marxism; postmodernism; integrative school of criminology.
The introduction of doctrinal views into the practice of combating crime is carried out through criminological theory. Persons involved in criminal policy operate within a certain ideological paradigm. Such a paradigm is “set” by a combination of factors: political, religious, ideological, historical, sociological, psychological, etc., many of which have criminological content and consequences. In this regard, one can only state the emergence, existence and consistent development of several criminological theories (schools), which are based on peculiar worldview paradigms.
V. Fox proposes to distinguish the following criminological schools:
1. Classical: assessment of the severity of the crime with legal positions.
2. Positivist: the crime is caused by many factors; legal approach is completely rejected.
3. American: sociological theory of the causes of crime.
4. School of social protection: crime is caused by various social factors, and within current legislation all these factors should be taken into account; This school complements positivist views with a legal approach.
The proposed classification does not have clear grounds and therefore allows for a mixture of types. Thus, the school of social protection, unlike the previous three, shifts the focus from the explanation of crime and its causes to social response, which blurs the foundations of the classification.
The British criminologist P. Rock considers it appropriate to consider criminological theories, combining them into larger homogeneous units (clusters).
Cluster 1. Crime and control: the theory of anomie and social disorganization (E. Durkheim, R. Merton, A. Cohen, R. Clow-erd, L. Olin); control theory (T. Hirschi, D. Matza, S. Box); theory of rational
© Kleymenov I. M., 2017
choice (R. Clark); theory of habitual activity (M. Felson).
Cluster 2. Crime, control and environment: the Chicago school (E. Burgess, K. Shaw, G. McKay, R. Park, F. Thrasher); cartographic (A. Bottem, P. Brandingham); controlled landscape (“many eyes” (J. Jacobs, O. Newman)); environmental management (W. Beck, K. Shearing, F. Stening).
Cluster 3. Radical criminology based on the political economy of Marxism with a critique of capitalism, its predatory nature, social injustice and a class approach to the legal response to offenses (J. Taylor, P. Walton, J. Young, P. Karlen).
Cluster 4. Functionalist criminology (M. Douglas).
Cluster 5. Signification (giving meanings and meanings): the theory of labeling (G. Becker); theory of culture and subculture (S. Hall).
The German criminologist G. Schneider identifies three epochal schools in the development of criminology: classical (XVIII century), positivist (late XIX century) and modern times (later than the middle of the XX century).
It should be said that the school of "modern times" is too complex and diverse not to notice ideological confrontations and differences in its content. In particular, for a long time (until the collapse of the USSR) “socialist” and “bourgeois” criminologies were clearly distinguished, and the difference was made from a methodological standpoint.
The most detailed classification of criminological schools, trends and theories is offered by Ya. I. Gilinsky:
1. Classical school of criminal law and criminology.
2. The positivist school, which falls into three directions:
2.1. biological or anthropological. Includes theories: born criminal (C. Lombroso, his followers), constitutional predisposition
(E. Kretschmer, W. Sheldon), chromosomal (P. Jacobs), endocrinological (D. Farrington, A. Rain).
2.2. Psychological. Includes theories: imitations (G. Tarde), dangerous state(R. Garofalo), factor personality (G. Eysenck), psychoanalysis (S. Freud, K. Jung, A. Adler, V. Reich).
2.3. Sociological. Includes theories: social disorganization (E. Durkheim, R. Merton), cultural conflict, differential association (E. Sutherland, W. Cressy) and stigmatization (F. Tannenbaum, E. Lemert), Marxist (K. Marx, R. Keaney , A. Liazos), modern (radical, feminism, postmodernism, integrative theories).
The identification of positivism with postmodernism seems insufficiently convincing in this classification. Positivism has much in common with modernism, but little with postmodernism. Postmodernism is an independent direction in philosophy and, accordingly, the basic foundation of a separate criminological school.
We cannot agree with the identification of critical and postmodern trends in criminology, which, in particular, is allowed by A. L. Smorgunova (Gurinskaya). She considers postmodern criminological theory to be one of the manifestations of critical criminology. There is a mixture of two approaches here: functional (criminology is "doomed" to act as a scientific "critical mind") and methodological (the philosophical foundations of a certain criminological school). We also note that the postmodernist school often speaks from the point of view of understanding and justification (pathologies), and not at all from a critical position.
Thus, based on the methodological (philosophical) foundations and works of previous generations of criminologists, the following criminological schools can be distinguished.
I. Classical school of criminology. It is based on the postulates of religious philosophy and the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
Scholastic European thought had a deep tradition. Here, not only recognized church authorities (St. Gris -
Gory the Theologian, Peter Damiani, F. Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury), but also secular thinkers (Abelard, Boethius, Berengariy, Bonaventure, Siger of Brabant). Moving within the framework of this theological thought, the founders of the classical criminological school defended and put forward ideas that have not lost their relevance even now. Let's note some of them.
1. The idea of free will. There are two polar positions here. One of them claims that determinism is compatible with free will, the other denies this. From a legal standpoint, the second position eliminates guilt in a person's behavior, which means the collapse of the doctrine of the corpus delicti and culpable infliction of harm. Such a collapse is possible only in periods of social chaos and lawlessness. Law always professes the principle of subjective imputation. S. V. Sheveleva correctly writes that, not being legally enshrined in the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, free will, nevertheless, is a prerequisite criminal liability.
2. Utilitarianism. The creation of the utilitarian formula is attributed to I. Bentham. This formula says: "Human actions should be judged in terms of achieving the greatest possible happiness (utility) for the greatest number of people." I. Bentham, based on this principle, asks the question of what measures could lead to a decrease in the level of crime and the improvement of man in the future. The punishment of one or more individuals, which in itself is suffering, is only just when it results in greater pleasure for all in the end. Thus, legal policy becomes the object of a hedonistic calculus.
3. The development of the ideas of natural law towards the assertion of "human rights" as an expression of universal and immutable laws. There is a shift from a religious picture of the world to anthropocentrism. Here is how F. Engels characterized the Enlightenment philosophers (undoubtedly sympathizing with them): “They did not recognize any external authorities of any kind. Religion, understanding of nature, society, state
ny system - everything was subjected to the most merciless criticism, everything had to be brought before the court of reason ... The thinking mind became the only measure of everything that exists. Characteristically, the students of the philosophy of the Enlightenment - the figures of the Great French Revolution - declared a "cult of Reason". Everywhere there were many closed churches at that time, which were later turned into temples of Reason.
4. Belief in progress, in the fact that human society can and should be rebuilt on a reasonable basis. The transformation of social reality on new principles is a powerful message of reasoning of the founders of the classical school of criminology, addressed to subsequent generations, which remains unspent to the present.
5. Rationalization criminal policy based on the rejection of the absurdities and inconsistencies of the existing practice of criminal justice and the assimilation of obvious principles:
1) the priority of preventing crimes before their punishment;
2) ensuring clarity and accessibility of legislative provisions;
3) replacing covert accusations and torture with humane and speedy procedures;
4) the purpose of punishment is to keep people from committing crimes, and not social revenge;
5) achieving proportionality between crimes and punishments;
6) exclusion from the system of punishments of the death penalty as an archaic and cruelty-setting means of combating crime;
7) the effectiveness of punishments is ensured not by their severity, but by their inevitability;
8) Imprisonment should be used more widely, but prison content should be improved.
These principles have not lost their relevance at the present time: many of them are implemented in the criminal policy of a number of states, while others are discussed as progressive ideas, especially within the framework of the neoclassical school of criminology. Neoclassicists, for example, develop ideas about the rational choice of option criminal behavior
(R. Akers, G. Becker, R. Clark, M. Felson), on the preventive meaning of imprisonment (M. Erickson, J. Gibbs, G. Jenson).
II. positivist school of criminology. It is characterized by empiricism and determinism. Rejecting the scholastic approach, asserting a system of empirical facts (evidence), the positivist school moves from the concept of free will of the classical direction to the "causality" of the crime. "Positivists do not share the ideas of individualization of responsibility, intent, free will and develop the idea of a non-punitive social reaction to crime".
The philosophy of positivism contains many ideas, but among them are those that were of great importance for the development of criminology, namely evolutionism, materialism and pragmatism.
Evolutionism, the theory of which was developed by Charles Darwin, laid the foundation for the clinical school of criminology, which focused on the personality of the criminal, his physiological and psychological properties. The theories of the clinical school (anthropological, psychoanalytic, etc.) are described in detail in scientific educational literature, which frees us from the need to analyze them. Here we only pay attention to the evolutionary nature of the development of the clinical school of criminology itself, which moved from the idea of a born criminal to the development of the theory of "dangerous condition" and "social protection".
It should also be noted that the clinical school of criminology still maintains its position in Italy. The clinical nature of the Italian school of criminology led to the emergence of four leading departments of criminology in the medical faculties of the cities of Genoa, Milan, Modena and Bari. The training of criminology in these departments was carried out in order to train prison experts and judges. In the future, the teaching of criminology was also carried out at the faculties of law, psychology, and social sciences. The number of members of the Italian Society of Criminologists (SIC) is about 500. The Society publishes criminological
Russian journal (Rassegna Italiana di Criminologia). Leading Italian criminologists (T. Bandini, G. Rocca, A. Verde, C. Barberi, N. Cosentino, A. Geretti, I. Betsos) continue the tradition of the Italian clinical school of criminology, exploring criminal behavior from the standpoint of anthropology, psychology and psychiatry.
The works of Jean Pinatel had a great influence in the development of the French clinical criminological school. He developed the theory of the dangerous state of the individual from the standpoint of the interaction of psychological and external factors. Significant importance in this theory is given to the criminal threshold of a person (the ease of choosing criminal forms of behavior), which can be determined experimentally.
The clinical school of criminology is based on materialism and expresses tendencies of apostasy and secularization. Therefore, its transformative potential is much narrower than the traditions of the criminal-political approach, laid down by the great C. Beccaria, and is limited by individual preventive measures. In addition, the social Darwinist nature of the clinical school attracts attention, in which it partially merges with the theories of the positivist school of the sociological trend.
The principles of natural selection, the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest are clearly formulated in the works of the recognized theorist of positivism G. Spencer. At the same time, in his works (as in the works of every great thinker) it is necessary to distinguish between the subjective (author's) and objective (expressing regularities) vision of problems. G. Spencer, like O. Comte, was convinced of the existence of social laws that are deterministic to the same extent as the natural laws that govern nature. Strictly speaking, sociology itself arose from the desire to create the same exact and objective science of society as natural science is. O. Comte, in the context of the knowledge of regularities, in general, elevated sociology to the very pinnacle of human inquisitiveness.
As S. M. Inshakov rightly notes, the foundations of sociology in parallel with O. Comte
lays A. Quetelet. But he does this in a practical area: in the analysis of crime. In his fundamental work “The Social System”, published in 1848, A. Quetelet writes: “My goal is to show that in a world where many stubbornly see only disorderly chaos, there are omnipotent and immutable laws.” Characteristic is the title of one of the first works of A. Quetelet - "On Man and the Development of His Abilities, or the Experience of Social Physics". Social physics, according to O. Comte and A. Quetelet, just involves the establishment of laws public life.
So, the strength of the positive method is its pragmatism - the search for objective laws of the existence and development of human society. And here, representatives of positivism (especially from the standpoint of sociology) conducted a lot of interesting and useful studies of crime and criminal behavior, which must be taken into account when solving many modern criminological problems. These studies need not so much to criticize as to study - for the perception of the knowledge gained and practical use recommendations, many of which are still relevant today. It can be argued without any stretch that any criminological research carried out by representatives of the positivist school contains such information.
The positivist school of criminology has a strong presence in the US. The positivist school includes, in particular, functionalist criminology, based on the basic idea of structural functionalism - “social order”, i.e., the immanent desire of any system to maintain its own balance, to harmonize its various elements among themselves, to achieve agreement between them. Functionalists explore the geography of crime (as the relationship between crime, criminality and victimization in the spatial dimension), the influence of gender factors on criminal behavior, and the ideology of criminal justice. The main merit of the functionalists is that they make available an understanding of the mechanism of the criminal justice system.
Significant criminology, known as the theory of stigmatization or "labeling", is of significant pragmatic interest. Here, the concept of signification is the basic concept - the content of the name or sign that is chosen for the nomination of the subject. These include the theory of subculture (A. Cohen), the study of the process of social stigmatization of a deviant (J. Katz), the analysis of a criminal career in the context of human development (including the risks of personal criminalization), the determination of the impact of ethnic factors on criminal behavior (D. Farington, D. Smith ) . The positive potential of iconic criminology lies in the intention to rehabilitate the offender.
Consequently, the positivist school of criminology is pragmatic and therefore highly effective.
However, one should also see those ideas of positivism that turned out to be fruitless or even harmful, and from a criminological standpoint - criminogenic. One of these ideas is expressed in the teaching of social Darwinism. In the modern interpretation, this doctrine takes on a deliberately primitive and anti-humanistic character. Positivism also contains another dangerous criminogenic characteristic - occultism. The occult content of positivism is often hidden, but the rejection of Christianity forces a search for gnostic models of the worldview, the revival and development of the teachings of “secret knowledge.
III. Socialist school of criminology. Its independence is justified by the presence of a specific set of characteristics, which includes: a) dogmatism and politicization; b) criticism; c) legalism; d) professionalism.
Socialist criminology is distinguished by the patriarch of world criminology L. Radzinovich, who in 1961 created the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge. The Institute has gained worldwide fame as an educational and research center.
The dogmatism of socialist criminology is based on the teachings of Marx-Lenin-Stalin. After the "debunking of the cult of personality," Stalin's works were consigned to oblivion,
but it must be admitted that for more than 30 years they determined the worldview of theorists and practitioners of socialist criminology. The ideological dogmatism of socialist criminology was expressed in materialism and total economic determinism, the ideology of the class struggle. Other methodological grounds were ignored. As for the politicization of socialist criminology, this was expressed in the choice of research topics, the secrecy of statistical information, and party control over the loyalty of criminologists to the existing political regime.
At the same time, many provisions of Marxism-Leninism have proved their significance. It is no coincidence that after the fall of the world socialist system, especially during the period of the world financial crisis, the works of K. Marx, especially "Capital", became popular again. In British criminology, a radical trend is actively asserting itself, which formulates its goals based on the ideas of Marxism. The prestigious Oxford Handbook of Criminology published chapters on The Political Economy of Crime, Left Realist Criminology: The Radical and His Analysis; the realist and his politics". In the USA, the book by G. Barack, J. Flavin and P. Layton "Class, Race, Gender and Crime" became famous, and the work of J. Reiman "The rich get richer, and the poor go to prison" went through 10 editions. At the same time, foreign researchers of radical criminology insist that Marxism, in terms of the goals of transforming society, is fundamentally at odds with positivism and therefore cannot be identified with it.
Such a philosophical foundation of socialist criminology as dialectical methodology has proven itself well. Against the background of the general anti-dialectical nature of the Western ideological way of thinking, it was socialist criminology that created the school of holistic (rather than fragmentary-positivist) criminological analysis.
Criticism of socialist criminology was mainly directed outward - at the capitalist system - in accordance with
with the tenets of Marxism-Leninism. Internal contradictions were criticized cautiously and within acceptable limits. Nevertheless, the scientific achievements of socialist criminology were noticeable, were in the field of party attention and were taken into account in social practice. The School of Socialist Criminology was created by professionals and was a highly prestigious scientific activity.
As for the legalism of socialist criminology, in this regard, the conditionality of criminal law is affirmed. economic relations. First, from the standpoint of the ratio of the basis and superstructure. Secondly, from the point of view of expressing the interests of the ruling classes. "A Marxist sees criminal law as a tool for maintaining power, as a means of realizing economic and political interests," writes Laura Finley. It seems that in the context of legalism it is important to emphasize the social conditioning criminal law, as well as the connection of socialist criminology with the classical school: here the thesis of free will is also affirmed as a general thesis.
The socialist school of criminology has its advantages and disadvantages, largely inherited by modern Russian criminology. In particular, she inherited such a feature of socialist criminology as isolation, which is currently due to the presence of a language barrier. Russian criminologists rarely publish in foreign publications and speak at international forums.
It should be emphasized once again that Russian criminology has developed and established itself as a legal science. This is its originality and advantage in comparison with foreign criminological schools. Russian criminology professes the principle of the rule of law in social life and is focused on ensuring the main idea of law - the achievement of justice.
IV. Postmodern school of criminology. If the positivists opposed traditional society and approved the modernist project, which, replacing traditional values (in particular, faith -
mind), nevertheless relied on the objective laws of social existence, then postmodernists deny the very objectivity of laws.
The central idea of the postmodern school of criminology is the transfer of attention from the objective content of crime to its outside as a product of criminal law construction. As a result, a paradoxical conclusion is formulated that the source of crime is not socially dangerous activity, but criminal law. Following this logic, it must be recognized that the most effective way to reduce crime would be to narrow the sector of criminal law regulation. It is enough to abolish criminal legislation, and crime is immediately "liquidated". The postulate nullum crimen sine lege in the postmodern interpretation means an agreement on what is considered criminal. This denies the ontological essence of the crime in favor of recognizing its relativistic content. Since the bodies of criminal justice take part in the identification of the criminal, the crimes not identified by them receive actual approval and become part of the legal practice. The absence of a criminal-legal response is the way to legalize criminal activity.
The episteme of postmodernism (general system of scientific theorizing) is irrational and aimed at deconstruction. Postmodernism has the potential to turn into its own, it would seem, antipode - totalitarianism. Man's independence, his atomization, is apparent. In fact, he is entangled in many role prescriptions, the nature and content of which is constantly changing. At the same time, the blame for all the misfortunes that happen to a person (loss of work, illness, unforeseen circumstances) is assigned to him. This division: one - benefits without responsibility, and the other - responsibility without any benefit - is one of the postmodern practical ideas.
The central postulate of postmodern criminology is the position
that crime is a social construct that has no ontological foundations, but only an expression of power relations. Thus, the problem of the "eternity" of crime is translated into the discourse of relativistic ideas, where everyone is right and no one is right.
Thus, the philosophy of postmodernism, due to its fundamental destructiveness, cannot serve as a methodological basis for criminology. As for the postmodern school of criminology, it can be called such with a high degree of conventionality. It would be more correct to say that some ideas of postmodernism are used by foreign criminologists to formulate individual scientific hypotheses. The followers of postmodernism did not create a holistic criminological doctrine (similar to classical, positivist or socialist). Thus, the concepts of “criminology of shadows” and “criminology of a stranger” introduced by B. Arrigo are related to fragments of the motivation of criminal behavior and cannot claim to be a holistic doctrine. In the same way, the main tenet of constitutive criminology, that crime and its control cannot be understood outside the structural and cultural context, is hardly so original. And it’s not at all clear what the postmodernism of “feminist criminology”, based on the study of crime based on gender, is. At the same time, it is impossible to deny the creative nature of some ideas of postmodernism, which have a private (technological) value, helping to learn and understand some aspects of the subject of criminological research.
V. The Integrative School of Criminology is based on an interdisciplinary approach. Its task is the perception and creative use of the positive provisions of all other criminological schools, and in general - the positive universal experience in the fight against crime. American criminologists F. Pearson and N. Weiner believe that in terms of integration, theories of socialization, differential association, stigmatization, social control, containment, habitual activity, neutralization,
deprivation, heredity, normative (cultural) conflict, class (intergroup) conflict. In their opinion, six ideas form the basis for the integration of criminological theories: 1) obtaining benefits; 2) availability of abilities; 3) promotion and restriction; 4) behavior management; 5) considerations of expediency; 6) moral requirements. It is easy to see that all these ideas are related to the mechanism of criminal behavior and do not go beyond criminal psychology (microcriminology). An attempt to bring them to the macro level (in particular, through the requirements of morality) shows the eclecticism of the proposed model.
Consequently, the eclectic unification of various criminological theories does not give a positive result. As G. Barak notes, modern criminology exists in the space of postmodernity and multiculturalism and is forced to resort to the teachings of poststructuralism, postmarxism, postfeminism and other schools of scientific thought. In short, simple criminological models based solely on a biological, cultural, psychological or sociological approach are inadequate because they ignore many other factors that must be taken into account.
We believe that a simple summation of the provisions of various criminological theories is not able to provide the desired scientific result.
In this regard, the task of developing the methodology of an integrative school of criminology comes to the fore.
It seems that the integrative school of criminology must meet a number of requirements.
1. Perception (creative inheritance) of the basic positive (confirmed by practice) ideas of all previous (studied to date) criminological schools. Thus, in the classical school of criminology, the ideas of free will, utilitarianism, faith in progress, the assertion of human rights, and the rationalization of criminal policy seem to be positive; in the positivist one - the idea of the existence of objective social laws, social evolution and the practical significance of their development.
scientific knowledge; in the socialist - the search for a unified methodology and normativism. As for the postmodern criminological school, its provisions cannot claim the role of methodology, but are acceptable as working hypotheses in the implementation of empirical research. They contribute to the establishment of particular patterns, but should not have a general theoretical value.
2. Approval of the universal methodology of scientific knowledge. The creation of a universal methodology of scientific knowledge is the logical conclusion of the development of comparative criminology and one of its creative pinnacles. Indeed, at the same time, it is necessary to accumulate the world experience of criminological research and express it in certain imperatives. The universal methodology of scientific knowledge is provided by the dialectical method of thinking and a systematic approach. As many scientists note, in the context of growing global threats to humanity, the complexity of ongoing processes, the solution of research problems needs interdisciplinary (multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, transdisciplinary) coordination, and its effective implementation is possible only on the basis of a systematic approach.
In criminology, the cognitive value of a systematic approach is due not only to a specific understanding of crime as a system or a cross-cultural interpretation of criminal phenomena, but also to the “embeddedness” of criminological objects in social processes of different nature and level.
3. Use of positive universal experience in combating crime. This is the “golden fund” of those ideas, the following of which has always been accompanied by favorable criminological consequences: a decrease in social conflict, an improvement in the moral climate in the psychology of the masses, an improvement in social relations (ideas of the ontology of justice and morality, understanding of power as serving common (rather than private) interests and a tool protection of the weak and disadvantaged, etc.
4. Another requirement that an integrative school of criminology must meet is to obtain, verify, use the results of related (butt) studies of social deviations carried out in other branches of knowledge.
5. Within the framework of the integrative school of criminology, there should be an agreement between professionalism (in obtaining and interpreting information) and transparency (accessibility of the results of criminological research and their "transparency").
The need to develop an integrative school of criminology is due to the fact that public relations in the world are currently being actively criminalized in almost all areas. In this regard, the scientific and practical importance of criminological knowledge will constantly increase.
1. Fox V. Introduction to criminology. - M., 1980. - S. 47-48.
2. Rock P. Sociological Theories of Crime // The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. -Second edition. - Oxford, 1997. - P. 233-262.
3. Schneider G. Y. Criminology. - M., 1994. -S. 66.
4. Gilinsky Ya. I. Criminology. Theory, history, empirical base, social control: a course of lectures. - St. Petersburg, 2002. - S. 102142.
5. Smorgunova A. L. Critical direction in Anglo-American criminology: auto-ref. dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. - St. Petersburg, 2004. -25 p.
6. Sheveleva S.V. Criminal and legal meaning of the subjective element of free will // Actual problems of Russian law. -2015. - No. 11. - S. 159-165.
7. Skirbeck G., Guille N. History of Philosophy. - M., 2003. - S. 428.
8. Engels F. Anti-Dühring. - M., 1983. - S. 12.
9. Olara. Christianity and the French Revolution 1789-1802 - M., 1925. - 60 p.
10. Meinecke F. The emergence of historicism. - M., 2004. - S. 143.
11. Beccaria Ch. About crimes and punishments. -M., 2004. - 184 p.; Fox W. Decree. op. - S. 49.
12. Akers R. L. Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory: The Path Not Taken // Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. -1990. - Vol. 81(3). - P. 653-676; Becker G. Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach // The Journal of Political Economy. - 1968. -Vol. 76. - P. 169-217; Clarke R. V. & Felson M.
Routine Activity and Rational Choice // Advances in Criminology Theory. - New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, Inc., 1993.
13. Erickson M., Gibbs J. P., Jenson G. F. The Deterrence Doctrine and the Perceived Certainty of Legal Punishment // American Sociological Review. - 1977. - Vol. 42. - P. 305-317.
14. Fox V. Decree. op. - S. 52.
15. See, for example: Reshetnikov F. M. Modern American criminology. - M., 1965. -171 p.; His own. Criminal law of bourgeois countries. Classical school and anthropological and sociological direction. - M., 1985. -S. 17; Sociology of crime. - M., 1966; Fox W. Decree. op.; Inshakov S. M. Foreign criminology. - M., 2003; Gilinsky Ya. I. Decree. op.
16. Lombroso C. The latest advances in the science of crime // Lombroso C. Crime. The latest advances in criminal science. Anarchists. - M., 2004; Ferry E. Criminal types in art and literature. - St. Petersburg, 1908; Gramatica F. Principi di difesa sociale. -Padova, 1961.
17. Maffei S., Betsos I. M. Crime and Criminal Policy in Italy // European Journal of Criminolgy. -2007. - No. 4. - P. 465-466.
18. Societa Italiana di Criminologia. - URL: http://www.criminologiaitaliana.it.
19. Pinatel J. Methodology of comparative criminology // Problems of comparative law. - M., 1978. - S. 90.
20. Bachinin V. A., Sandulov Yu. A. History of Western sociology. - St. Petersburg, 2002. - S. 175179.
21. Volkov Yu. G., Dobrenkov V. I., Nechipurenko V. N., Popov A. V. History of foreign sociology. - M., 2003. - S. 9.
22. Op. by: Inshakov S. M. Decree. op. - S. 35-36.
23. Bottoms A. E., Wiles P. Enviroment Criminology // The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. - Oxford, 1997. - P. 305-359; Sparks R. Social Theory and Crime and Punishment // Ibid. - R. 409435.
24 Farrington D. P. Human Development and Criminal Careers. - Oxford, 1997. - P. 361-408; Smiht D. J. Ethnic Origins, Crime, Criminal Justice // The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. - Oxford, 1997. - R. 703-759.
25. See, for example: Kosova Yu. S. Sociology of Ludwig Gumplovich: author. dis. ... cand. sociological Sciences. - St. Petersburg, 2002. - 21 p.; Sumner W. G. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. - New York; London, 1883. - 169 p.
26. Radzinowicz L. The Growth of Crime. - London, 1979. - P. 81-83.
27. Taylor I. The Political Economy of Crime // The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. -Second edition. - Oxford, 1997. - P. 265-304; Young J. Left Realist Criminology: Radical and its
Analasis, Reralist and its Policy // Ibid. - P. 473498.
28. Barak G. L., Flavin J. M., Leighton P. S. Class, Race, Gender and Crime. Social Realities of Justice in America. - N. Y., 2011. - 408 rubles.
29. Reiman J., Leighton P. Rich Get Richer and The Poor Get Prison: The Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. - Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon, 2012. - 304 rubles.
30. Sampson R., Graves B. Traditional Contribution to Radical Criminology // Journal of Research of Crime Delinquency. - 1987. - Vol. 24, No. 3. -P. 183; Crime and Capitalism: Readings in Marxist Criminology / Ed. by David F. Greenberg. - Philadelphia, 1993. - 762 rubles.
31. Zinoviev A. A. West. - M., 2000. - S. 421.
32. Finley L. The Lyrics of Rage Against the Machine: A Study in Radical Criminology? // Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. -2002. - Vol. 9, No. 3. - P. 152.
33. Winfree L. T., Abadinsky H. Understanding Crime. theory and practice. - Chicago, 1996. -P. 9-11; Maxim P., Wiitcied P. Explaining Crime. - Fourth edition. Butterworth. - Heincmann, 1998. - P. 21.
34. Gilinsky Ya. I. Criminology today // Nar-Com.ru [website]. - URL: http://www.narcom.ru> law/system/25.html.
35. Davydov Yu. N. At the origins of sociological postmodernism: from the deobjectification of social science to the pluralistic decomposition of rationality // History of Theoretical Sociology: in 4 volumes - St. Petersburg, 2000. - T. 4. -S. 288-290; Derrida J. Passion // Socio-Logos "96: Almanac of the Russian-French Center for Sociological Research of Russia
Siysk AN. - M., 1996. - S. 274; Liotard J.-F. postmodern state. - St. Petersburg, 1998. - 159 p.; His own. Phenomenology. - St. Petersburg, 2001. - 160 p.
36. Beck U. Own life in an unleashed world: individualization, globalization and politics. - URL: http://www.soc.pu.ru/publications/pts/bek_3.shtml.
37. Henry S., Milovanovic. D. Constitutive criminology: beyond postmodernism. - London, 1996. -P. 116.
38. Pollizi D., Arrigo B. Phenomenology, Postmodernism and Philosophical Criminology: A Conversation Critique // Juournal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology. - 2009. - Vol. 12). -P. 115, 117.
39. Henry S., Milovanovic. D.Op. cit. - R. 116.
40. Carrington K. Postmodernism and Feminist Criminologies: Fragmenting the Criminological Subject // The New Criminology Revisited. - London, 1998. - P. 76-97.
41. Pearson F. S., Weiner N. A. Toward an Integration of Criminological Theories // Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. - 1985. -Vol. 76, iss. 1. - P. 116-150.
42. Barak G. Integrative Theories // Encyclopedia of Crime & Punishment. - Sage, 2002. - URL: http://www.critcrim.org.
43. Razumov V. I., Sizikov V. P. Information bases for the synthesis of systems: in 3 hours - Omsk, 2007. - Part 1. - P. 13-14; System approach in modern science. - M., 2004. - 560 p.; Modern methods of mathematical modeling of natural and anthropogenic disasters: materials of VIII All-Russia. conf. - Kemerovo, 2005. - 480 p.
Most criminologists believe that there are at least two major schools in the field of criminology: the classical, which arose sometime between 1764 and 1775, after the appearance of Beccaria's famous work On Crimes and Punishments, and the positivist, which began with the work of Lombroso "Criminal Man", published in 1896-1897. (for the first time about his theory became known in 1876, when he published a small brochure). The classical school put the crime itself at the center of its attention and insisted on equal punishments for the same offenses. She put forward the slogan "Let the punishment fit the crime." In accordance with classical theories, a hedonistic person seeks to enjoy and avoid unpleasant sensations, he is endowed with free will to such an extent that he can choose between good and evil when he knows what consequences this choice entails. The positivist, or Italian, school of criminology held to a deterministic theory, according to which criminal behavior is not freely chosen by the offender, but is determined by biological and social heredity and other factors. The views of the classical school, along with Beccaria, were followed by Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Jeremiah Bentham, William Blackstone, Samuel Romilly and others. Supporters of the positivist school, in addition to Lombroso, were Enrico Ferri (1856-1928), Rafael Garofalo (1852-1934) and others. Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904) also adhered to deterministic views, but at the same time he rejected the biological approach to explaining behavior. He developed his own "law of imitation", anticipating Sutherland's theory of differential communication.
In the history of criminology, there have been many "schools" "created" by individual authors, and it hardly makes sense to list them all. It seems appropriate to mention those of them that have received more or less widespread recognition, and dwell in more detail on the directions supported by the majority of criminologists. According to Sutherland and Cressy, the following schools can be distinguished in criminology: classical, cartographic, economic, typological, sociological, the school of individual behavior and the school of multiple factors *. The table below gives an idea of this classification of schools.
* (Sutherland E. H., Cressey D. R. Principles of Criminology, p. 53-65.)
Other criminologists give other classifications and distinguish other schools. So, Jeffrey, analyzing the question of what primarily interested the pioneers of criminology - the personality of the criminal or the crime as an act of behavior, divided scientists into two groups according to the subject of their main interest *:
* (Jeffrey C. R. The Historical Development of Criminology, ch. 25. - In: Mannheim H. ed., Pioneers in Criminology, 2nd ed. Montclair. New Jersey, 1973, p. 459-460.)
Thus, there has been a shift in criminology from the original idea of protecting society or the welfare of the group towards the study of the offense (classical school) and the personality of the offender (positivist school). For the classical school, it was very important legal issues, while the positivists did not attach importance to them and focused on the issues of re-education of the individual offender.
Other major schools frequently cited by criminologists include the American School of Sociology and the School of Social Security. Although some criminologists consider them independent schools, others tend to believe that they continue the positivist line in criminology.
Taking into account that the issue of classification of criminological schools continues to be controversial, the following compromise option can be proposed:
classical school: assessing the severity of a crime from a legal standpoint.
positivist school: the crime is caused by many factors; legal approach is completely rejected.
American school: sociological theory of the causes of crime.
School of Social Protection: the crime is caused by various social factors, and within the framework of the current legislation, all these factors should be taken into account; This school complements the positivist views with a legal approach.
Let's take a look at each of these approaches separately.
1. General characteristics of the main criminological trends and schools 3
2. Criminological characteristics of juvenile delinquency 9
Problem 17
References 19
1. General characteristics of the main criminological trends and schools
The formation of criminology as an independent science, along with the above philosophical, political, legal teachings in the first half of the 19th century, was most clearly influenced by the following four types of research:
1) anthropological; 2) statistical; 3) socio-economic, sociological, etc., during which the factors of crime and the mechanism of their influence were analyzed; 4) social and legal.
The founder of anthropological research was the phrenologist Gall. He divided people who commit crimes into three categories and laid the foundation for the biological classification of criminals. In the first category, he included those criminals whose innate qualities allow them to find support in themselves in the fight against temptations and bad inclinations. These individuals are able to correlate their actions not only with the law, but also with higher ideals. The second category consists, according to Gall, of people who are disadvantaged by nature. Due to their innate qualities, weak and bad, these people easily become victims of criminal inclinations. The third category occupies an intermediate position between these two. People of this category are naturally predisposed to committing a crime, but they are freed by nature to be both bad and good at the same time, and therefore they embark on a criminal path depending on the conditions of their environment. According to Gall, “crimes are the product of the individuals who commit them, and therefore their nature depends on the nature of these individuals and on the conditions in which these individuals are; it is only by taking into account this nature and these conditions that crimes can be correctly assessed.”
Later, the idea of the presence of a congenital criminal was vividly substantiated by the former prison doctor, Italian professor of forensic medicine Caesar (or Cesare) Lombroso: “Suddenly, one morning on a gloomy December day, I discovered a whole series of abnormalities on the skull of a convict ... similar to those that the lower Vertebrates. At the sight of these strange abnormalities - as if a clear light illuminated the dark plain to the very horizon - I realized that the problem of the nature and origin of criminals was solved for me. “Criminals are born,” Lombroso insisted in his first works, later he admitted that a born criminal is only one of the types, along with him there are others who become criminals under the influence of development and life conditions. Lombroso's first work provoked a strong reaction: some authors supported Lombroso, others, examining perpetrators of crimes, challenged Lombroso's conclusions. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, a number of international congresses on criminal anthropology took place, at which many participants criticized Lombroso's theory.
Lombroso himself led the discussions, expanding the scope of the study of criminals and the causes of crimes. In his later works, considerable attention was paid to various environmental factors that influenced crime, and over time, he attached more and more importance to social factors, although he did not abandon his doctrine of a born criminal.
Lombroso's views were developed by his students, the famous Italian scientists Rafael Garofalo and Enrico Ferri, but they paid much more attention to the social factors of crime. According to Ferry, specific feature The anthropological school was that it recognized the differences between criminals and normal people by their organic and mental traits (par des anormalites organigues et psychigues), hereditary and acquired, considered criminals a special variety of the human race (une classe speciale, une variete de espece humaine).
Accordingly, punishment is seen as a defense of society from this "species of the human race" - criminals. Supporters of this direction were in France, as well as in other countries. In Russia, the works of P.N. Tarnovskaya, D.A. Chizh, to a certain extent - Dmitry Dril, Mintslov and a number of other authors.
As J. Van-Kan, the author of one of the most significant criminological works "The Economic Factors of Crime", wrote later: "Lombroso's merit was that he awakened thought in the field of criminology, created .. systems and invented witty and bold hypotheses, but subtle analysis and cautious conclusions he had to leave to his students. Lombroso used certain statistical calculations to prove his theories, but did so in such a way that one of his critics, Martin, wrote: "Statistical data almost never give rise to certain conclusions."
This kind of assertion was shaken by special statistical studies of data on crimes (A. Khvostova in Russia, A. Guerry in France, E-Ducpetio in Belgium). Their importance for the study of the laws of crime was most clearly shown by the Belgian mathematician and statistician A. Quetelet. In 1836, the work of A. Quetelet "Man and the development of his abilities or the experience of social physics" was published, in which the author wrote: "In everything that concerns crimes, numbers are repeated with such constancy that this cannot be overlooked ... This constancy, with which the same crimes are reproduced every year, and produce the same punishments in the same proportions, is one of the most curious facts that the statistics of the criminal courts tell us, and I have always taken great pains to show it in various forms. his writings ... and did not stop repeating every year: there is a budget that is paid with amazing correctness - this is the budget for dungeons, penal servitude and scaffolds; it is necessary to take every effort to reduce this budget.
Such studies were continued by other authors, and with their help, firstly, a transition was made from the study of crime or crimes to crime as a mass social phenomenon with statistical regularities; secondly, the relationship between changes in statistical data on crime and changes in the state of society is shown.
The system of methods of criminology is shown in fig. 1.2.
§ 4. Place of criminology in the system of other sciences
To reveal the essence of criminology, it is important to determine not only its subject, but also place in the system of other sciences. At the same time, it is especially important to establish the degree of both “kinship” with related scientific disciplines and the independence of criminological knowledge.
At the beginning of the 20th century, criminological issues were considered within the framework of criminal law. This was argued by the fact that criminology originated in the depths of criminal law, that the doctrine of crime is an aspect of criminal law, and the removal of criminology from the content of criminal law makes it a dry legal dogma.
This position is not without foundation. Indeed, criminology and criminal law in a number of cases operate with the same concepts, for example, “crime”, “punishment”, “components of a crime”, “qualification of a crime”, etc. Moreover, crime, as the main element of the subject of criminology, is studied by it only with taking into account changes in criminal legislation, criminalization or decriminalization of certain socially dangerous acts. However, this circumstance only testifies to the relationship between criminal law and criminology. Criminal law in many cases also operates with criminological concepts, without impoverishing the science of criminology at all and without reducing its social purpose.
Thus, the connection of criminology with criminal law quite obvious, but it does not exclude the independence of criminology as a science.
As a complex scientific branch of knowledge, criminology is also connected with other scientific disciplines. First of all, we are talking about such legal sciences as penitentiary law, criminal procedure law, criminalistics, administrative, labor, family law, etc.
So, penal law uses criminological knowledge and recommendations to prevent the recurrence of crimes, improve the efficiency of correction and re-education of convicts. This fully applies to the implementation of administrative supervision in respect of previously convicted persons.
There is also an obvious connection between criminology and criminal procedure law. First of all, it follows from the commonality of the tasks of criminology and the criminal process, which consists in the fact that the activities of participants in criminal procedural relations are aimed at preventing impending crimes, resolving the case on the merits, including identifying the causes and conditions for the commission of crimes, as well as implementing measures to prevent them. elimination.
No less obvious is the connection between criminology and criminalistics. It manifests itself, first of all, in the fact that the important provisions of forensic science and its methodological foundations are used to recognize the forms of criminal manifestations, to develop means and methods for preventing crimes. In turn, criminological knowledge often serves as the basis for determining tactics for solving crimes.
Criminology is rightly called complex science, bearing in mind that it combines, in addition to legal sciences, elements of other sciences (sociology, philosophy, economics, psychology, pedagogy, demography, etc.). At the same time, the complexity of criminology by no means deprives it of its independence, but only significantly enriches its content and the arsenal of means of preventive action.
The relationship of criminology with other sciences is of a different nature. The fact is that crime, its causes, the identity of the offender, the means of preventing crimes is a multifaceted problem that requires the combined efforts of representatives of many branches of scientific knowledge (psychology, pedagogy, demography, mathematics, etc.).
All this allows us to state that criminology is connected with the fundamental social sciences (primarily with philosophy, sociology, economics, political science); with other social sciences (including the criminal law cycle); with exact and natural sciences (see Fig. 1.3).
Being independent, the science of criminology can be characterized as scientific knowledge system about crime, its causes and other determinants, the identity of the offender and social activities to prevent crime and crime in general.
Particularly responsible tasks are facing this science in connection with the ongoing present stage development of our society by changes that have engulfed all spheres of public life. Criminology, like other social sciences, is called upon to contribute to the renewal of those criminological knowledge, which, due to a number of subjective tendencies, have lagged behind the vital problems of combating crime. New criminological knowledge should not only equip lawyers with modern ideas about the nature of crime and its essence, but also serve as a scientifically based orientation for reliable provision of practical measures to combat it.
The arsenal of criminological tools will become richer and more powerful if practitioners master criminological thinking, which creates the basis for a correct understanding of the transformations taking place in society. This requires energetic efforts to master the dialectics of the development of new social processes, combined with an effective solution to the cardinal problems of life, which, of course, includes the fight against crime.
Criminological knowledge can play a certain role in overcoming dogmatic ideas, simplification and stereotypes of thinking about crime, the personality of the offender, the mechanism of criminal behavior, the causes of these negative phenomena, ways and means of counteracting them among practitioners.
Control questions and tasks
1. What does criminology study.
2. What is the specificity of criminological knowledge?
3. In what directions did the subject of criminology develop?
4. What are the goals and objectives of criminology?
5. Expand the content of the functions of criminology.
6. What is the system of criminology?
7. Expand the concept of criminology methods.
8. Show the ratio of general scientific and private scientific methods of criminology.
9. What are the special methods of criminology?
10. With what sciences is criminology most closely connected.
11. What is the relationship of criminology with the sciences of the criminal cycle?
12. What is the independence of the science of criminology?
Chapter 2. Foreign criminological theories and schools. Development of domestic criminology
The birth of criminology as a science, due to the increased needs of society in combating crime, is associated with the publication in 1885 of a book by the Italian scientist R. Garofalo. However, the ideas about the essence of crime, its causes, and the prevention of crime have always been of interest to human society, as evidenced by the numerous statements on these issues by thinkers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle), the Renaissance (M. Luther, J. Locke), the Enlightenment (Montesquieu, Rousseau and others), the formation and development of capitalism (C. Lombroso, Quetelet, and others).
An analysis of numerous theories and scientific views gives grounds for identifying three main areas: classical, anthropological and sociological, according to which criminological ideas have historically developed, which ultimately made it possible to form criminology as an independent science.
§ 1. Classical and anthropological directions of criminological theories
Representatives classical criminological schools(Beccaria, Bentham, Harvard, Liszt, Feuerbach, and others) already in the 18th-19th centuries resolutely rejected the theological understanding of crime as a manifestation of the satanic, diabolical principle. In their opinion, a crime is a consequence of the conscious behavior of a person who, having complete free will, chooses the option of his actions. This choice itself is predetermined by the extent to which a person has mastered the moral rules of life.
Another postulate of the classics was to assess the punishment for a crime committed as an inevitable and fair response of society, not pursuing manifestations of cruelty, but aimed at intimidating, correcting and neutralizing the criminal.
Many of the ideas of the "classics" retain a certain significance in modern society. Thus, such provisions of Beccaria as the need for proportionality between crimes and punishments have withstood the test of time; the advantage of crime prevention over punishment, etc.
At the same time, representatives of classical theories, when reassessing the possibilities of criminal punishment, paid insufficient attention to the personality of the offender, as well as to the objective social factors that determine crime, reducing crime prevention only to measures of education and enlightenment.
Serious gaps in the classical school gave a definite impetus to the development anthropological direction of criminological theory, one of the first representatives of which was the Italian prison psychiatrist C. Lombroso.
C. Lombroso's studies of the personality, the body of persons who committed crimes, led to the formation of the so-called theory of the born criminal. The main ideas of this theory boiled down to the following provisions: a criminal, who is a special natural type, is not made, but born; the cause of crime lies not in society, but in the criminal himself; a congenital offender is characterized by special physiological, psychological and even anatomical properties. The latter at the same time differ depending on the criminal orientation of the individual to commit murders, rapes, encroachments on property. Such views led to conclusions about the need for judicial procedures identifying and isolating natural born criminals.
Despite the scientific inconsistency of these provisions, confirmed by numerous studies, they should hardly be assessed only negatively. Lombroso and his followers for the first time paid special attention to the identity of criminals, the development of an anthropological method for their identification. And the very theory of a born criminal was gradually transformed into a biosocial one, which was clearly manifested in the works of the followers of C. Lombroso.
Thus, the theory of clinical criminology has become quite widespread. (dangerous state of personality), explaining crime by an inherent inclination to crime in individual individuals. Such a propensity, according to the French scientist Pinatele, is determined using special tests, as well as an analysis of the profession, lifestyle, and behavior of the individual. Correction of the behavior of potential or real criminals, according to representatives of this school, can be carried out using electric shock, surgery, sterilization, castration, and medication.
Representatives of the theory constitutional predisposition to crime(Kretschmer, Sheldon, the Glucks and others) associated the commission of crimes with the work of the endocrine glands, which affects both the appearance (physical constitution) and the psyche of a person.
As measures to combat crime, they proposed, along with the use of chemicals, the placement of potential criminals in special camps to inculcate the skills and habits of socially useful behavior.
Close to the ideas of Lombroso were the concepts mental retardation of criminals(Goddard) their hereditary predisposition(Kinberg, Longuet, etc.). These concepts were based on studies of the behavior of several generations of close relatives; identical and non-identical twins; effects on the behavior of extra male chromosomes.
However, all these provisions, which do not take into account the social factors of crime, do not hold water. They are refuted by the following scientific research conducted by both geneticists and sociologists, psychologists, and criminologists.
At the same time, it is hardly correct to completely ignore biological, or rather biosocial, concepts of crime. Many of them provide interesting material for modern criminologists who consider a person as a unity of biological and social, and the formation of a criminal's personality as a result of the influence of social factors (causes of behavior) on the biological structure, which acts only as a certain prerequisite (condition) for subsequent behavior.
§ 2. Sociological direction of criminological theory
Almost simultaneously with the biological direction arose sociological school of criminology, the founder of which is Quetelet with his factor theory.
This theory is based on a generalization of the results of a statistical analysis of crime, social characteristics identity of the offender, other signs of crimes. Its main postulate, formulated by Quetelet, is that crime, as a product of society, is subject to certain statistically fixed patterns, and its change depends on the action of various factors: social (unemployment, price levels, housing, wars, economic crises, alcohol consumption etc.); individual (gender, age, race, psychophysical anomalies); physical (geographical environment, climate, season, etc.).
Quetelet's followers expanded (up to 170–200) the number of factors influencing crime to include urbanization, industrialization, mass frustration, ethno-psychological incompatibility, and much more.
The theory of multiple factors has expanded and deepened the idea of the causal complex of crime and thus enriched criminology. Its disadvantage lies in the lack of clear ideas about the degree of significance of certain factors, the criteria for their attribution to the causes or conditions of crime.
Founder theories of social disorganization The French scientist Durkheim considered crime not only as a natural socially conditioned, but even in a certain sense, a normal and useful phenomenon in society. Within the framework of this theory, the concept of anomie has been developed - non-normativeness, that is, the state of disorganization of the personality, its conflict with the norms of behavior, which leads to the commission of crimes.
A well-known development of these concepts is culture conflict theory, proceeding from the fact that criminal behavior is a consequence of conflicts determined by the difference in worldview, habits, stereotypes of behavior of individuals and social groups.
Stigma theory, the founder of which was Tannenbaum, suggests that a person often becomes a criminal not only because he breaks the law, but because of the process of stigmatization - the assignment of this status by the authorities, his kind of moral and legal "branding". As a result, a person is cut off from society, turns into an outcast, for whom criminal behavior becomes habitual.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the American scientist Sutherland developed the theory of differential association, which is based on the proposition that crime is the result of teaching a person to illegal behavior in social microgroups (in the family, on the street, in labor collectives, etc.).
They have a broad sociological approach victimological theories, supplementing criminological issues with the doctrine of crime victims, whose behavior can stimulate, provoke the criminal activity of criminals, facilitate the achievement of criminal results. These ideas form the basis for the development and use in practice of the so-called victimological prevention of crimes.
The sociological direction also includes the theory of the scientific and technological revolution as a complex cause of crime; the theory of criminal-statistical regulation of the level of crime; economic theory of crime growth; possibility theory; demographic theory; the theory of deprivation, etc.
All the sociological concepts discussed above regarding the causes of crime can hardly be assessed unambiguously - positively or negatively. However, in comparison with anthropological schools, they approach the problem of the causes of crime much deeper. The studies carried out within the framework of the sociological school cover a wide range of social relations and provide recommendations that are very useful for practical use in the fight against crime. These provisions include the proposal on the need for a targeted impact on criminal subcultures and their carriers, which is an important condition for correcting the views, attitudes, and behavior of offenders; on the economy of repression, the rejection of punitive measures to stigmatize criminals; about preventing the exchange of criminal experience; on reducing the victimization of potential crime victims.
The disadvantages of sociological concepts include the eclectic nature of a number of provisions, the failure to single out the most significant determinants in the system of criminological factors, etc.
In general, the merits of representatives of the sociological direction of criminological theories are indisputable. Their works were a major step forward in the knowledge of crime, its features, determinants and measures used to combat it.
§ 3. Development of domestic criminology
Domestic criminology in its development not only accepted many ideas of representatives of various schools, but also contributed to the study of crime problems.
Already in the 18th century, the famous public figure of Russia A.N. Radishchev proposed a constructive method of statistical observation of crime and its causes. AT early XIX century, an in-depth study of murders and suicides based on criminal statistics was conducted by K.F. Hermann.
Well-known lawyers I.Ya. Foinitsky, G.N. Tarnovsky, N.S. Tagantsev and others. At the same time, the understanding of crime as a social phenomenon with objective causes was emphasized.
Supporting in general the anthropological direction of the causes of crime, D.A. Dril at the same time noted the influence on the commission of crimes, along with the peculiarities of the psychophysical nature of man, and external influences on him.
And after 1917, in the conditions of the Soviet state, M.N. Gernet, AA. Zhizhilenko, S.V. Poznyshev and others continued to develop problems of criminal law and criminology. Moreover, until the mid-30s of the 20th century, these studies were carried out very actively, especially in the field of analyzing the social and economic factors of crime, the influence of the physical constitution of the individual, age characteristics, health, heredity of criminals.
However, later (from the mid-1930s to the early 1960s) criminological research in the country was curtailed. The political attitude prevailed about the absence of the causes of crime objectively inherent in a socialist society, about its eradication mainly by repressive measures. As a result, criminology as an academic discipline was withdrawn from the training programs for highly qualified lawyers.
Only in the early 60s did the first publications on criminology problems appear in many years. A special role was played by legal scholars I.I. Karpets, V.N. Kudryavtsev, A.A. Gertsenzon, A.B. Sakharov, B.S. Utevsky, S.S. Ostroumov, N.F. Kuznetsova and others. In 1963, the All-Union Institute for the Study of the Causes and Development of Measures for the Prevention of Crime was established (currently the Research Institute of the Academy Prosecutor General's Office Russian Federation). Since 1964, criminology has again been taught in the country's law schools, textbooks and study guides to carry out in-depth scientific research.
The modern development of criminology confirms that crime in any society is an objectively existing social and legal phenomenon, that a person has a complex combination of biological properties that act as prerequisites for the development of a personality, which is ultimately formed under the influence of the social environment.
Modern Russian criminology is actively developing taking into account the realities of society, making a significant contribution to the implementation public policy crime prevention, crime prevention.
Control questions and tasks
1. Why did the science of criminology arise and what needs of social life determined its existence and development?
2. What are the main provisions of the classical direction of criminological theory?
3. What is the main postulate of the anthropological direction of criminological theory?
4. What is the significance of sociological schools for the development of criminology?
Criminology as an independent science arose in the 18th century, in the depths of the classical school of criminal law. The concept of "criminology" arose much earlier than the term used for the first time in 1879. anthropologist Topinar, and refers to the period of the formation of judicial procedures in England, when King Henry II in 1166. activities started judiciary. In the same period, the system of juries, sheriffs was laid, the construction of prisons and the division of crimes into serious and less serious began. In 1275 King Edward I proclaimed the status of equality of all people before the law. The first manifestations of criminological thought were the following activities:
In 1285 the institution of a night watchman was introduced;
In 1316 institute of justice of the peace;
In 1370 the first organs appear local government;
In 1487 a judicial institution was created with the participation of one party without protection.
In a primitive society, questions about the reasons for breaking taboos were not raised. Greek philosophers expressed thoughts about the causes of crime, and Plato, for example, considered one of significant reasons crime inadequate education. He wrote about anger, jealousy, the desire for pleasure, delusion and ignorance, defended the principle of individualization of punishment. It should, according to Plato, correspond not only to the nature of the deed, but also to the motives of the perpetrator. great attention Plato paid attention to the legislative process, noting the need to take into account human imperfection, the desire to prevent a crime, to ensure that a person becomes better as a result of punishment. He also noted the personal nature of punishment, and he connected virtue not with “bad” heredity, but with upbringing.
Aristotle emphasized the important preventive role of punishment, for he believed that people refrain from bad deeds not out of high motives, but out of fear of punishment, and the majority tend to prefer their benefits and pleasures to the common good. According to Aristotle, the more significant were the benefits and pleasures received as a result of committing a crime, the more severe the punishment should be. He proposed to distinguish between the assessments of misconduct and the assessments of those people who committed them, to take into account the role of external circumstances and the role of the characteristics of the offender himself in the mechanism of illegal behavior.
The Roman jurist Cicero considered the source of crimes "unreasonable and greedy passions for external pleasures, with unbridled thoughtlessness striving for satisfaction", as well as the hope of impunity. He noted that punishment should pursue the goal of general and particular prevention, ensure the safety of society, correspond not only to the harm caused, but also subjective side acts, and the judge must be bound by the laws.
In the Middle Ages, such an idea of a crime dominated, according to which it is not only an illegal violation of norms, established by the state but also invariably sin before God, the perversion of the soul by the devil. It was believed that punishment averts the wrath of God from the country and thereby receives “forgiveness” for the sinful event that happened in it.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, policing legislation began to emerge, punishing those who:
Opposed the king;
Threw in search of work the land of the lord;
He kept dogs, having no property.
In the 16th-18th centuries, the union of church and state took place, which led to the fact that treason and heresy were punishable by capital punishment, as were blasphemy, adultery and witchcraft. Prevention and prevention of behavior objectionable to the church was punished in a very primitive way. For example, heretics were calculated simply: it was enough to cough during a sermon for the priest to recognize the demon that had inhabited you. The unfortunate was burned at the stake after being tortured by the “stretching bench”. Witches and sorcerers were put on the "Spanish horse" (a triangle with a sharp edge up). The sorcerers were "wheeled", after breaking the bones with the wheel, the victim died for a long time, the agony sometimes lasted 3 weeks. There was a chance to justify himself - the veracity of the testimony could be confirmed by putting the tongue on a red-hot iron. Innocence was tested simply - the convict with a stone around his neck was thrown into the water. If he swam out, he is guilty. Drowned - the charge was dropped. Crimes for carnal sins were punished as a connection with evil spirits.
Homosexuals were subjected to the “saw” torture. They were hung up by the legs, and the executioner sawed the convict. Women who had abortions and single mothers had their breasts torn out. Women who cheated on their husbands and nuns who did not keep their vow of chastity were equated with witches - they were stretched out on a bench. That is why the chastity belt, invented in Italy in the 12th century, became a fashionable item of women's clothing in the Middle Ages. Bankrupts and tax evaders were hung on a pendulum - dangling in the air like a restless bill.
The counterfeiters were placed in a wooden sarcophagus, called the Nuremberg Maiden, which had holes through which hot iron needles were inserted. Liars and drunkards were put on the “shameful chair”, hands and head were fixed in a wooden block. Chatty ladies and grumpy wives were soothed by the "violin gossip" - they were fixed in pairs in a wooden collar and led through the streets all day. The most lenient punishment was the death penalty, which was awarded only to the elite - plebeians were not executed without torture. Most of those sentenced were burned at the stake with a gag in their mouths and iron mask. Dr. J. Guyotin introduced the guillotine, which in 1791 was recognized as an instrument of death. It was designed by harpsichord maker Thomas Schmidt.
Many thinkers of the past, analyzing various problems of social life, paid some attention to crime, sometimes expressing very deep considerations about its origin, the causes of crime, ways and means of combating it.
The first attempts to identify the connection between crime and the system of social relations, with the social contradictions of society, we find in the works of thinkers of the XV1-XVIII centuries.
T. Campanella (XVII century) in the "City of the Sun" pointed out that crime is associated with "social deprivation", and its elimination - with the reorganization of society on the basis of equality and justice.
Morelli in the "Code of Nature" noted that a person is not vicious by nature, he becomes a criminal in an unjustly organized society.
The utopian socialists of the 16th-19th centuries, primarily A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen and their followers came to the conclusion that although the nature of people is the same, the atmosphere of violence and oppression in society creates conditions in which people become criminals; moreover, it was emphasized that with the vicious structure of society, no repressions are able to restrain the development of crime. However, the lack of research into the nature of social contradictions did not allow the representatives of utopian socialism to give a scientific analysis of the ways to achieve this goal. They associated the change in the nature of their contemporary society as a prerequisite for overcoming crime only with moral education in the spirit of humanity and brotherhood.
The revolutionary democrats of the 18th-19th centuries paid great attention to the problem of crime. J.P. Marat in his work "The Plan of Criminal Legislation" (1780) showed the connection between crime and the living conditions of a society consisting of "despicable slaves and commanding masters", with oppression and cruelty on the part of the ruling strata.
In such works by K. Marx, devoted to the problem of crime, such as "The Death Penalty", "Holy Family", "Capital" and other works, the sources of crime in contemporary society are shown, rooted in the basic conditions inherent in this society as a whole, the dependence of the dynamics of crime on the severity of contradictions in it, the direct and inverse connection of processes in society with the crime generated by it.
Significant for criminology is the work of F. Engels “The Condition of the Working Class in England”, which is largely devoted to the analysis of the social roots of crime in a class-antagonistic society. Engels showed the dependence of the causes of crime on the "war of all against all." Speaking about the social roots of "demoralization and criminogenicity" of declassed elements that emerged from among the working people, F. Engels showed at the same time that the social atmosphere also causes moral degradation of the ruling classes, which account for a significant part of the crimes committed.
Supporting the idea of crime prevention as the leading direction in the fight against it, K. Marx and F. Engels, in contrast to Beccaria, gave it a social, and not a purely criminal legal interpretation. They formulated the conclusion that the implementation of this direction, the solution, ultimately, of the problem of crime, cutting off the very root depends on the destruction of exploitation and the social antagonisms it generates in the sphere of political and economic life.
Only in the 18th century, with the development of rationalism, did people open up the spiritual and social spaces necessary to approach realistically and critically such phenomena as conformity, deviant behavior, and crime.
The history of world criminology is usually divided into 3 periods:
1. Classic - lasted from the second half of the 18th century to the last third of the 19th century. It precedes and then accompanies the transformations of state, social and spiritual life carried out after the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Europe. At this time, science is moving away from the previously dominant theological interpretation of crime as "sinful behavior", considered solely as the result of the action of supernatural forces. Attempts are being made to give a purely theoretical explanation of why a person commits a crime. A more humane approach is being developed to criminals, to the measures of criminal punishment and the activities of the punitive bodies of the state. Representatives of classical criminology C. Beccaria (1738-1794) and I. Bentham (1748-1832).
2. Positivist - from the last third of the 19th century to the 20s of the 20th century. As prerequisites, there was an increase in crime in the second half of the 19th century, on the other hand, the rapid development
natural and human sciences.
4. Pluralistic - from the 20s of the 20th century to the present day.
The classical period of criminology is inextricably linked with the classical school of criminal law and characterizes the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Its founder should be considered the Italian lawyer Cesare Beccaria. In 1764, he published the work "On Crimes and Punishments", in which he pointed out that the abolition of barbaric and cruel punishments should have led to a more humane attitude of people towards each other and a decrease in the number of crimes committed, and the effectiveness of the threat of punishment does not depend on its severity but from the inevitability and speed of execution. Based on the ideas of Montesquieu and other great enlighteners of their time. Beccaria created a fundamentally new theory. He believed that “there are three sources of moral and political principles that govern people: divine revelation, natural laws and voluntary social relations. to the main, in his opinion, driving principles, directing people to any, both harmful and useful, and even the most exalted actions.He called pleasure and suffering as such principles.
An interesting view of Beccaria on the prospects for countering crimes by the state. It points to the impossibility of preventing all crime. The author goes on to make the significant observation that the number of crimes increases in proportion to the growth of the population and the resulting clashes of private interests. Beccaria should be considered a criminologist, and the classical school of criminal law, respectively, a school of criminology, because several sections of the work "On Crimes and Punishments" are specifically devoted to the prevention of crime. It is to him that the idea that it is better to prevent crimes than to punish belongs. However, this school has clearly insufficiently assessed the personality traits that play a role in the commission of a crime, and has not seen the need to take them into account in the implementation of punishment and prevention.
We can cite Chernyshevsky's statement about him: “Beccaria's work has retained to our time all the freshness of the primary great ideas that inspire the best figures in the fight against crime to this day. Moreover, this work is so small that reading it for every lawyer who has a claim to be educated is absolutely necessary.
Beccaria put forward the idea of the priority of crime prevention, pointed out the importance of justice and the inevitability of punishment, and not in its cruelty, which for a long time was attributed to V.I. Lenin. V.I. Lenin is innocent of this distortion, his statement begins with the words: “... it has long been said ...”, i. priority was given to Beccaria.
Based on the ideas of Montesquieu, Beccaria created a fundamentally new theory for his time. He believed that there are three sources that control people:
Divine revelation;
natural laws;
Voluntary public relations.
Beccaria sees the source of crimes in the "general struggle of human passions", in the clash of private interests. In his opinion, “with the expansion of the borders of the state, its disorder also grows, national feeling is weakened to the same extent, incentives to crime increase in proportion to the benefits that everyone derives for himself from social disorder.”
Beccaria explains the criminal activity of a person by the driving principles, which, in his opinion, are pleasure and suffering. In the classic work of Beccaria there is not only a dialectical understanding of crime under the influence of social contradictions, but also a psychological interpretation of the mechanism of individual criminal behavior.
For criminology, Beccaria's views on the prospects for counteracting crimes by the state were important. He said: "... it is impossible to prevent all evil." He further pointed out that the number of crimes increases in proportion to the growth of the population and the resulting clashes of private interests.
Of particular value to Beccaria are ideas about the methods of state response to crimes committed. These ideas have had and are having a huge impact on the theory of criminal law. Under their influence, social prevention of crimes arose as one of the directions of state activity.
Beccaria opposed the cruelty of punishment, considering it unfair. He expressed doubts about the benefits of cruel punishments. “In those times and in those countries where the most cruel punishments were committed, the most bloody and inhuman actions were committed, for the same spirit of brutality that led the hand of the legislator, controlled the hand of both the parricide and the robber.” Beccaria spoke out against the death penalty: "... the death penalty cannot be useful, because it sets an example of cruelty." Beccaria raised the question of the goals of criminal punishment, and proposed such a solution, which to this day is directly reflected in the legislation of many countries. “The purpose of punishment is not to torture and torment a person, and not to make a crime already committed non-existent .... the purpose of punishment is only to prevent the guilty person from harming society again and to deter others from committing the same. Therefore, such a punishment should be used that would have the strongest and most lasting impression on the soul of people and would be the least painful for the body of the criminal.
Beccaria put the crime at the center of the justification of the classical school of criminal punishment. He believed that there should not be the same punishment for two crimes that cause different harm to society. This was a controversial statement, because. this meant that equal punishment for an equal crime should be subjected to both an adult and a minor, both a person who committed a crime under the influence of strong emotional excitement, and a person who committed an intentional crime, both a person who committed a crime for the first time, and a recidivist.
The classical school formulated a number of punitive principles, and, above all, the immediacy and inevitability of punishment attributed to K. Marx and V.I. Lenin. It was Beccaria who defined these principles in this way: “One of the most effective deterrents to crime lies not in the cruelty of punishment, but in their inevitability.”
It is significant that the classical school links the prevention of crime with freedom and enlightenment. "Enslaved people are always more voluptuous, dissolute and cruel than free people." Beccaria was against excessive prohibition, unjustified expansion of the scope of the criminal law. “Want to prevent crime? he said - Make the laws clear, simple, so that the whole force of the nation is concentrated in their defense, and so that not a single part of this force is directed to their destruction.
The preventive tactics of the classical school are based on the combination of pleasure and pain as the most important incentives for behavior. At the same time, power holders should be more interested in observing laws than in breaking them.
Beccaria considered the most correct, although the most difficult means of preventing crime, the improvement of education. He was opposed to the useless multitude of subjects studied by young people, there must be an accurate choice of them. To virtue, he recommended to go "the easy road of feelings, and not the confused road of punishment."
The ideas of the classical school turned out to be fruitful and relevant to the present. They contributed to the reform of criminal legislation, which became more humane and expedient. The disadvantage of the school is that it did not fully assess the characteristics of the person playing a role in the commission of the crime and did not see the need to take them into account in the implementation of punishment and prevention.
The classical school did not rely enough on practice, on materials about crimes and the fight against them. All these questions were subsequently raised by the schools of the positivist or Italian period, especially the School of Turin, and also by the schools of the modern or pluralist period.
Positivism in criminology. At this time there was a need for a deeper understanding of crime. New methods of research have emerged. In the sciences that studied man, techniques borrowed from exact disciplines were introduced, which, in particular, led to the emergence of anthropology, sociology and statistics.
The methodological basis of this period is the philosophy of positivism, which arose in the first third of the 19th century, which sought to collect positive material about various aspects of life. The positivism of O. Comte is called the philosophy of the middle level, since its author denied the need to rise to worldview problems. The "middle level" characteristic of criminology at the end of the 19th century remains today.
The ideological understanding of the philosophy of crime remains, as a rule, outside the scientific and criminological theory. Some philosophical ideas on this subject can be found in the philosophical, fiction. One of the specialists in the philosophy of crime was F.M. Dostoevsky. In comparison with the science of the classical period, positivist criminology is distinguished by the wide use of statistical data on committed crimes and criminals.
Positivist criminology develops in two main directions:
biological;
Social.
Despite their divergence of views, their mutual rapprochement is observed, expressed in the emergence of psychological theories of criminology.
The biological direction is associated with the name of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) - the founder of the anthropological school - published in Italy in 1876 the work "Criminal Man". In fact, the formation of criminology originates in his work. The beginning of the study of the personality of criminals, their classification and typology was laid by Lombroso. With his theory, he opened a completely new path in the criminological direction, trying to explain the nature of crime. In his work, he summarized many years of research on the mentally ill - "criminals".
He expressed the opinion that a criminal person is a type that has a number of physical and mental traits of a savage, primitive man, and even animals.
He said that criminals are "two-legged tigers among people", they are predators who cannot live in ordinary human conditions and, due to their psychophysical qualities, are only capable of killing, robbing and raping. He argued that as among animals there are tigers and horses, so among people there were and will be criminals and honest people. And just as a tiger cannot be turned into a pet, so a criminal cannot be corrected. It is useless to judge such people, they must be destroyed or, in extreme cases, isolated. He concluded: "Crime is a phenomenon as natural and necessary as birth, death, conception, mental illness, of which it is often the initial variety." To judge whether a person is a criminal or not, allowed, in his opinion, the external signs of the torso, head, mouth, eyes. Hence the name of the school - anthropological. He believed that it is possible to judge the "criminal type" in early childhood. He believed that a born criminal must commit a crime sooner or later.
The most dangerous in the teachings of Lombroso is his recognition of the "existence of special criminal races" - this is nothing but genocide.
The main idea of criminological theory is expressed in the title of his works:
the causes of crime are inherent in the criminal himself, they are like a disease that manifests itself in a crime and needs “treatment”. One does not become a criminal, Lombroso argued, they are born. He identified three possible sources of "innate criminality":
Special anatomical, physiological, psychological properties of the individual;
The presence of atavistic traits of a primitive man-savage;
Epilepsy and "moral insanity".
In all these three cases, criminal behavior is biologically determined, like birth, illness, death.
In socio-political terms, Lombroso's theory met the interests of the ruling class, because, declaring crime a "natural", biologically determined phenomenon, this theory "rehabilitated" the ruling system, freeing it from responsibility for the existence of crime, and recognizing the "inborn criminal", unleashed the hands of the bourgeoisie in the fight against those who encroached on its interests. This assessment of Lombroso's theory is clearly confirmed by his practical implications and recommendations on the measures that society should take against criminals. Among such measures are the treatment of those who succumb to it, life imprisonment or the physical destruction of incorrigible criminals. He developed a system of special means to detect and identify a "born" criminal before he commits a crime and influence him without resorting to court. All this "theoretically" justified the nature of the created legality of that time.
Anthropological theory"born criminal" was rebuffed by Lombroso's contemporaries. Its reactionary nature was too obvious; attempts to ignore social reality in explaining the causes of crime are not valid. The tables of external signs of “born criminals” developed by Lombroso, carried out by other criminologists on a large material, turned out to be untenable, his methodology was called “frivolous”. According to the Russian lawyer V.D. Spasovich, who listened to Lombroso's report, it is very easy to fight crime. "The criminal should be measured, weighed and ... hanged." Under the influence of this criticism, Lombroso himself moved away from the biological explanation of crime, recognized, along with the “innate”, also the type of “accidental” criminal, whose behavior depends not only on personal, but also on external factors. In the work “Crime, its causes and remedies”, Lombroso outlined a scheme of crime factors containing 16 groups, including cosmic, ethnic, climatic, racial factors, civilization factors, population density, nutrition, education, upbringing, heredity and others.
Thus, the biological theory of crime, already in the works of its founder Lombroso, began to converge with the biosocial theory. This rapprochement was even more clearly manifested in the views of Lombroso's students - Ferri and Garofalo, who, while maintaining the basic provisions of biological theory, began to pay more attention to the role and significance of the social factors of crime.
The biological direction - the anthropological (Turin) school, the founder of which was C. Lombroso (1835-1909), - arose in the Italian city of Turin. In the future, the biological direction was replenished with a number of other theories, especially significant: the theory of a dangerous state and the theory of various biological predispositions (constitutional, endocrine, genetic).
In biological theories, the criminal behavior of the subject is explained by various biological characteristics of a person that predispose him to committing a crime. There is an opinion about the innate predisposition to crime in certain categories criminals. Some representatives of the biological direction suggested the use of measures that prevent dangerous behavior before it is committed.
AT different time individual representatives proposed such measures as lifelong isolation, castration, deprivation of life. The basis for their application was not the commission of a crime, but the presence of a predisposition. However, not all representatives of the biological direction were supporters of such preventive measures. Some of them believed that if individuals with a biological predisposition to crime could not be held accountable for their behavior, they should be treated as seriously ill.
2. The sociological direction gave rise to the criminal law sociological school, which used the sociology of O. Comte as its basis. Prominent representatives of this school are F. List (Germany), E. Ferri (Italy), I. Foinitskyi, S.V. Pozdyshev (Russia). These scientists put forward the idea of social conditioning of criminal behavior, without completely denying biological factors.
Already at the end of the XIX century. methods of sociological research began to be applied in criminology. In many countries, the statistics of crimes and punishments applied to criminals have been studied, data characterizing the contingent of criminals have been studied, attempts have been made to compile a list of the causes of crime, investigate their essence and evaluate them quantitatively. This allowed the first predictions of crime to be made.
In the early stages of the sociological study of crime, it was inherent to cover as many of the factors that cause crime as possible. However, the number of these factors increased, it was possible to find more and more new circumstances that contribute to the commission of crimes.
Third (modern or pluralistic). This period is characterized by a plurality of theories of the origin of crime and the formation of the identity of the offender. One way or another, they all come down to either a psychological or a biological direction in criminology. Their peculiarity is that they follow from one another, often the emergence of new theories (especially biological ones) is associated with the development of science - medicine, psychiatry, biology, etc. Consider the main of the existing theories.