INTRODUCTION

While explaining the meaning of ‘Schools of Criminology’, Sutherland pointed out that it connotes the system of thought which consists of an integrated theory of causation of crime and the policies of control implied in the theory of causation. Each school of criminology tries to explain the causation of crime and criminal behavior in its own manner and suggests punishment and preventive measures for the same. It must also be stated that each of the school represents the social attitude of the people towards crime and criminal during the given time period.

The schools of criminology can be divided as:

1. Pre- Classical School of Criminology
2. The Classical School
3. The Neo – Classical School of Criminology
4. The Positive School
5. Clinical School of Criminology
6. Sociological School of Criminology

Pre- Classical School of Criminology

During the seventeenth and eighteenth century there was a domination of religion in State activities and during the same period Europe was dominated by Saint Thomas Acquinas (1225 – 1274). As the scientific knowledge was yet unknown to the mankind, the concept of crime was rather vague and obscure. There was a general belief that man by his nature is simple creature and his actions are controlled by a greater power, the greater power here, being ‘demon’ of ‘devil’ and hence, the school is also often called ‘demonological school of criminology’. Thus, an offender commits a wrongful act not because of freewill but due to the influence of some external power. No attempt was made to probe into the real cause of crime during this pre-classical school. This demonological theory that was propounded considered crime and criminals as evidence of the fact that an individual was possessed of devil or demon and the only cure for which was testimony of effectiveness of the spirit. Worships, sacrifices, and ordeals by water and fire were usually prescribed to specify the spirit and relieve the victim from ‘evil influence’. Trial by battle was a common mode of deciding the fate of the criminal. The right of the society to punish a criminal, however, was well recognized. The offender was regarded as an innately depraved person who could be cured by torture and pain.

The principle of divine intervention especially through ordeals was in vogue ancient India as well. The oaths and ordeals played a very important role in the ancient judicial system in determining the guilt of the offender. A general belief surrounding these rituals was that “when the human agency fails, recourse to divine means of proof becomes most inevitable”. The validity of these rituals has been questioned since the ancient times; such was in Purvapaksa. The system, however, fell into disuse with the advent of British rule in India and subsequent rationalization of the penal law.

The Classical School

Beccaria, during the middle eighteenth century expounded his naturalistic theory of criminality by rejecting the omnipotence of evil spirit. He laid greater emphasis on mental phenomenon of individual and attributed crime to “free will’. He was highly influenced by the utilitarian philosophy of his time which placed a great reliance on hedonism, namely, the “pain and pleasure theory”. This doctrine implied the notion of causation in terms of one’s free choice to commit crime by rational man seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. The greatest achievement of this school lies in the fact that it suggested a substantial criminal policy which was easy to administer without resort to the imposition of arbitrary punishment. The main tenets of classical school are:

1. Man’s emergence from the State’s religious fanaticism involved the application of his reason as a responsible individual. This theory is based on the assumption that an individual can control his conduct by exercising his power of will and mind, meaning, the human behavior is ‘self-generated’. The fear of punishment can bring a change in human will and persuade him to desist from committing crime.
2. It is the act of an individual and not his intent which forms the basis for determining criminality within him. In other words, criminologists are concerned with the act of the criminal rather than his intent.
3. The writers of this period accepted punishment as a principal method of infliction of pain, humiliation and disgrace to create fear in man to control his behavior.
4. Prevention of crime was considered more important than the punishment. Beccaria, in his work on “Crimes and Punishments” denounced retributive basis of punishment and observed that the aim of punishment should be to prevent criminal from committing new crimes against his countrymen, and to keep others from doing likewise.
5. The right of the State to punish the offenders in the interest of public security was advocated during this period. Relying on the principle of hedonism, it was pointed out that individualization was to be the basis of punishment. In other words, punishment was to be awarded keeping in view the pleasure derived by the criminal from the crime and the pain caused to the victim.
6. The exponents of classical school believed that criminal law primarily rests on positive sanctions. They abhorred torturous punishments and were against the arbitrary use of power by the judges

The contribution of classical school to the development of the rationalized criminological thinking was by no means less important, but it had its own pitfalls. The major shortcoming of this school was that it proceeded on an abstract presumption of free will and relied solely on the act without devoting any attention to the state of mind of the criminal. It erred in prescribing equal punishment for the same offence thus making no distinction between first offenders and habitual criminals and varying degrees of gravity of offence.

The Neo – Classical School

It did not take long for thinkers to realize that the exponents of classical school faultered in their approach in ignoring the individual differences under certain situations and treating first offenders and habitual alike on basis of similarity of act or crime. During the classical era, the imposition of sentence was considered as a routine exercise, however, during the neo-classical era, the need for variation in sentencing on the basis of age, sex, mental conditions, etc. was recognized. The neo-classist asserted that offenders to certain categories, such as, minors, idiots, insane or incompetent had to be treated leniently in matters of punishment irrespective of the similarity of their criminal act, because these people were incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. The main tenets of the neo – classical school of criminology are as:

1. Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by recognizing that certain extenuating situations or mental disorders deprive a person of his normal capacity to control his conduct. Thus, they justified mitigation of equal punishment in cases of certain psychopathic offenders.
2. Neo-classists were the first to bring out a distinction between the first-time offenders and recidivist. They supported individualization of offender and treatment methods which required the punishment to suit the psychopathic circumstances of the accused.
3. The advocates of this school started with the assumption that man acting on reason and intelligence is self-determining person and therefore, is responsible for his conduct. But those lacking normal intelligence or having some mental depravities are irresponsible to their conduct and therefore, should be treated differently from the responsible offenders.
4. Thought the neo-classists recommended lenient treatment for irresponsible offenders, they certainly believed that every offender, whether responsible or irresponsible, should be kept segregated from the society.
5. It is through this school that attention of criminologists was drawn for the first time towards the fact that all crimes do have a cause.
6. Neo-classists adopted subjective approach to criminology and concentrated their attention on the conditions under which an individual commits crime.

The main contribution of this school lies in the fact hat it came out with certain concessions in the ‘free will’ theory and suggested that an individual might commit crime due to certain extenuating circumstances which should be duly taken into consideration at the time of awarding punishment. As to the shortcomings of this school, it must be stated that the exponents of this school believed that the criminal, whether responsible or irresponsible, is a menace to the society and therefore, needs to be eliminated from it.

The Positive School

By the nineteenth century certain French doctors had successfully established that it was neither ‘free will’ of the offender nor his innate depravity which actuated him to commit crime, but the real cause of criminality lay in anthropological features of the criminals. Some phrenologist tried to demonstrate the organic functioning of brain and established the relationship between criminality and the structure and functioning of the brain. This led to the emergence of positive school of criminology. The advocates of positive school attributed criminality into four distinct types, namely,

1. Physical criminal type
2. Mental type
3. Psychopath type, and
4. Socio-economic disadvantage type

There exponents of this school were three eminent Italian criminologists, namely, Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo and Enrico Ferri. It is for this reason that this school is also called the Italian School of Criminology.

Cesare Lombroso (1836 – 1909)

The first attempt to understand the personality of offender in physical terms was made my Lombroso, who is also regarded as the originator of modern criminology. He was educated in medicine and became a specialist in psychiatry. Cesare Lombroso was the first to employ scientific methods in explaining criminal behavior and shifted the emphasis from crime to criminal. He adopted an objective and empirical approach to the study of criminals through is anthropological experiments. After studying the physical characteristics of criminals, he came to a conclusion that criminals were physically inferior in the standard of growth and therefore, developed a tendency for inferior acts. He further generalized that criminal are less sensitive to pain and therefore, they have little regard for the suffering of others. He classified criminals into three main categories:

1. The Atavist or hereditary criminals – Lombroso also termed them as ‘born-criminals’. In his opinion born-criminals were a distinct type who could not refrain from indulging in criminality and environment had no relevance whatsoever to the crimes committed by the Atavist. He considered these criminals as incorrigible, i.e., beyond reformation. According to him, offender or the criminal reflected a reversion to an early and more primitive stage of mankind when individuals were both mentally and physically inferior. They resembled those of apes and possessed ape-like characteristics. He enumerated as many as sixteen physical abnormalities of criminal some of which were of peculiar size and shape of head, eye, enlarged jaw and cheek bones, fleshy lips, abnormal teeth, long or flat chin, retreating forehead, dark skin, twisted nose and so on.
2. Insane Criminals – The second category of criminals according to Lombroso was insane criminals who resorted to criminality on account of certain mental depravity or disorder.
3. Criminoids – These were the third category of criminals according to him. The criminals of this category were physical criminal type and had tendency to commit crime in order to overcome their inferiority in order to meet the needs of survival.

While analyzing cause of crime, Lombroso laid great emphasis on the biological nature of human behavior and thus, indirectly drew attention of criminologists to the impact of environment on crime causation. The importance of Lombroso’s work lies in its scientific methodology and his rejection of ‘free-will’ theory.

Enrico Ferri (1856 – 1928)

He was another chief exponent of the positive school of criminology. Ferri challenged Lombrosian view of criminality. Through his research, he proved that mere biological reasons were not enough to account for criminality. He firmly believed that other factors such as emotional reaction, social infirmity or geographical conditions also play a vital role in determining criminal tendencies in men. The major contribution of Ferri to criminology is in his “Law of Criminal Saturation”. This theory presupposes that the crime is the synthetic product of three main factors:

1. Physical or geographical;
2. Anthropological; and
3. Psychological or social.

Thus, Ferri emphasized that criminal behavior is an outcome of a variety of factors having their combined effect on the individual. According to him, social change, which is inevitable in a dynamic society; results in disharmony, conflict, and cultural variations. As a result of this, social disorganization takes place and traditional patterns of social control mechanism totally break down. In the wake of such rapid social changes, the incidence of crime is bound to increase tremendously.

Ferri emphasized that a criminal should be treated as a product of the conditions which played his life. Therefore, the basic purpose of crime prevention programme should be to remove conditions making for crime. He worked out five-fold classification of criminals, namely:

1. Born criminals;
2. Occasional criminals;
3. Passionate criminals;
4. Insane criminals; and
5. Habitual criminals.

He suggested an intensive programme of crime prevention and recommended a series of measures for treatment of offenders. He asserted that punishment could be one of the possible methods of reforming the criminal. He favored indeterminate sentence keeping in view the possible chances of inmate’s re-adjustment in the community.

Raffaele Garofalo (1852 – 1934)

Raffaele Garofalo was one of the three main exponents of positive school of criminology. Born in Naples in 1852, he started his career as a Magistrate in Italian Courts and rose to the position on Minister of Justice in 1903. He stressed the need for a closer study of the circumstances and living condition of criminals. He firmly believed that a criminal is a creature of his own environment. Rejecting the classical theory of free-will as a cause of crime, Garofalo defined crime as an act which offends the sentiments of pity and probity possessed by an average person and which are injurious to the society. He emphasized that lack of pity generates crime against person while lack of probity leads to crime against property. As a classification of criminals, he rejected Ferri’s classification and placed offenders into four main categories, namely;

1. Murderers whom he called “endemic” criminals lacking sentiments of pity and probity;
2. Violent criminals who are affected by environmental influences such as prejudice of honor, politics and religion indicating lack of pity;
3. Criminals lacking in sentiment of probity such as thieves; and
4. Lascivious or lustful criminals who commit crimes against sex and chastity. They have deficient moral perception.

As a member of the Italian judiciary, Garofalo was well acquainted with the then existing criminal law and procedure in the administration of criminal justice and recommended death, imprisonment for life or transportation and reparation as three modes of punishment for criminals. He strongly pleaded for elimination of habitual offenders who were incapable of social adaption as a measure of social defense.

Gabriel Tarde (1843 – 94)

Gabriel Tarde was a critic of positive school of criminology. He asserted that influence of social environment was most emphatic on the criminal behavior and the biological and physical factors only had a casual effect on it. He pointed out that law of insertion and imitation was responsible for the incidence of crime. The members of society are prone to imitate the behaviour of their associates. Likewise, the inferior members have the tendency to imitate their superiors. Consequently, as regards crimes, the beginners have a tendency to imitate the acts of habitual criminals and thus they lend into criminality. Tarde classified criminals into urban and rural types and expressed a view that crimes in urban areas are far more serious in nature than those in rural places.

Trade in his theory of ‘imitation and suggestions’ pointed out that criminality is learnt through three distinct laws of imitation, i.e.,

1. The law of close contact or association,
2. Inferiors imitating their superiors, and
3. The law of insertion.

He emphasized that as the society grows and population becomes denser, the deviant behavior would be oriented more towards short term behavior called fashion rather than custom which signifies long term behavior.

Clinical School of Criminology

There was a greater emphasis on emotional aspect of human nature with development in the field of psychology. This newly equipped knowledge enabled modern criminologists to understand the criminal behavior of offenders in its proper perspective. Prof. Gillin, therefore, remarked that the theory of modern clinical school on the side of crimogenesis presupposes offender as a product of his biological inheritance conditioned in his development by experiences of life to which he has been exposed from infancy up to the time of commission of crime. Thus, clinical school takes into account variety of factors. It also suggests that criminals who do not respond in a positive manner to correctional methods must be punished with imprisonment or transportation for life. The victims of social conditions should be subjected to correctional methods such as parole, probation, reformatories, open-air camps etc. The main theme of clinical school is that personality of man is a combination of internal and external factors therefore, punishment should depend upon the personality of the accused.

Sociological School of Criminology

This school seeks to locate causation of crime in social environment. Sociologists successfully established that factors such as mobility, culture, religion, economy, political ideologies, density of population, employment situation, etc., have a direct bearing on the incidence of crime in a given society. Placing reliance on these multiple causes, Sutherland sought to explain various processes through which a person become criminal. In his theory of Differential Association, he suggested that human personality and culture are directly related and a person becomes a criminal mostly by the chain if events in which he associates. It is for this reason that sociological school is often called ‘rational school of criminology’ which recommends the application of humanitarian methods for treatment of offenders. The person prone to criminality must be treated by persuasive methods rather than traditional punitive methods.