Teresa Clyne

Home » Criminology

Criminology

Enter your email address to follow Teresa Clyne and receive notifications of new posts by email.

What is Criminology ?

Criminology examines why people commit crime, these are the pivotal questions in the ongoing debate of how crime should be handled and prevented. It is an area of law that deals with victims of crime, theories explaining illegal and/or deviant behaviour, the social reaction to crime, the effectiveness of anti-crime policies and the broader political terrain of social control.

Areas of expertise of Criminologists(small example)

Anomie, Social Control Theories
Labelling Theory and Critical Criminology
White Collar Crime

What is Forensic Psychology?

(The science of Behaviour)

Forensic Psychology is used within the justice system to assess offenders, identify criminal capacity in young people and to characterise psychopaths. Identify fitness to stand trial and finally they can be used to determine the likelihood of future violence. Can be used to assess the future criminality of offending minors

Areas of expertise of Forensic Psychologists (small sample)

Criminal Responsibility and Psychiatric Defences
Mental Disorder as a Defence
Eyewitness Testimony

What is Criminal Psychology?

Criminal Psychology (The study of criminal minds)

Criminal Psychology is in plain English, the study of why criminals do what they do. In essence, it is the study of the mental processes, motivational patterns, and behaviour of criminals.

Areas of expertise of Criminal Psychologists (small sample)

Offender Profiling
Geographical Profiling
Eye witness testimony

This article will critically examine the validity of the definition given by Garland, 1994, p17 that criminology is an empirically grounded, scientific undertaking (which) sets it apart from moral and legal discourses. Breaking this quote down will give the reader a starting point as to evaluate the arguments put forward in this assignment? Therefore, Garland’s claim in essence says that “Criminology is supported by research evidence and (this) sets it apart from other legal or moral discussions or opinions on deviance or criminal conduct”. (Garland. D, 2002)

Crime and criminology have been at the forefront of hot debates and heated discussion amongst the opposing bodies that in their search for the meaning of the word criminology, these debates have branched into distinct and opposing theorists of what is crime and criminology. Theoretical criminology can be explained as the internal individual personal explanation which is based on social and cultural interpretation of criminality.

Criminologists study the criminal actions of offenders; these actions are defined by law as “criminal”, as opposed to the legal and moral discourses which are set forward in sociology, and concern itself more with deviance and control in society,

Criminological empirical research and the sociological discourses (thinking or ideas) of deviance and social control are distinct but nonetheless work together in similar fashions insofar that it attempts to explain “sociology (deviance) and “prove empirically (criminality)” criminal behaviour in terms of biological (taking gender and social factors into consideration) ecological psychological and finally economic factors into consideration.

In order to critically analyse Garlands statement I will first need to discuss the two approaches (or orientations) which are prevalent in the search for a classification or definition of crimes. The Applied Criminology approach and the Theoretical Approach. Both camps have their own unique style and approach to defining crime and criminology.

The first approach is Applied Criminology, this approach will be explained briefly as this assignment will be dealing more with the theoretical approach, but I will define the applied approach in order to progress to the theoretical one and therefore to the bones of my critical discussion. Applied Criminology is known as the application of ideals and knowledge to reduce crime in society. The two distinct ideals inside applied criminology gave rise to opposing ideals, the first in classicism (which was dealt with in the last assignment) and positivism, which in essence is an explanation of criminality by addressing the causes of crime rather than the applied theory of reducing the crimes themselves.(Portsmouth, 20). I will start this assignment from the phase in criminology known as the second phase, or the politicisation of criminology (Portsmouth, 2013)

Body

Modern criminology, is a discipline or a body of discipline, consisting of investigation, knowledge and research theories which are recognised by the professional criminological bodies. The discipline founds its knowledge and empirically tests its theories and knowledge, which is then peer reviewed in journals and periodicals.

On the other hand there are the legal and moral discourses which are set forward in sociology, these are ideals, ideals which are dealing more with opinions on deviance in society and how criminals are “outside” society’s norms. “There has always been a tension between those scholars who see criminology as an auxiliary and applied science in which to contribute to a more efficient criminal justice system, and those who see it as critique of law and order.” (van Swaaningen, 1999, p. 8). “Criminology’s object is not a self‐generated theoretical entity or a naturally‐occurring phenomenon but instead a state‐defined social problem’”. (Garland, 2009)

Modern criminology is based on two distinct theories of crime, applied criminology (which has already been dealt with in the previous assignment) and theoretical criminology, which is the approach I shall be using in this assignment.

Theoretical criminology is an approach which questions the theories put forward by applied criminology, critically analysing state control in people’s lives, “challenging the otherwise accepted authority of the state… agents acting on behalf of the state and their policies and approaches to social problems provides the backdrop…. in part, explains why left wing criminology came about and why throughout this time it developed an increasingly more radical theoretical position” (Portsmouth, 2013)
“Competing theoretical perspectives meet and sometimes they are able to speak to, listen to and understand each other, at others they appear not to share any common discourse”. (McLaughlin & Muncie, 2006). This statement appears to give rise to conflicting theories within the left wing thinkers, McLaughlin and Muncie were of the opinion the left and right wing theorists were not in fact disagreeing on major lines of discourse but were on completely different sides of the argument with little or no understanding of each other.

Theoretical criminology approaches like applied criminology has two separate perspectives inside its discipline which are sociological and radical criminology. Sociological criminology was concerned with relative behaviour, this means that this perspective of sociological theoretical criminology explored the individuals own personal meaning (what the crime means to the person committing it)as opposed to the radical criminological approach in the (1960’s and 1970’s) which saw the development of radical left wing criminology and the belief that he problems of crime lay not with the individual people but with the state and state control. (Portsmouth, 2013), furthermore, radical left wing theorists went so far as to say that criminal behaviour was normal, or more precisely that some societies would class some behaviours as relativistic insofar as a “behaviour” may be socially acceptable in one group of people in society may be repugnant to another. This theory of normality in criminality caused great strains with the discipline of criminology and it furthered the left wind theorists belief that they were being somehow overshadowed by the sociological theorists who believed that this radical normality was repugnant to the criminal justice system.

Sociological theorists believe that not only is crime and deviance a normal part of society it is part of the social structure in society whereas radical theorists ask why some acts are classed as criminal, who gained from this act being a criminal act despite no actual harm having being done, radical theorists asked questions such as interest was it in to have the act “criminal act” deemed as criminal, who would benefit from it? As stated by Chadick & Scraton “not all harmful acts are defined as crimes and not all crimes are necessarily harmful” (Chadwick, K., & Scraton, P. (2006)). This statement could be construed to mean that criminality in society is defined by the judiciary would believe that specific acts perpetrated by certain members of society cause harm because politicians or even some members of society say it is a crime. In the 1960’s + questioning became the norm, theoretical criminology had entered into a new phase, a new era whereby influence from the USA was at the forefront of criminological debates, debates on racism, and war, questioning the “rights” of war, the “rights” of racism, this radical turn was not as evident in the UK or Ireland although the partition of Ireland in particular Northern Ireland was at the forefront of the radical questioning of the State, critical analyses by left wing theorists insofar as questioning the policy maker and state involvement in social engineering which brought about the welfare state. The welfare state as far as the left wing theorists was akin to a nanny state, state control of the populous was thought to be the aim and the radical theorist became very vocal in having their views heard.

“Questions of the politics of law and order, rather than empirical questions of causation or evaluation necessitate understanding the political-social context in which policy-making takes place. They also involve reflexive consideration of criminology’s own role in relation to the exercise of power in society”. (Hudson, B. (2000)). This statement only fuels the internal combustion of theoretical criminology, how even amongst the left wing and right wing arenas in criminology there is much debate, so many different and conflicts ideologies, “there is as much division within each political wing as there is between them. It is nearly impossible to identify for certain which vein of political ideology each theory and theorist subscribes to because there is much borrowing of ideas, crossover and overlap between the theories and theorists” (Portsmouth, 2013). There is also the belief held by Garland that “criminology investigates a very large array of problems and uses a range of research methods and data sets of every description while drawing on a wide spectrum of theoretical perspectives and disciplines like sociology, psychology, law, history, anthropology, public health, biology, economics and political science”. “Garland, 2009). The empirical grounding which Garland speaks of appears to be a phase of “throwing ideas into a pot” and seeing which ones come out the strongest in competing arguments. Left and right wing theorist had no one line school of thought, this school of thought appears to move and change amongst individual theorists and not a “wing” there is so much conflicting ideas within each “wing” that it is almost impossible to differentiate between the ideology belongs to except the fact that the left wing ideologies still blame the state for all of the problems in criminology and to pick the bones of an argument to see the ideology can be difficult and in fact a student may have to disseminate the statements of theorists in great detail to gain and understanding of that particular theorist ideologies and therefore gain an insight into whether the particular theorists is left wing radical or right wing sociological.

Other theorists claim that “criminology, no less than economics, is dismal science inclined to negativity and critique, and less positively disposed towards normative theorising”. (Zedner, 2003). The deeper into the 1960’s and 1970’s the more the radical left wing theories came to the forefront, Theorists and researchers alike came together to attempt to define the “discipline”, the Left wing radical theorists and the liberal sociological theorists could still not agree on any kind of definition. Both of these opposing thoughts produced its own problems, one side the “sociological” claiming that defining the meaning of the behaviour was important whereas the “radical” claiming that it was the institutions of the state which bore the responsibility for deviance and therefore the argument continues with both opposing sides claiming their argument is the correct one. Which bring back to the argument put forward in Garland’s statement, that criminology is empirically grounded and different from other discourses. Which in itself seems to be advocating this statement but on further research it can be noted that Garland in fact somewhat disagreed with this statement, he made this as a statement of opposing viewpoints, how the discipline has emerged over the centuries with some theorists stating that “social science is not to be regarded as completely objective representations of reality” (Reiner, 2006) Insofar as empirical explanations go Rainer in his stance against the legitimacy of the statement that criminology is empirically grounded due to the need for evidence to be researched, that he claimed “‘There are of course enormous problems in interpreting recorded trends in crime” (Rainer, 2006). This is also reiterated by Hudson when he stated that, “Questions of the politics of law and order, rather than empirical questions of causation or evaluation necessitate understanding the political-social context in which policy-making takes place. They also involve reflexive consideration of criminology’s own role in relation to the exercise of power in society”. Hudson (2000, p. 176), there is in essence an understanding between sociological and radical theorists after the founding of the NDC the National Deviancy Conference, which was described by Cohen, as a sceptical deviancy theory. (Cohen, 1971). “This perspective, borrowing from labelling, interactionist and sociological criminology that were present in America, provided the embryo from which more radical perspectives were to emerge”. (Portsmouth, 2013). Some of those theorists who joined forces with the development of the NDC branched out into separate camps once again, this in turn caused some of them to change their viewpoint or stance regarding state control of the populous.

It can then be said that there are two distinct political stances which are associated with Criminology, Firstly there is the right wing movements, they believe that the state should have restricted intervention when referring to social policies and freedom of movement and expression, and then we have the left wing movements, they in complete contrast believe that there should be extensive intervention with regard to social policies and freedom of movement and expression. “Criminologically this translates into the twin pillars of the discipline: that of free will and individual responsibility, which underlies crime control and retributive justice, compared to a concern with achieving social justice and equality through a critical examination of the practices of the state” (Portsmouth, 2013).

Conclusion

There seems to be “discourse” amongst the theorists who claim to know what criminology actually is, there are the theorists that believe that “As a discipline, criminology is shaped only to a small extent by its own theoretical logic and logic of inquiry. Its epistemological threshold is a low one, making it open to radical innovation but also prone to the intellectual disorganization of eclecticism” (Garland, 2002). What Garland seems to be advocating is that inquiry is not in itself proof, nor is questionnaires or surveys, this statement appears to suggest that Garland is not of the opinion that Empirically grounded research is at the forefront but rather agreeing with Turner “many, if not most criminologists would now accept… the kind of knowledge, or ‘truth’, that emerges at any given time is a contingent, temporary and socially constructed thing”. (Turner, E, 2013), she also stated that she was somewhat sceptical about the quality of research and research based results and quantitative proof, she also raised concerns that “exasperation in the face of the sheer diversity of criminological theories, methods and findings’.
This would suggest that some commentators are not at all of the belief that criminology is empirically grounded, it would even go so far as to suggest that it is in disarray and a mash if ideals and theories with little empirical evidence.

Turner also states that this is commonplace in today’s criminological circles her theories claim that “many, if not most criminologists would not accept, that the kind of knowledge or “truth” that emerges at any given time is a contingent, temporary and socially constructed thing’ (Turner, E. 2013). Other writers and theorists claim that in fact not all empirical research comes from tried and tested routes, in a review of many of the major criminological journals in the 70’s and 80’s suggests that there is a dominance of “inductive and quantitative empiricism methods” (Holmes M & Taggart W. 1990), this research suggests that up to 76% of all research is not in fact empirical but inductive in the majority of criminological articles that were Published,

Therefore it is my opinion that most of the research which is presented in articles, and the statement which suggests that criminology is empirically grounded and separate for other discourses is not in fact completely true, there are some proofs that yes indeed it is empirically grounded, for instance the argument that “ criminologists pursued ‘causal explanations’ and relied on ‘correlational research designs, cross‐sectional data and multivariate statistics … due to the ‘predictive’ value and influence of quantitative research on criminal justice research. (Worrall, 2000). These theories suggest that a vast amount of “empirical” data is in fact humans are by their nature creatures of habit, they will commit crimes for specific reasons and in specific way and that a lot of this research is based on having studied that past and present of criminals and not in fact the grounding which many claim. I am of the opinion that a vast amount of research conducted in completely subjective and not objective in nature, it is the egocentrical research of many criminologist and therefore unconventional. In order for criminology to thrive and subsist alongside social science it must have more research based results, but on level par with sociology and psychology of offending, even in the judiciary.
Students in criminology should be made aware of the difficulties posed by the claims the “criminology is empirically grounded”, how to radically prove this not just “claim” it, the more research policies that exist within criminology the more it seems to crack, split and diversify, more and more theorists are looming and waiting to have there “claims” heard. Criminology appears to be moving away from a distinct discipline and is moving towards a multi denomination band of “disciplines” and there appears to be a smearing of the lines of the who’s who in criminological theories. All vying and competing for a place in the spotlight and in essence claiming that they are the theorists with the “empirically” grounded explanation of what criminology actually is.

References
Chadwick, K., & Scraton, P. (2006). Criminalization. In E. McLaughlin, & J. Muncie (Eds). The Sage dictionary of criminology (2nd ed., p. 95). London: Sage.

Garland. David, 2002; Of crimes and criminals: the development of criminology in Britain. University Press, 2002, p. 7-50.

Holmes M & Taggart W (1990) A comparative analysis of research methods in
Criminology and criminal justice journals.

Hudson, B. (2000). Critical reflection as research methodology. In V. Jupp, P. Davies, & P. Francis (Eds), Doing criminological research (pp. 175–192). London: Sage

McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (2006). The Sage dictionary of criminology (2nd ed.). London: Sage. p. xiii

Portsmouth University, 2013, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, Criminology and Criminal Psychology. Criminology – U21920 – Chapter 4 -8

Reiner R (2006) Beyond risk: A lament for social democratic criminology. Oxford
University Press

Turner E (2013) Beyond ‘facts’ and ‘values’: Rethinking some recent debates about the role of public criminology. British Journal of Criminology

Van Swaaningen, R. (1999). Reclaiming critical criminology: social justice and the European tradition. Theoretical Criminology, 3(1), P.8.

Worrall J (2000) In defence of the quantoids: More on the reasons for
The quantitative emphasis in criminal justice education and research. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education

Zedner, L. (2003). Useful knowledge? Debating the role of criminology in post-war Britain. In L. Zedner, & A. Ashworth (Eds), The criminological foundations of penal policy (pp. 197–235) Oxford: Oxford University Press

*******************************************************************

This article will in evaluate the formation of modern criminology and the institutions which were formed from its birth. The institutions of state and the progression of the judiciary and courts and other institutions which underpin it, this essay will also look at what changes have come about in crime and criminals as a result of advances in criminology, what influenced the formation of criminology and how modern criminology underwrites the architecture and modern reform principles including penal, criminal and social policies in Ireland and throughout the world. Criminology is defined more in terms of being a field than a discipline; (Lea. J, 1998).

This field or discipline (depending n the individual interpretation) is both multifaceted and circumstantial. Firstly, multifaceted due to the nature of what drives crime in the modern world including, demographic, legislative and economic factors, there is also circumstantial evidenced by historical and social influences such as education and social and family values, All of these factors determine our view of criminology and crime. This essay will also hit on how criminology has intertwining links with psychology, biology and sociology. These three disciplines are in agreement as to the nature of crime and inherent causes, nevertheless, the biological and psychological theorists believe the behaviour of individuals are traits we care born with, meanwhile, sociologists believe that society as a whole is a factor in the behaviour of individuals. i.e. how the lack of hierarchy in social groups and close family ties such as the emergence of the nuclear family, this family is one unit compacted into inherent isolation, these in turn impact on social controls. (Park, R. E et al 1925).

This article will also evaluate the basic questions regarding criminology; it will also look at the influences which impacted on modern criminology including its birth in classicism and positivism (Jacobs. M, 2014) and it progression from pre modern to modern applied criminology;

1) what is criminology?,
2) what does it mean to be a criminologist?,
3) what were the influences which were paramount in the birth of modern criminology, i.e. phase one which is from 1945-1970 which is when applied criminology was used.
4) in what way has modern criminology come to underwrite criminal, penal and social policies from its modern beginnings in the 1940’s until the end of the 60’s?

This era in criminology is the dawn of applied criminology as opposed to theoretical criminology which came later in the 1970’s, it aims to reduce crime by using empirical research and practical proven theory results to reduce crime and criminal behaviour in society. There will also be some discussion on the findings and thoughts of Van Swaaningen and McLaughlin and Muncie definitions of crimes. Although not part of the construction of this essay classicism will be briefly discussed so as to explain the formation of criminology from brass roots or its beginnings in classicism in the pre modern era.

The modern era and applied criminology.

Crime and Criminal behaviour is something that affects everyone. There has always been a tension between those… who see criminology as an auxiliary and applied science … which contribute to a more efficient criminal justice system… and those who use it as a critique of law and order.(van Swaaningen, 1999 cited by Marc Jacobs).

The question over the Centuries has been, why do some people commit crime? People on the whole are law abiding citizens. Criminology is concerned with how people’s values and beliefs structure society and the investigations as to what causes people to commit crimes.

To begin the journey through criminology it must start with some basic questions;

1) What is Criminology?. Criminology is concerned with social order, how people conduct themselves inside this social law and order, it is concerned with why people commit crime and what can be done to reduce the crime rates and recidivism amongst offenders, and in doing this the institutions of the penal system are introduced to punish the wrongdoers and deter others from committing the same crimes, another example of criminology is deterrence by society itself, people taking steps to protect themselves and their property, i.e. a retail unit owner ensuring alarms, cameras, cctv etc and bolts and locks on the entrances and windows. In order to understand modern criminology it is imperative to understand the era before this, called the pre modern era, this is the forefront of modern criminology, the 18th Century saw the Classicism movement, this movement saw criminology in the scope of moral reasoning, philosophies and the legislation which was structured around natural justice at this time, (Portsmouth university, 2012) and this time in history was driven by religious authority and it was believed that those who committed crimes were possessed by evil spirits and had to be cleansed from sin and therefore there was some grotesquely barbaric rituals performed on people in the name of justice. In Ireland and the UK the crown (king or queen) had the decision on the form of justice which would be unleashed, it was not uniform, there wasn’t one set punishment (precedent in today’s society) for any particular crime, the punishment depended on your city, sheriff, or even town rules were at that moment in time, for instance withchcraft was a pre modern crime due to religious influences in punishment, whereas in pre modern society and penal codes this was not a crime, the punishment depended on the sheriff etc, it was up to them to decide the punishment. As this era came to an end the purpose of the criminal justice system was changing, it was becoming a discipline whereby a person will decide for themselves if the punishment for the crime they are about to commit is worth the possible consequences, (was the crime worth the time?)this is when the criminal justice system was attempting to deter offending rather than have horrendous punishments for offences (Portsmouth, 2012) and this gave rise to the is era brought psychotherapist, psychiatrists and bodies of academic knowledge to back up their findings, treating the offenders, keeping them in prison for a determined amount of time in order to ascertain the reasons for their offending for them to be rehabilitated and returned to society. This era did not necessarily deter offending or recidivism as the offenders lived in a societal hierarchy with abject poverty and high wealth at opposite spectrums and therefore the classicism view of offender being liable for their own thoughts and behaviours was difficult to distinguish insofar as the abjectly poor often committed crimes to supply their basic human needs such as food. The need for hedonistic pleasure seeking was also addressed; this view stated that inherently people who commit hedonistic crimes are no different to the rest of society, (Mc Laughlin and Muncie, 2001). Another rational in the classicism era was “differential association” we learn by example is a theory of Sutherland, this is based on the theory of reinforcement, humans reinforce themselves with on objects which are reinforces, the belief that criminality was a learning curve, people learnt how to commit crimes as well as those who learnt to be law abiding, and that reinforcers such as money, sex power etc are a power persuasive tool pertaining to crime (E.H. Sutherland & D. Cressey 1992) This era gave was to the “modern” criminology with the emergence of positivism (Individual) in the 19th Century and (social) in the 20th Century.

Social positivism was more concerned with the causes of crime; this is the birthplace of modern criminology. There are three stages in modern criminology, Phase one is the phase I will be dealing with today, the post was consensus, otherwise known as applied criminology, applied criminology can be defined as “a body of knowledge that has practical application through measures that seek to reduce crime or reduce criminal behaviour” (Marc Jacobs, 2013). Positivism aimed at reducing the criminality (i.e. reduce the numbers of people who are committing crimes) rather than the crime, this aimed to reduce the amount of people who made the conscious choice to break the law while knowing what the consequences of their illegal behaviour. (these theories revolve around the psychological aspects and treatment of offenders). Applied criminology is practical, it is hands on. “classicism and positivism are generally understood to provide opposing ideas and concepts, what they share in common is that they offer knowledge that aims to bring about a progressive, ordered and civilised society”(Marc Jacobs, 2013). Classicism places to a large degree the emphasis on the individual, their actions and in contrast to this, how the criminal justice system dealt with their criminal behaviour, including, the courts and the penal system to include prisons and rehabilitation.

This era saw the dawning of rationalism (Marc Jacobs, 2013) however the rational institutionalism which became apparent in the pre modern criminology started to fade by the modern era and in particular the “the arbitrary, capricious and often callous forms of punishment that were used” (Beccarria and Bentham cited by Marc Jacobs) these theorists objected to this barbaric treatment of offenders. They were advocates of the punishment fitting the crime and the institution of proven guilty on a court of law became a rational in the criminal justice system, meaning that the evidence was presented and the accused was sentenced appropriately and no more, no longer were convicts being sent to penal colonies for stealing a loaf of bread, the punishment fitted the crime that the offender had committed. Here was the birth of modern criminality, whereby the need to deter the offender from reoffending was balanced alongside the need to protect the public from criminality.

In the early era of modern criminology ideologists believe that appropriate deterrence would eliminate crime all but completely, this never happened but nonetheless the ideology remained and still does to this day.

The emergence of social positivism came about when the state became involved in talking the causes of crime, i.e. cramped inner city living condition, education, health care and also criminology itself. The forefathers in modern applied criminology were Hamblin Smith and W.A. Potts, both prison doctors who were psychiatry trained, their research in the field of criminology was amongst the founding principles of criminology in the modern era. (David Garland. 2002. P29) Hamblin Smith was one of the first criminology lecturers who advocated the use of researching the individual and to find causes which pertain to individual offenders and their behaviour not societies behaviour as a whole. By the end of the 1950’s the welfare system was working to alleviate abject poverty and the aim of this was to reduce the numbers of offences committed by person who were socially and geographically at a disadvantage. Research inside the penal system became more efficient and Hamblin Smith was one of the first criminologists to introduce psychoanalysis into prison research and offenders mental state of mind pertaining to their physical behaviour. (David Garland. 2002, p33).

The discipline of criminology made large advances in the years from 1945 to 1970, this era of applied criminology led to stage two, in this new era Karl Marks and other such noted academics brought a more sociological aspect to criminology, women and civil liberty and youth groups were becoming overt in the way they sought to establish if the social constraints, penal systems and government bodies were in somehow responsible for the social disorder in society. The ending of this applied criminology era was hushed out by Theoretical criminology in the 1970’s and this will be dealt with in further assignments.

Conclusion

The modern era of criminology was well in place and settled as a field of not a discipline, (van Swaaningen, 1999 cited by Marc Jacobs), this was very evident from the research undertaken by such criminologists as Hamblin Smith and W.A. Potts, who’s psychiatric training and their access to prisoners meant they were able to undertake vast research and ensure their findings were up to date as they were able to assess their research on a consistence over the years when the inmates were incarcerated, a vast change from the early barbaric penal system where there was grossly over exaggerated consequences for even the most basic of crime, some convicts in the early penal systems were convicted and sent to other penal colonies such as Australia. Criminologists were also academics in those early days giving them an area of study to research and produce empirical results which gave credence to the earlier criminologist’s findings.

The emphasis on the individual became more structured on the individual within the community, the individual in society. The advocate of the welfare system and improved health systems were a defining factor in the development from applied to theoretical criminology. The governments attention to the betterance of the community and society as a whole means there was better educational opportunities for the community, better housing and more jobs, this in turn ensured that the barbaric treatment of offenders which was seen in the classical and pre modern times were frowned upon and the then modern criminologists refused to use this “old” criminology in the new era.

The new era was committed to ensuring that prisoner and offender’s mental wellbeing was taken into consideration when any decisions were being made in their rehabilitation or even in the sentencing of the offender in the beginning. Hamblin Smith’s research of the individual’s mental state made giant strides in the research of the behaviours of offenders, which were challenging to the criminal justice system. Education and further research into behaviours were decisive factors in the morphing of criminology from the applied to the theoretical criminology.

Research took two different fields, the Cambridge Institute and the
Home Office Research Unit. Both of these fields were in opposing ideologies in the research of criminology, both were funded by the government but took very different approaches in the research in the applied theory era. (David Garland. 2002, p39). Although both disciplines had similar funding they were varmint that they would continue to use their independence in research. Research into psychological factors of crime also advanced to a large scale and Hamblin Smith was at the forefront of using psychoanalysis to give some reasoning to the behaviour of offenders, the introduction of the welfare systems also saw the dawning of immense social change and the move form crime “in some instances” as being essential to basic survival to crimes of greed. The positive criminologists were more concerned with the causes of the crimes, to treat the cause of crime and criminality and not just to punish the wrongdoer, it can also be noted that the two fields or disciplines are still not completely in sync, there are still those… who see criminology as an auxiliary and applied science … which contribute to a more efficient criminal justice system… and those who use it as a critique of law and order.(van Swaaningen, 1999 cited by Marc Jacobs). The only difference is now these discipline continue to branch off into new fields and areas of further study. Criminology is constantly evolving and it will continue to do so. Criminology will also continue to have conflict with the penal authorities. There are evolving trains of thought as to the path criminology will take in the future, there continues to be vast amounts of academic research still ongoing and other trains of thought like for instances classical or pre modern are no longer tolerated, psychological research also play a large part in research of offending behaviours. The original questions which this essay sought to answer bring,

1) what is criminology?, criminology up to the 1960 was applied empirical research based on new and emerging criminology field.

2) what does it mean to be a criminologist?,
Being a criminologist depended on the area to which the criminologist was studying, like Hamblin Smith and W.A. Potts, who introduced psychoanalysis into the research of criminology.

3) what were the influences which were paramount in the birth of modern criminology, i.e. phase one which is from 1945-1970 which is when applied criminology was used.
The influences ranged from, education, housing, welfare, researching the individual committing the crime not just a society causing crimes.

4) in what way has modern criminology come to underwrite criminal, penal and social policies from its modern beginnings in the 1940’s until the end of the 60’s?.

From the 1940’s and 1950’s the impact of crime on society became a social and political agenda, the government (state)attempted to accomplish social control by imposing statutory bodies and legislation which would make the apprehension, trial and sentencing of criminals a more uniform and liberal process, therefore the progression in the pre modern phase to modern criminology is ideally set out to steer possible offenders away from committing crime arming them with the tools to use the institutions which have emerged to ensure that they do not enter a life of crime, such modern institutions as social workers, researchers, psychologists, councillors and other professionals whose jobs it is to reduce crime in the community and in turn make society safer for the general community. Criminology continues to evolve, its is an ever increasing circles which brings new topics, new genres and new fields or disciplines into its interdisciplinary theories of where criminology has come from to where it may possibly be going.

References;
Can Swaaningen, R. (1999). Reclaiming critical criminology: social justice and the European tradition. Theoretical Criminology, cited by

Marc Jacobs [ONLINE]
http://moodle.port.ac.uk/mod/book/view.php?id=201728%5Blast accessed]11th February 2014

Sutherland, Edwin H. and Cressey, Donald. 1992. Principles of Criminology. 11th ed. Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press

(Jacobs. M, 2013) Jacobs; Applied Criminology Institute of Criminal Studies. Portsmouth University. UK[ONLINE] http://moodle.port.ac.uk/mod/book/view.php?id=201728&chapterid=42394 [last accessed]11th February 2014

David Garland. 2002; Of crimes and criminals the development of criminology in Britain. Introduction: the contingent character of contemporary criminology p.29

David Garland. 2002; Of crimes and criminals the development of criminology in Britain. Introduction: the contingent character of contemporary criminology p.33
David Garland. 2002; Of crimes and criminals the development of criminology in Britain. Introduction: the contingent character of contemporary criminology p.39

(Jacobs. M, 2013) Jacobs; Criminology (DL) (2013) Institute of Criminal Studies. Portsmouth University. UK[ONLINE] http://moodle.port.ac.uk/mod/book/view.php?id=201728&chapterid=42394 [last accessed]11th February 2014

Lea. John, (1998) personal website,[ONLINE]http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/LAST ACCESSED 11 FEBRUARY 2014
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The city. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (Eds.). (2001). The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. London: Sage
Portsmouth University; The nature of criminology; Modern Criminology[ONLINE]http://compass.port.ac.uk/UoP/file/e9b29701-086b-4950-a723-c30ca68e1b81/1/The%20Nature%20of%20Criminology_IMSLRN.zip/page_03.htm; last accessed 13-2-2014

Advertisements

Your comments are important to me.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Four Courts

Dublin Round Hall

The Irish Legal System

Private Investigation Course

«

October 2017

»
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
%d bloggers like this: