Criminological Theory Quotes

“Chapter 3•The Positive School
claSSIfIcatIon of the School
The Positive School is characterized by a consensus perspective. All the theories developed
under its mantle assume the existence of a core set of values in society that can be used to determine and treat deviance. Positivists did not question the validity of their categories of harmful
acts or the desirability of treating people. In fact, their assumption of consensus was so strong
that they rarely ever questioned their own actions, even when “exterminating” groups of people
designated as socially harmful. Other than the consensus perspective, the wide range of positivist theories makes any attempt at categorizing them very difficult. Positivist theories can be
either structural or processual, so no definitive classification is possible. However, we can state
that sociological theories have, as a rule, been structurally oriented and macrotheoretical, while
biological and psychological theories have been processual and microtheoretical.
Summary
The work of the Positive School, diverse as it was,
represented the first real concern with studying the behavior of the criminal. As Rafter (2006)
explains, before Lombroso, crime was studied only
by metaphysicians, moralists, and penologists. His
work turned the field into a truly biosocial science.
Embracing the scientific method, positivists took
a deterministic stance toward behavior and left
behind the Classical School’s insistence that humans
are rational beings with free will. In the process, the
notion of punishment for deterrence began to make
less sense. If an individual’s behavior was not predicated on rational decisions, then how could that
individual be deterred? The thing to do, obviously,
was to find those factors that cause the criminal
behavior and remove (or treat) them. Further, the
ability to predict which individuals would be likely to
become criminal and to treat them before they could
harm themselves and society would be valuable in
creating a better society.”
― Franklin P. Williams, Criminological Theory

“claSSIfIcatIon of the School
The Positive School is characterized by a consensus perspective. All the theories developed
under its mantle assume the existence of a core set of values in society that can be used to determine and treat deviance. Positivists did not question the validity of their categories of harmful
acts or the desirability of treating people. In fact, their assumption of consensus was so strong
that they rarely ever questioned their own actions, even when “exterminating” groups of people
designated as socially harmful. Other than the consensus perspective, the wide range of positivist theories makes any attempt at categorizing them very difficult. Positivist theories can be
either structural or processual, so no definitive classification is possible. However, we can state
that sociological theories have, as a rule, been structurally oriented and macrotheoretical, while
biological and psychological theories have been processual and microtheoretical.
Summary
The work of the Positive School, diverse as it was,
represented the first real concern with studying the behavior of the criminal. As Rafter (2006)
explains, before Lombroso, crime was studied only
by metaphysicians, moralists, and penologists. His
work turned the field into a truly biosocial science.
Embracing the scientific method, positivists took
a deterministic stance toward behavior and left
behind the Classical School’s insistence that humans
are rational beings with free will. In the process, the
notion of punishment for deterrence began to make
less sense. If an individual’s behavior was not predicated on rational decisions, then how could that
individual be deterred? The thing to do, obviously,
was to find those factors that cause the criminal
behavior and remove (or treat) them. Further, the
ability to predict which individuals would be likely to
become criminal and to treat them before they could
harm themselves and society would be valuable in
creating a better society.”
― Franklin P. Williams, Criminological Theory

“The Positive School is characterized by a consensus perspective. All the theories developed
under its mantle assume the existence of a core set of values in society that can be used to determine and treat deviance. Positivists did not question the validity of their categories of harmful
acts or the desirability of treating people. In fact, their assumption of consensus was so strong
that they rarely ever questioned their own actions, even when “exterminating” groups of people
designated as socially harmful. Other than the consensus perspective, the wide range of positivist theories makes any attempt at categorizing them very difficult. Positivist theories can be
either structural or processual, so no definitive classification is possible. However, we can state
that sociological theories have, as a rule, been structurally oriented and macrotheoretical, while
biological and psychological theories have been processual and microtheoretical.
Summary
The work of the Positive School, diverse as it was,
represented the first real concern with studying the behavior of the criminal. As Rafter (2006)
explains, before Lombroso, crime was studied only
by metaphysicians, moralists, and penologists. His
work turned the field into a truly biosocial science.
Embracing the scientific method, positivists took
a deterministic stance toward behavior and left
behind the Classical School’s insistence that humans
are rational beings with free will. In the process, the
notion of punishment for deterrence began to make
less sense. If an individual’s behavior was not predicated on rational decisions, then how could that
individual be deterred? The thing to do, obviously,
was to find those factors that cause the criminal
behavior and remove (or treat) them. Further, the
ability to predict which individuals would be likely to
become criminal and to treat them before they could
harm themselves and society would be valuable in
creating a better society.”
― Franklin P. Williams, Criminological Theory