The classical perspective on crime came about through the Enlightenment period, encompassing most of the 18th century. It was developed as a way of challenging prevailing religious views concerning criminal behavior; that scrupulous or unscrupulous otherworldly forces acted as behavioral determinates (Vito & Maahs, 2012). The classical view was also used for purposes of reforming the legal system because during the time laws were quite vague and their interpretation by judges was extremely subjective.
Classical theory is responsible for codifying crimes and their punishments for purposes of sentencing (Vito & Maahs, 2012). Classical theory is rationalist at its core. It posits that people think before they act by weighing the benefits of committing the crime versus being caught. The deterrent is that justice comes swiftly and is appropriately severe; however the approach did not appear to curtail criminal activities and was replaced by positivist theory towards the end of the 19th century (Vito & Maahs, 2012).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Criminology".
Gender, class and race figure greatly in crime, especially in the way that America’s criminal justice and political systems respond to each, “Despite the vaunted democratization of criminal justice during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the effects of crime control have always been to the disadvantage of the nation’s most disentitled and marginalized members” (Leighton, 2010). The criminal justice system in this country was developed by white males of privilege, hence there is a tradition within criminal justice that continues to marginalize specific groups, especially as this relates to race, culture and class. This leads to the notion that when old forms of marginalization deteriorate they are replaced by newer types, for example, the enfranchisement of females has been replaced by more severe punishments for undocumented people living in this country, “new forms of inequality often arise to take the place of old forms, and being granted a right in law does not make it a reality” (Leighton, 2010).
As a response to egregious acts of aggression, such as 9/11, the use of racial or ethnic profiling is nothing new to this country. Profiling was utilized during World War II as a way of interring Japanese- and Italian-Americans in concentration camps, relatively perverse actions in relation to notions of equality and equal justice under constitutional law (Siggins, 2002). The country, as of yet, has not resorted to such abysmal treatment as a result of 9/11, but problems still exist in terms of racial or ethnic profiling, and it is questionable as to whether they will ever be resolved. When the Supreme Court decided that law enforcement officials could detain and search individuals based upon a reasonable and objective belief that they were armed and dangerous, it opened the doors for indiscriminate profiling. The legal standard, as established by the Supreme Court, might actually be applied after the fact. That is, the decision to frisk someone was merely based upon the color of their skin but the rationale for purposes of writing a report could be fabricated to meet the legal standard (Siggins, 2002).
It appears that immediately after 9/11, law enforcement made a concerted effort to interview thousands of young men from the Middle East, while government activities focused on gaining information on the same demographic attending colleges throughout the country (Siggins, 2002). The Patriot Act, to a degree, supplanted individual states’ attempts to conduct surveillance, and both now work in cooperative, joint ventures. While the Patriot Act has lapsed, it doesn’t mean that surveillance has ended, and it is imagined that the government, along with its multitude of contractors, continue its covert domestic intelligence, especially on groups and individuals of Middle Eastern persuasion. This approach almost seems like over-reach because it is sweeping and suborns the constitutional rights of almost all people. But in a limited sense, when targeting specific groups, it is far more difficult to determine whether profiling is justified or not.
