Strengths and Weaknesses of Classicism in Comparison with Social Contract Theory

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Classicism in Comparison with Social Contract Theory

Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of classicism with one other theoretical perspective that you have encountered in Block 1, and critically evaluate which perspective is most useful in considering issues of crime and justice.

The ideas of modern justice have at their core two concepts, around which have shaped the way Western liberal democracies have constructed the legal relationship between the people and state. Those two concepts are Classicism and Positivism. This essay will compare and contrast the two perspectives and evaluate which is the most useful regarding the contemporary issues of crime and justice. To do this it will look at the classical perspective, putting it into context; centring on Thomas Hobbs social contract theory, and using the work of Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria to outline the core beliefs of Classicism. The essay will then use the Positivistic perspective, using the work of Adolphe Quetelet to highlight the individualism that separates the two perspectives. The biological ideas of Cesare Lombroso will be looked at to show the link between classicism and positivism.

The Enlightenment of the 17th Century challenged the thinking about law and justice. That new way of thinking was the ‘classical’ ideas of justice or classicism. Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan (1660) argued that violence is central to human interaction and must be controlled. For Hobbes violence was core to his ideas about the creation of a civic society or ‘State’. Hobbes (1660) argued that in the ‘state of nature’ man has a natural right to defend himself to live; even using violence to kill others. Essentially, there is no moral imperative or responsibility to respect others life or property. However, Hobbes argued, though it is a ‘natural right’ in the ‘state of nature’ for man to be free to live how he thinks best, it is not the best way to live and survive. Hobbes’ solution was to create a Common-wealth or State with order being imposed by a ‘Leviathan or sovereign: a person or assembly given executive power over the people.

Hobbs had developed ‘social contract theory the term was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseaus The Social Contract (1762) (McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). Social contract theory attempted to put into context the ideas of justice within society, a triumvirate of the State, Law and Citizen; that a ‘contract’ existed between the Sovereign and the People. The main strength in the ideas of Hobbs and others, like Cesare Beccaria in his On Crimes and Punishments (1764) and Jeremy Bentham (1995 [1791]) on penal reform, was to create a framework, for the concept of the rule of law.

Classicism had within it a set of core beliefs about the ‘nature’ of man: that criminality was essentially part of the human condition and that people have ‘free will’, that is they make rational decisions whether to commit crime or not; and, importantly, that they are hedonistic and seek happiness and pleasure (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]; McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). In dealing with crime and punishment the classical theory believes that justice should be ‘neutral’ and seen to be fair and should apply to all; that the punishment should fit the crime; also, that the punishment should not be excessive; and that punishment must act as a deterrent that crime should be a zero sum game. However, the classical view of punishment was that it should be utilitarian in its effect, which is arguably one of the weaknesses with classicism; in that the utilitarian philosophy of the greater good though laudable in many ways defeats the very idea of justice (in a contemporary sense) because it removes the individual from the process.

However, importantly, central to social contract theory was that of ‘consent’, that the people must freely give consent to be governed and importantly punished’ (Hobbs, 1660; McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). The idea of consent and consenting to be punished are weaknesses within the classical theory of justice: that those giving consent should be able to influence the law makers or Leviathan. The socio-economic stratification of society in 18th Century Britain meant that only the elites had access to Parliament and Law, and therefore able to question consent. Moreover, the above raises arguably Classicism’s main weakness, that of ‘equality’. The application of law may be equitable, as in everyone is subject to the same law. Nevertheless, that does not mean the justice is applied equally in the modern sense at a time when society was anything but equal. Laws cannot be equally applied in an unequal society if justice is to be done; for example, if a well-fed man steals bread as opposed to a starving man stealing bread. Essentially, classicism lacked the concept of mitigation. Moreover, what the above has shown was that classicism had no concept of the individual; however, that was going to change with theories of Positivists thinkers who would bring into focus the idea of the individual.

By the 19th Century, thinkers like Charles Darwin, and Positivist thinkers like Emile Durkheim and Adolphe Quetelet who will identify and attempt to address the perceived problems with classicism, were beginning to influence the ideas on crime and justice. Key to understanding the positivist viewpoint is that of the ‘individual’; that is, unlike the classical theory, which sees criminality as an innate part of the human condition, positivism argues that the person and their circumstances need to be considered and examined.

Therefore, whereas classicism was essentially moralistic having Christian core values positivism was essentially Darwinian, looking at mankind as a natural biological phenomenon as opposed to religious dogma which saw mankind as divinely inspired. That difference is fundamental to the positions both theories take on crime and punishment. The sociological positivist view was that people were not innately rational in their behaviour and choices as argued by classicism, but were subject to circumstance, for example the work of Adolphe Quetelet who looked at demographic, socio-economic and environmental data from 19th Century France, established a correlation between the above and crime rates (McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). The positivist ideas on punishment were at odds with the classical thinkers. Whereas, the classical idea of punishment, like that of Jeremy Bentham (1995 [1791]) and his Panopticon, were about that the punishment should fit the crime; essentially retribution and deterrence. The positivistic view was about rehabilitation; turning the classical view on its head arguing that the punishment should fit the criminal. The positivists were attacking head on the idea of free will, arguing instead that socio-economics played their part in offending too. However, Positivism was not without its problems. The biological positivism of Cesare Lombroso for example, theorised that criminals were less developed evolutionarily, and that they had characteristics of primates and rodents which may say more about Lombroso that his subjects (Lombroso, 1911 [1876]; McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). In effect Lombroso was aping classicism by throwing individualism away and adopting the classical idea of innate behaviour, such as free will and hedonism, making the assumption that people are predisposed to crime; though, not as individuals but as a group. Lombroso was in essence labelling people as members of a criminal class.

Essentially, both Classicism and Positivism are core to the ideas of crime and justice in the post Enlightenment modern sense; that is, they laid the foundations of the Rule of Law that Western Democracies claim is their legitimating concept however, the Brexit debate and Parliaments inability to resolve the ensuing deadlock is bringing that concept into question. The classical perspective is still today the very foundation on which the modern idea of justice stands; therefore, it must be seen in that light. The ideas behind Hobbs et al are just as relevant today as at any time since they were developed as argued in this essay especially the social contract. However, those ideas, as revolutionary as they were and still are can only go so-far in an understanding of contemporary issues of crime and justice. The idea of the Individual must be central to any meaningful understanding of contemporary justice. Therefore, the sociological positivistic perspective is arguably the most useful approach in considering issues of crime and justice. It builds on the classical perspectives strengths of establishing the rule of law and adds the individual to the idea of justice; for without the concept of individual rights, the rights of groups such as the Working Class and political, ethnic and sexual minorities would not exist.

In conclusion, this essay compared and contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of classicism with the Positivistic perspective. It used Thomas Hobbs social contract theory to frame Classicism; and its core beliefs of free will and rationality to show the important framework it provided. The Positivistic approached was used to show the limitations of classicism, using the positivistic idea of the individual, to highlight the utilitarian nature of classicism; therefore, highlighting positivisms strength of bring the concept of individual equality to the concept of crime and punishment. The essay found that Classicism and Positivism together had a holistic effect on dealing with the limitations of justice in the past. Moreover, the essay found that though the classical perspective was key in creating the concepts behind contemporary ideas of justice, it was the Positivistic approach which should be seem as more relevant in todays world.

References

Beccaria, C. (1963) [1764] On crimes and punishments, reproduced in McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings,3rd edn, London, Sage, pp. 515.
Bentham, J. (1995) [1791] The Panopticon Writings, London, Verso
Hobbes, T. (1660) The Leviathan. Available at: https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2019).
Lombroso, C. (1911) [1876] The Criminal Man (trans. G. Lombroso-Ferrero), New York, The Knickerbocker Press.
McCulloch, D. Phoenix, J. and Copson, L. (2019) Week 2: Classicism and positivism in criminology DD804 Block 1 [Online]. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1504415 (Accessed 12 October 2019).
Quetelet, A. (1842) A Treatise on Man, Edinburgh, Chambers.

Click Here To Order Now!