Page 21 - Feb Mar 2018 PDF 2 12 18 22_Neat

Classical Criminology and Human Nature

practitioners who plied “experts” on both sides larly the practitioners (i.e.
F their craft in the real can offer “expert opinion” police, corrections, proba-
O world. One might ponder, testimony as “evidence”. tion officers, etc.), outside
R how do they “know” so the schemes of academia,

G much, when they do not Absent the science, as in human nature is simul-
E share any significant expe- fingerprints, DNA, toxi- taneously good and evil,

R rience in the reality of hu- cology, etc., which opin- through an intricate psy-
Y man interactivities? Whoa, ion is valid? After all, both chodynamic weaving of

that should be scary. How- sides in a controversy get complex personality. From
D ever, it is not. to claim and otherwise the basis of this theoreti-
E assert the philosophy of cal construct, humans are

C As suggested earlier, in their school of thought rational individuals, often
E the realm of pseudosci- as though it reflects con- hiding behind masks of
P ence, anything is pos- firmed scientific authentic- deception. Yet, to cover

T sible from a theoretical ity. Subsequently, a panel the individuality of ma-
I viewpoint, especially as of laypersons, a jury, gets levolent intentions, many

O some attempt to articu- to decide whom they be- conceal their biases within
N late a biased perspective. lieve. Such manifestations a framework of illusions.

From theory to belief, of speculation are often
L mainstream acceptance treated as if they are true Nonetheless, for some
I and political acquiescence beyond any doubt and to human beings, they have

E demonstrates complicity the exclusion of all other cleverly invented a maze
S across a wide audience. possibilities. Frequently, of mitigations or ex-

Politically, the judicial, adherents of one of the cuses. By extraordinary

legislative and executive interpretations will argue means, from academia,
branches of government, vehemently with opposing commercial, and medical

partly in courtrooms, al- views as to which or what enterprises, to political
low the viability of alleged is the truth. collusions, the smoke and
“expertise”. Even if there mirrors of promulgates

is no scientific validation, When it comes to human public deception. As to the
the proof of question- behavior, no one has all frauds of misrepresenta-

able behavioral theories is the answers, and no cer- tion of “pseudoscience”
readily considered. In an tainty as to anything close versus hard science, the
adversarial system of ju- to solutions. To the crimi- public’s gullibility chooses

risprudence, for instance, nology classicists, particu- easy acceptance as to the

21