Page 27 - Feb Mar 2018 PDF 2 12 18 22_Neat

Classical Criminology and Human Nature

criminality are contingent where, when, why and sive explanations for the

F on a “cost-risk-reward” how, in the criminal jus- mitigation of criminality,
O premeditation. Arguments tice rubric, it is the “what” many claim the sufficiency
R as to the essence of cau- that outweighs the “why”. of easy “answers”, absent

G sality are frivolous and About criminality, know- scientific validity. Yet, the
E unproductive when such ing the “why” infers inva- mystery of human nature

R claims devolve to the ex- sive actions by the state to continues.
Y ternality of deterministic oppress civil liberties for
sources. the sake of “public safety Nonetheless, in an age

D and security”. That is the of “anti-intellectualism”,
E An abundance of “ex- clever ruse of “wannabe where serious thought is

C perts” from many fields scientific” fields to foster weighed between emo-
E of study claim to know deceptions in order to sell tional assertion and factual
P the “single bullet” factor products, services and evidence, public policy is

T that solves the proverbial specious theories. adversely affected by the
I “why” question. Why did misguidance of competing

O he or she do the heinous To that perspective, of the interests. As to the classi-
N deed? Politicians, pun- nature of specious or hal- cal philosophy, everyone
dits, proselytes and the low or otherwise decep- is responsible for his or

L majority of the public, tive inferences, contempo- her thinking processes and
I rush to hasty generaliza- rary conjecture confuses subsequent actions taken.

E tions, based on a specious the spectrum of critical Whether classical, neo-
S conjecture, to answer that analysis. Deterministic classical, rational choice,
solitary question. Yet, that afflictions, “hard wired” or seductions to adver-

part of the cause-effect cerebral fixations and al- sity and maladaptation,
equation cannot find easy leged DNA malfunctions, the centrality of belief

solution. Who knows and among others, assert a remains in the notion of
furthermore who cares? non-science stream of ex- one’s freedom to choose.
More importantly, what cuses for perpetrators. Be- To that end, without inter-

happened, what is an ap- yond the control and capa- ventions of self-serving
propriate sanction, and bility of the individual, the excuses, accountability is

what restores the imbal- criminal as “victim”, the essential.
ance caused by the harm? pseudosciences of positiv- To the classical criminolo-
istic heritage continue to gist, and, those who are

Of the rudimentary com- claim a variety of nebu- real world practitioners,
ponents of who, what, lous notions. As conclu- there is no viability for the

27