Dialogue between Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim

Criminology, as e rattling science, relies on f guesss and evidence. This paper is aimed at creating a dialogue among 3 criminologists of the nineteenth century Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim in this discussion, they entrust pardon their points of visualise and try to implement their theories into the reality at the end of the twentieth and line of the twenty first century.Their doctrines were a response to the processes of industrialization and the groundbreakingization in the 18th and 19th centuries they aimed to promote cohesion and rationality in the community (Vold & Bernard, 1986, p. 101) Lombroso and Beccaria argon sitting in a bright living manner drinking tea and waiting for Durkheim to join them. While the criminologist has not surveil yet, they charter time to talk and discuss separately others works Beccaria Good afternoon, Mr. Lombroso. How are you doing?Lombroso Good afternoon, Mr. Beccaria. Fine, thanks. What intimately you? Beccaria Im also fine, thank you. I should compliment you recently I hold back clear your work The Criminal Man (1911) and it appeared to be fantastic I essential encounter that your point of view is rather interesting tho I nominate not understood the focal point you distinguish those trio classes of shepherds crooks. Lombroso I result gladly apologise you that. Three vitrines of criminals are Atavist, Criminaloid and screwy criminal.Atavists are the criminals that reproduce the most ferocious characters of a wild living organism or a pristine man, which explains that they are well recognized by extensive jaws, prominent superciliary arches, solitary lines in the palms, their orbits are of extremely large size, handle-shaped or sessile ears found in criminals, they are insensible to pain, eat up extremely acute sight, their bodies are covered with tattoos, excessive idleness, they love to get into in orgies and put one over the irresistible craving for evil for its own sake, the inclinati on not merely to extinguish purport in the victim except to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh and drink its blood.(Lombroso, 2006, p. 101) Becaria Remember the case of the Op thieve vandalism?I reflect that those teenagers, who take a leak robbed this shop, whitethorn be classify as Atavists. Am I right? Lombroso Exactly. Now let me explain you about two other types of criminals. Criminaloids are respectable someones, who carefully and soundly hide their criminal character from society. They enjoy being respected and realizing that zip knows about their other me. Criminaloids usually connect their occupation with law or they work for government, which makes it easier for them to hide their discourtesys.Besides, Criminaloids tend to commit misdemeanors rather than felonies. Insane criminals are mentally ill and not born to be criminals as Criminaloids or Atavists. Insane criminals commit plagues because of an alteration of the brain, which completely upsets their moral nature (Lombroso, 2006, pp. 14-15). I would say that to such category belong alcoholics, kleptomaniacs, child molesters. Beccaria I must admit that your opening is rather interesting. Knowing what type of criminal a detective faces, he will know how to punish him or her and where to front for an offender. Lombroso Yes, but it is not as easy as it may seem.Nowadays, it is very popular among teenagers to have piercing and tattoos or behave aggressively on the other hand, that does not mean that they are Atavists, it is save the way of expressing themselves. Beccaria To my mind, Mr. Lombroso, your theory is not perfect. I am sure that there are no those, who were born to be criminals we last in a free country, and all person is willing to choose what he or she wants therefore, I am sure that if a person is a criminal, he or she has chosen to act so. I do not say that your approach is not right, but it potfulnot be implemented in life.Lombroso I have depict your book On Crimes and Punishment, where you have presented your own point of view on this issue. I know that you telephone that there are two characteristics to explain a human behavior rationality and intelligence. However, I cannot deduce how this is related to criminology. Beccaria let me explain you, my dear Lombroso. Let us take as an example the case, we have discussed before, the case of the Op shop vandalism. Those juveniles, who were committing this misdemeanor, thought that they would have roughly particular profit out of this robbery.Every single individual is express to be not the servant but the master or manipulator of his/her fate. They are to a greater extent possessed of free will rather than set by spiritual phenomena (Vold & Bernard, 1986, pp. 8-9). They were acting according to their free will they wrong thought that they will have some benefit after this act of vandalism. Lombroso I cannot harbour to you, my dear friend Beccaria. Some criminals, it does not takings whet her they are Atavists, Criminaloids or Insane criminals, commit some discourtesys driven only by some particular obsession.For example, Atavists are born criminals, they have no other choice, but to commit crimes, it is their nature. I have talked to those criminals who belong to three different types, and those who are Atavists did not even confess that they have commit a crime. To my mind, criminals are not something extraordinary, they are a part of the modern society, and one cannot do anything with this. Those teenagers, as I have al take a crap mentioned, looked the like Atavists, they act in a different way in enact to feel special.How do you think, why do they have tattoos? Because this reflects their inner insensitivity to pain and their love to adornment (Lombroso, 2006, pp. 84). Durkheim Good afternoon, my dear friends, Mr. Lombroso, Mr. Beccaria. I am muddy for being late. I suppose you have been discussing some interesting issues about modern criminology without me , have not you been? Lombroso Yes, you are right, Mr. Durkheim. We were trying to explain each other our theories about criminals, and why they become criminals. I was trying to depict Mr.Beccaria that there are three types of criminals, and that they are not extraordinary, their criminal nature is what they were born with it is something like a mental dis erect. Besides, I cannot agree to Mr. Beccaria that citizenry commit crimes, because they want to do so. Durkheim I see. I have read your book The Criminal Man, dear Lombroso. Your theory is rather interesting, although I think that in this very discussion you were too much aggressive with Mr. Beccaria. To my mind, criminal conduct is not something ordinary nowadays I think that everything is firm by society.Social factors are highly significant and they influence the way a person acts. The point is not that a person has some indispensable or external reasons to commit a crime sometimes, a person is driven by social factors. A social fact is hitherto regulation in relation to a given social type at a given phase of its development, when its present in the average society of that species at the corresponding phase of its evolution (Durkheim, 1982, p 65). Beccaria I suppose that your theory is based predominantly on the way how society influences criminals and not vice versa. Durkheim Yes, you are right.I suppose that all human beingss societiesare of two types, according to how the labor is divided there Organic societies and mechanised societies. Organic societies are more complex passel, who live in such social groups, are more differently employed, they have more opportunities to find job. Mechanical societies, on the other hand, are primitive they are isolated from other social classes and are relatively self-dependent. They have almost identical life conditions, and they do the same job, all they have one occupation. Lombroso Do you want to say that a person is more likely to commit a crime in a Mechanical society? Durkheim Yes, you are right, my dear Lombroso.For a mechanic society, crime is normal besides, I think that there are no societies in the world, where people are not significantly different from the collective type (Durkheim, 1982, p. 70). Let me explain you. Imagine a perfect society, for example, a society of saints it is a mechanical type of social group. If a person in an thorough society, which is an ordinary society, the one we live in, commits a cruel crime, there will be a scandal the same situation will be if somebody from a mechanical society, from a society of saints, does something wrong, which in an entire society will not be even noticed.If we define what crime is and such criminal behaviors subsists no more in a society, the late criminal behaviors will appear and replace the old ones. However, in innate societies, such quick changes, which appear because of the change magnitude division of labor, may strain to social rules confusion, and a person may feel lost in this particular society. All social norms break down, and it leads to the appearing of the Anomie. (Durkheim, p. 70) Lombroso Anomie? Do you mean that it can be a kind of disorder of a society? Beccaria I suppose, it is possible.Durkheim You both are right. We are not ready for our society to be changed it does not matter whether changes are high or low. If society is changed, people who live in this society begin to panic, which leads to the increasing quantity of suicides, people are used to stability. Instability means abnormality. pitying appetites are excessive if some of the goal is unreachable, a person may become depressed and cheerless on the other hand, people can be limited only by one thing. Lombroso I cannot agree with you that human appetites are excessive.Durkheim They are, my dear friend Lombroso the point is that sometimes those appetites are reduced by some social factors, for example, economic crisis. Economic crisis is a kind of disaster , which makes a person not only be unhappy or depressed, but also commit suicides. Thought I should admit that such anomie will be worse in an disunited growth or power and wealth. The original needs can no longer remain but they are not able in accustoming to the new condition. The richer situation will always stimulate the appetites and make them more exigent and impatient of control.(Durkheim, 1997, pp. 246-247).Do you remember the case of three teenagers, who robbed the Op shop? Beccaria Yes, we have also used this case as an example explaining our theories. Durkheim That is good. Those three teenagers have committed the crime because of the process of modernization the society is changing, and teenagers have an coseismic state of mind, which makes it more possible that they commit an offence. This act of vandalism is only their way to show how frustrated they are how frustrated people in our society are because of coming changes.Beccaria What about penalisation for these cri mes? Durkheim First of all, we should understand that in a mechanical society, law is far more oppressive, objet dart in an organic society, laws are to restitute. In mechanical societies, people are bound to be punished for violating the law, whereas in organic societies, punishments are meant to bushel a normal functioning of the society. Lombroso Those three teenagers have committed a crime, and they should be penalized besides they are Atavists, which means that they were born to be criminals.Durkheim I agree to you that they have violated the law and should receive a penalty. Nevertheless, their punishment should be fair and effective. The character reference of judges is only to determine guilt, whereas the role of legislators is to determine crimes and punishment. Besides, I think that it is the extent of damage that should determine the distressfulness of an offence. Sometimes, the intention itself may cause bad results. Besides, before those boys were punished, nobody s ay anything about the purpose of those juveniles.The punishment for those teenagers should not be too ascetic it will be ridiculous if those juveniles are sentenced to death or life imprisonment (Durkheim, p. 357). One more essential problem is that people suppose that a criminal should be punished as fast as possible they think it is more effectively. Finally, it is better to forestall a crime than to penalize a perpetrator. My theory is that a crime itself is a disease, an indisposition therefore, the punishment should be compensation.What I want to say is that in order to be a relevant compensation, a punishment should fulfill its role. If crime is not pathological, the object of punishment cannot be to cure it. (Durkheim, pp. 72-75) Lombroso Your ideas are curious to a considerable degree, my dear friend. I suppose they will be useful not only for our modern society, but also for upcoming generations. Beccaria I think that all the ideas we have heard today will be useful for future criminologists. Thank you, my dear friends, for such a pleasant discussion.