Criminology Files : #3 - Drugs and Society

Launching the third part of the criminology series. This goes into drugs and their effect on society. My assignment focuses on Benzodiazepines. As I mentioned in my first post of the series, the Criminology Files will now go into hiatus until some time in summer, by which time I should have presented and received the result for four more assignment, the final additions to the series.

This edition is likely to appeal to those interested in : Medicine, Criminology, Pharmacy, Law (specifically drug legislation) and Lost (on a superficial level).

The entire series is posted as has been presented to the university, and no part has been altered or inserted after it's presentation.

The aim of this assignment is to explain the use and potential abuse of a given drug as well as the legal aspect of the use of such a drug. Furthermore, an analysis of the socio-psychological explanation of its use and the possibilities for punishment, treatment and prevention where relevant, will also be provided. Throughout the course of this assignment I will present this information with regards to Benzodiazepines. Thus, my research will focus on the way benzodiazepines affect the user at different stages of use as well as after their use (withdrawal symptoms). When necessary, I shall also make references to the portrayal of the drug, or its derivatives, in the media.

Explanation of the Use and Abuse

Benzodiazepines are depressants and therefore induce a calming effect within those who administer it or have it administered to them. Thus, like most drugs, benzodiazepines can be used legally as well as abused illegally and in this section, I will attempt to cover the various ways in which these could happen. Acute mania is one such case when benzodiazepines are used clinically. The American Psychiatric Association lists some of the symptoms of mania as being euphoria and impulsiveness as well as less need for sleep (which could develop into insomnia). Being depressants, benzodiazepines are able to counteract these conditions. Incidentally, insomnia is another condition which is treated with benzodiazepines as some strands are hypnotics and thus, encourage sleep. However, with use, tolerance increases requiring greater dosages to be used and potentially leading to addictions.

This is, in fact, why treatment with benzodiazepines is reserved for short-term treatment. Conversely, insomnia is one of the withdrawal symptoms of benzodiazepines (Katz et al, 2000), which I will delve into further later in the assignment. The media has used benzodiazepines for the treatment of mania in the television series Lost. While I will not get into the specifics and accuracy of the situation portrayed, it is worth noting that Clonzepam, a type of benzodiazepine, was prescribed for someone displaying insomnia and other symptoms of mania as well as anxiety. This brings me to the next legal use of benzodiazepines which is that of an anxiolytic.

On this note, in 2003, the American Psychiatric Association questioned whether benzodiazepines were still the preferred drug for those suffering from panic disorder (anxiety). The results of the study showed that “treatment patterns for psychotropic drugs appear to have remained stable over the past decade, with benzodiazepines being the most commonly used medication for panic disorder” (Bruce, Goisman et al).

Benzodiazepines can also be used as anticonvulsants and have proven effective in the management of status epilepticus. The drug is used with patients in extreme pain and in intensive care; however, it is used cautiously due to instances when chemical problems may lead to benzodiazepine overdose. In spite of having their own withdrawal symptoms, benzodiazepines are effective in treating the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. However, in 2006 the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (UK) claimed that while benzodiazepines are the best documented drugs for alcohol withdrawal, the insufficient evidence together with the risk of benzodiazepine dependence deny that the drug’s use is possibly the best method of dealing with alcohol withdrawal.

Benzodiazepines are widely used in animals too, ranging from the sedation of wild animals to treating epilepsy in dogs and treating muscle spasms in cats (Polizopoulou et al, 2002). Muscle spasms are also treatable in humans with benzodiazepines. So far, I have dealt with the legal uses of benzodiazepines and I will now look at the illegal consumption of the drug. Benzodiazepines are primarily abused to benefit from the sedation which aids one to relieve oneself from emotional stress. Abusers become dependant on and tolerant to the drug resulting in increasing dosages to achieve the same effect. Benzodiazepines, such as Clonazepam, are only intended to be used in the short-term, and withdrawal after long-term bears the risk of inducing the same ailments that benzodiazepines generally treat (including seizures).

McLellan, Woody and O’Brien (1979) conducted a study of fifty-one Vietnam veterans who were abused drugs, fourteen of whom abused benzodiazepines. The aim of this study was to examine the causal relation between drug abuse and psychiatric disorders. The study took place over six years. At the end of the six years, eight of the fourteen had developed depression. This would seem to indicate that benzodiazepine abuse has a significant impact on one’s mental health. It is worth noting, that those who conducted the study do not ignore the possibility that personality disorders which existed before the study may have lead to different kinds of drug abuse.

Legal Aspect of the Use of the Drug

Like all drugs, benzodiazepines are subject to a degree of control. However, the level of control varies from one country to another. According to the website of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, benzodiazepines are regulated under Schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act. This ranking means that it has a relatively low potential for abuse and that the drug is used for medical treatment within the United States. Additionally, drugs ranked at level four have, in the opinion of the Drug Enforcement Administration, a lower potential for physical and psychological dependence. Hence, in the United States of America, prescriptions for any benzodiazepines are legally allowed to be refilled up to five times in a period of six months. According to the same website, in 1999 there were approximately 100 million prescriptions written for benzodiazepines. In spite of this, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (2003) does not allow health insurance companies to cover benzodiazepine prescriptions in their policies. In Canada, benzodiazepines are under similar controls. The same cannot be said for the rest of the world, where regulations are harsher due to the large potential for abuse.

The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (SUSDP) used in Australia lists two types of benzodiazepines (flunitrazepam and temazepam) under Schedule 8 (Controlled Drugs). This makes them illegal to possess because of their potential to be abused and their dependence producing qualities. While other benzodiazepines can legally be owned for personal use (when prescribed), distribution and trafficking of the drug is illegal and subject to fines or imprisonment. On an international level, temazepam, flunitrazepam and nimetazepam are under Schedule III in the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. This ranking means that while they are therapeutically useful, they have the potential for serious abuse. All other benzodiazepines are listed under Schedule IV – mainly used in therapy but are still able to generate a significant degree of dependence. In New Zealand doctors are obliged to only allow one month’s supply of benzodiazepines per prescription.

Dr. A. E. Smith (1989) claimed that while under the effects of benzodiazepines, patients of all dosage levels may become vulnerable to committing crimes and in which case doctors may be required to confirm the prescription. Thus, while Smith’s research does not deal with the direct legal implications of the possession and use of benzodiazepines, she is looking at cases when benzodiazepines, because of the behavioural changes they cause together with other effects, may lead the user to commit crimes which not be dealt with by any drug laws.

“The use of benzodiazepines presents a unique set of clinical, ethical, and legal dilemmas” (Bursztajn and Brodsky, 1997). This is because while it is a very important medical drug, it also produces various forms of dependence. Thus, Bursztajn and Bordsky go on to explain how the prescription of benzodiazepines is laden with ethical considerations and that different circumstances may make it unethical to prescribe them, or unethical not to prescribe them. They cite Salzman who summed up the controversial situations that may arise with regards to benzodiazepine prescription into three. Firstly, the potential for abuse following the cessation of the use of the drug for medical reasons. Secondly, controversies relating to long-term use due to the development of dependence and withdrawal symptoms. The third group are those relating to side effect with a special emphasis placed on behavioural changes, as explored by Smith.

So, to bring this section to a close, while benzodiazepines are not considered to be as dangerous as drugs like cocaine and oxycodone (Schedule I and II respectively in the US) in terms of the capacity for addiction and physiological danger, they are still closely controlled in virtually all parts of the world. The need for benzodiazepines in the medical world prevents governments from imposing more serious controls on the drug. The paradoxical side effects that can arise from their prolonged use such as mania and schizophrenia make this drug dangerous when not used under the guidance of a qualified medical professional. In the next section, I will drift away from the legal perspective of benzodiazepine use and focus on the socio-psychological explanation for the use of this drug.

The Socio-Psychological Explanation

Unlike stimulants which increase alertness and activity, depressants decrease awareness and energy levels. This makes it slightly more difficult to understand why such drugs would be used/abused when there is no medical need for them. In a survey carried out by the Australian government between 1999 and 2005 of people in police custody, it was discovered that benzodiazepine users had certain traits which, while not enough evidence existed to generalise for the entire community, gave some insight into the possible behaviour of benzodiazepine users and abusers. The survey showed how benzodiazepine users were more likely to have been homeless at some point in their life and recently abused other depressants. The same survey revealed that they were less likely to be in full-time employment or alternatively, be working illegally and/or claiming benefits from the government (Loxley, 2007).

Benzodiazepines have been used by people suffering from Munchausen syndrome by proxy. This disorder occurs when the person with the illness causes pain and suffering to another person or to themselves with the intention of attracting attention (Artingstall, 1999). In 1997, several such cases involving benzodiazepines were reported where the drug was administered to children (Jones, Schexnayder et al) and to a husband (Osawa, Saito et al) resulting in poisoning. Due to their capacity to lower awareness and reactions, benzodiazepines are also used in cases of rape and even robbery (on the victims). In 1996, a survey was carried out among thirty-five people who claimed to have been drugged before being raped and/or robbed. Seventeen of these had traces of benzodiazepine in the urine sample taken following the commission of the crime (Beugnet, Boussairia et al).

This seems to suggest that when benzodiazepines are not used for medical reasons, the socio-psychological explanation behind their use is not one of personal reasoning, rather that of exploiting others through intoxication. Nonetheless, according to Weir in 2001, alcohol remains the top drug utilised for date rape and other sexual crimes where it is detected in 69% of available samples. This appears to indicate that benzodiazepines are not necessarily an offender’s first choice for use on their victims. In spite of its perception as a relatively safe drug when compared to other depressants and drugs in general, research seems to suggest otherwise.

In 2001 in the United Kingdom, figures released from the Home Office revealed that in Scotland one hundred and fifty-one (151) people died in 1998 from taking benzodiazepines while just one hundred and fourteen (114) died from overdoses in heroin and morphine. Furthermore, between 1990 and 1996, one thousand, eight hundred and ten (1810) people died as a result benzodiazepine use while a smaller figure of one thousand six hundred and twenty-three (1623) are reported to have overdosed on heroin, morphine and other opiates. In 2001, Margaret Bell also claimed that :
“Since 1960, the UK medical profession has turned at least three million adults and two million ‘Benzo Babies’— infants whose mothers took tranquillisers during pregnancy—into brain-damaged addicts. There are currently still some one million patients trapped in addiction and another million disabled by withdrawals”
(Bell, 2001)
This is primarily brought about due to the common misdiagnosis for benzodiazepines which, due to their capacity to develop dependence within the consumer, are dangerous when prescribed for long-term treatment and may conflict with a patient’s medical history.

Mah and Upshur conducted a study in 2002 with the aim of comparing the perceptions of patients and the physicians in relation to the prescription of benzodiazepine as a long-term solution to insomnia. All ninety-three patients were over sixty years old while the twenty-five physicians came from various sectors of the medical profession. The results concluded that the amount of perceived risk was less in the patients then in physicians. This is understandable as medical professionals would have a higher understanding of drugs and their effects than the common individual. Thus, in light of this difference in opinion, the authors suggest open dialogue as a method of clearing up queries.

As a final note in this section, it is worth noting that outside of clinical prescription, benzodiazepines seem to be rarely used for personal reasons. However, research shows that they are still used on others (victims) by perpetrators as a way of reducing the reactions of such people while a crime is committed. Furthermore, while benzodiazepines are generally perceived as comparatively safe drugs, statistics show that their high potential for dependence and paradoxical side effects with long-term use have resulted in the death (through both suicide and murder) of those who consume the drugs.

Punishment, Treatment and Prevention

In the United Kingdom, it is not illegal to possess benzodiazepines without a prescription. An exception is made for Temazepam. In this case, figures from the Home Office show that anyone in possession of Temazepam, a Class C drug, may be subject to a maximum sentence of two years in prison, a fine with no limit or both. Furthermore, if it is being prepared for injection it is upgraded to a Class A drug, increasing the punishment for its possession to up to seven years imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. However, punishment is harsher for benzodiazepine dealers who could be subject to an imprisonment term of up to fourteen years and/or an unlimited fine. The limit of the term of imprisonment is raised to life if the drug is being prepared for injection at the dealing stage.

The Maltese Dangerous Drugs Ordinance does not make specific reference to benzodiazepines; however it does state that dealers or traders of drugs, if convicted by the Criminal Court, may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and not more than thirty years and fined. For any other drug-related offences a prison sentence of not less than twelve months and not more than ten years and a fine applies. On the other hand, if dealers are convicted by the Court of Magistrates a prison term ranges from six months to ten years while punishment for other drug-related offences is between three and twelve months imprisonment.

With regards to treatment, withdrawing from benzodiazepines gives rise to the benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome comprising of several side-effects which vary depending on the speed and abruptness of the withdrawal. In 2007, McConnell suggested that the best way to withdraw from benzodiazepines is to switch to Diazepam (a benzodiazepine derivative) which has a half-life of twenty to one hundred hours and is not very potent. He suggests replacing the former benzodiazepine drug with Diazepam a bit at a time while allowing for a period of stabilisation. C. Heather Ashton argues in favour of slow withdrawal schedules so as to minimise the withdrawal symptoms. She claims that benzodiazepine users who withdrew too quickly were significantly more likely to report the rarer and more severe side effects. Among these more severe side effects, one finds seizures, comas, suicides and suicidal thoughts, delusions and mania. Heather Ashton also claims that when withdrawal occurs too quickly, some people develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as they are not prepared for the side effects and are overwhelmed. In 2006 (reviewed in 2008), the President and Fellows of Harvard College added that following the successful withdrawal, one must undergo counselling or psychotherapy so as to prevent relapse.

The National Institute of Drug Abuse in the United States of America believes that prevention efforts can begin as a community activity in general, rather than just a personal process. A nine-stage analysis of community readiness was drawn up to enable one to better assess the situation in their community with regards to the awareness of drugs in such a community. The steps range from ‘No Awareness’ to ‘Professionalisation’. At each stage, suggestions are made as to how to best utilise the available resources such as creating motivation for those communities with ‘No Awareness’ and setting up programs targeted at all audiences for those societies at the level of ‘Professionalisation’ (Edwards et al, 1999). It would seem that the old adage that “prevention is better than cure” holds true for benzodiazepines since prevention avoids the whole experience while ‘cure’ (withdrawal) could leave the former user scarred physiologically and psychologically.

Throughout this assignment I have analysed the aspects surrounding benzodiazepines. Thus, I have explored the biological and medical reasons for their use and the potential for abuse as linked to benzodiazepines’ high risk of dependency. I went on to discuss the legal perspective when it comes to the drug both in terms of penalties for misuse and illegal trading of the drug as well as crimes which are committed because of benzodiazepine use. This was followed by an examination of the social and psychological reasons behind the use of benzodiazepines and with the help of published statistics deduced that outside of medical requirement, benzodiazepines are used to intoxicate victims. Finally, the punishment, treatment and prevention options suggested, available and used around the world were tackled. Hence, I can conclude that benzodiazepines are unique in the sense that they are not considered among the world’s most dangerous drugs but in recent years they have come to be regarded as more dangerous than some higher ranked drugs, possibly because of misconceptions about their use.

Courtesy of Darryl, from Malta - Online.

Criminology Files : #2 - Sociological Theories of Crime

The second edition deals with the sociological explanation of crime. The question discussed is as follows :

What are the major differences and convergences between Left and Right Realism? Which of the perspectives would you be most likely to support? Give reasons for your answers.

This edition is likely to appeal to those interested in : Sociology, Criminology and Politics

The entire series is posted as has been presented to the university, and no part has been altered or inserted after it's presentation.

Throughout the course of this assignment, I will give an overview of New Realism and its two branches – Left realism and Right realism, and the way they analyse crime and the causes of crime. I will analyse their similarities as well as there differences in this respect. Furthermore, through the criticism or support of established sociologists, I will argue in favour or against the two perspectives in terms of their criminological contributions.

As a sociological perspective, New Realism emerged as a response to what some people believed was the inability of currently existing theories to adequately explain the causes of crime. Furthermore, political shifts in the western world led to the requirement of new theories to be able to support this change. Both sections of New Realism emerged in the 1980s once it was recognised by some that the currently existing structures and policies for dealing with crime did not lead to a drop in crime. Thus, since the branches of New Realism appealed to both the left and right sides of the political spectrum, New Realism as a whole was able to identify with people of various political sympathies (Matthews and Young, 1986). The first division which I will examine is Right Realism, the branch which has achieved more prominence in the United States of America.

Right Realism is centred on the idea that the individual is responsible for his own destiny and the concept of societal factors has little or nothing to do with criminal behaviour (Thatcher, 1993). Hence, proponents of Right Realism believe that when attempting to prevent crime, one should focus one’s attention on the individual and their close relatives rather than on the balance of power in the society. It is interesting, but not unexpected, that this theory is so influential in the United States where the welfare institutions are small and the focus is on maintaining the free market and privatisation as opposed to nationalisation. It is worth noting that in light of the financial crisis of 2008; this has been suspended slightly with the country’s government bailing out several failing companies, and taking a stake in the business in the process.

Right Realism opposes the idea that any external, societal factors impact one’s ability to commit a crime (Wilson, 1975). Hence, Right Realism argues that a state of unemployment would not make a person more likely to commit a crime. This goes against the ideas of Murray and Herrnstein (1994) who argue that crime, illegitimacy and unemployment, among other societal factors, go hand in hand and promote each other. So, instead of societal structures, the blame is placed on failing family values, especially those of the lower class as white collar crime is largely ignored by Right Realism. Furthermore, the perspective did not attempt to question the laws which were imposed as they were not seen as the problem; rather they questioned the level to which they were enforced which was not seen as being harsh enough.

Right Realism is further subdivided into four strands. The first of these is the socio-biological explanation of crime. Wilson and Hernnstein (cited in Joyce, 2006: 40) believed that criminal behaviour was largely influenced by biological factors. Thus, one’s likelihood to commit a crime is dependent on the way society has responded or reinforced certain behaviours based upon one’s biological attributes. Thus, the three elements of this approach are constitutional factors, the level of presence of reinforcers and the strength of the conscience. In 1985, Wilson and Hernnstein argued that shifts in crime rates could therefore be explained in three ways. These are changes in the age structure of a society, changes in the cost-benefit balance of crimes and changes in socio-cultural perceptions of the society in question (Walklate, 2007).

The second strand is known as the rational choice theory. This theory states that a potential criminal decides to commit a crime based on whether the benefits that could be reaped, outweigh the punishment that could be given or vice versa (Cornish and Clarke, 1987). This is similar to Cesare Beccaria’s (1764) belief that the severity of the punishment for committing a crime should be equivalent to just over the potential profit made. The central idea of rational choice theory is that when dealing with crime, the focus should be switched from one of punishment to that of protection and prevention. This also requires a deal of crime mapping as one is able to predetermine the crime ‘hotspots’ and provide better protection to those areas (Chainey and Ratcliffe, 2005). One can now move on to examine the routine activity approach.

This approach claims that crime and criminal activity is a normal part of society’s functioning (Felson, 1994). Cohen and Felson (1979) believe that a crime is the product of three factors – a motivated offender, a vulnerable victim and the absence of a would-be guardian. According to proponents of this approach, the best response to crime is to make situations which may lead to crime more difficult to come by. However, routine activity approach, does not take into consideration any other factors which may be present in the commission of a crime choosing instead, to focus purely on the individual and the existing situation. The final strand of Right Realism is that of administrative criminology, a system that is used in the UK Home Office.

Administrative criminology does not attempt to discover (or uncover) the reasons behind the commission of crimes. Instead, it focuses purely on managing crime. Administrative criminology emerged as statistics began to show that while policies for dealing with crime change, crime rates did not drop (Young, 1994). Hence, the focus switched to one of merely administering crime and reducing public expenditure. This was especially evident during Margaret Thatcher’s eleven-year tenure as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the need for efficiency overpowered that of searching for solutions - which would absorb more funds than they would give back.

One can now move on to discuss Left Realism, which was more successful in the United Kingdom and arose as a general response to Right Realism which dominated the scene in terms of crime due to the Left’s disinterest in crime and criminology. Left Realism diametrically opposes Right Realism and argues that people belonging to lower classes are most often victimised by crime. In saying this, they are effectively looking at societal factors – something Right Realism ignored entirely. It is viewed as being radical in theory, but realistic in practice. The former because of its view of inequality in society, and the latter through its suggestions that there must be an increase in co-operation between the public and the police (Young and Matthews – cited in Carlen, 1992).

Young and Lea (1984) come up with three main policies associated with Left Realism. The first is an alternative to prisons closely related to another policy which is the minimal use of prisons. The final policy is the idea of communities working together to prevent crime from taking place in the first place. The realistic approach of Left Realism is witnessed in the way they look for both structural as well as individual solutions to crime, and the belief that crime affects and can be committed by anyone, regardless of their economic circumstances. In 1991, Young came up with a new idea which is now considered one of the cornerstones of Left Realism. Building on a former idea, the triangle of crime, Young added a new dimension so that it was now the square of crime, with the factors being the victim, the offender, the state and the public with the last two being the reactive players.

Young goes on to argue that when a person, a group of people or a community is economically and socially weak, they are automatically more vulnerable to all forms of crime. Hence, what he appears to be saying is that the level of economic and social wealth determines the likelihood of being affected by crime and other social ills. This ties in with what Marx wrote in 1859 that those who control the infrastructure, or the base, control the superstructure. Consequently, they are more prepared to face and prevent crime. Young also discusses relative deprivation (a concept discussed by Merton earlier) as a suitable theory for dealing with crime as opposed to an absolute definition. Absolute deprivation refers to the absolute minimum a person may have in order to live, as defined by Gordon in his paper for the United Nations. Relative deprivation on the other hand is subjective and differs according to each society. In England, for example, being unable to offer guests to your house a cup of tea may be considered a form of deprivation. It is for this reason that Young and Left Realism insist on using a relative definition of deprivation as crime does not only take place in response to global conditions, but also to one’s level of integration in society (a concept that was also touched by Durkheim in Suicide (1897)).

In spite of their several differences and disagreements, Left Realism and Right Realism do converge, or agree, in certain policy areas. Both sides recognise that there exists and actual crime problem which has destructive effects on communities, even if, as Right Realism would argue, society does not exist. Furthermore, both sides argue in favour of finding realistic and efficient policies and proposals to combating crime. While it is Right Realism who tend to focus on ‘efficiency’, Left Realism appears to understand that policies must be constantly reviewed so as to ensure that public funds are not pumped into fruitless attempts to reduce crime. This point is important as both understand that there is no single solution to all of crime and that, while each side examines crime in terms of their own political agenda, there is something to be said about tackling crime in a bi-partisan manner.

Both groups of New Realism have affected criminal policy in some way; however, this is where the convergences end. If one looks at Right Realism, for example, one notes how such theoretical perspectives encouraged a general increase in spending on the police force and other institutions maintaining public stability. In the United States of America, the privatisation of prisons took place in the 1980s which could be seen as a direct result of the influence of Right Realism. Finally, tougher stances on crime such as ‘zero tolerance’ to corruption or drug use are products of Right Realism’s support of the Classical School and Bentham’s idea that criminals make rational choices to commit crimes on the backdrop of a cost-benefit analysis. I will now look at the contributions to public policy made by Left Realism.

The central influence Left Realism had on the agenda of crime was that of reducing social inequalities and in doing so, reducing the potential for crime and victimisation. In the United Kingdom, the victory of the Labour Party in 1997 led to the implementation of several policies inspired by Left Realism such as the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act which had the function of dealing with and reducing social exclusion and thus, tackling relative deprivation (Hopkins Burke, 2001). The act tackled several aspects of deprivation including access to entertainment, standard of living and de-marginalisation. Left Realism has also impacted the policing system by advocating a system whereby the general public should set priorities for the police force so as to prevent the force from becoming either militaristic or weak (Lowman and MacLean, 1992). Finally, proponents of Left Realism have successfully argued in favour of allowing the criminal justice system to involve the public in the proceedings. This move increases transparency in the system and allows for the general public to have more faith in the system as it becomes more democratic (Deflem and Swygart, 2001).

Thus, one can note how both strands have contributed positively to criminological thought. However, in my opinion Left Realism provides a more accurate analysis of crime and offers more feasible long-term solutions, often filling the gaps which Right Realism refuses to. One idea that comes to mind is that the lower classes are doubly abused – firstly by the capitalist system and then by members of their own class, because, as I stated earlier, criminals are more likely to victimise those who are more vulnerable (Siegel, 2006). Lee and Young (cited in Siegel, 2006: 240) explain this by saying, “The equation is simple: relative deprivation equals discontent; discontent plus lack of political solution equals crime”. Unlike Marx, who saw socialism and communism as the answer to most of society’s problems, Left Realists believe that while socialism may solve the crime problem, remedies to crime must also be found in the current capitalist system.

It is not just Left Realism’s ideas that make me more inclined to choose it as an appropriate perspective for analysing crime, it is also what I perceive to be shortcomings of Right Realism that have influenced me. One such example is the underestimation of white-collar crime, focusing solely on street crime. Furthermore, the refusal to acknowledge societal factors as contributing to an individual’s propensity to commit crime has resulted in inadequate policy recommendations such as increased prison use. This may be seen in terms of administrative criminology, where the aim is to reduce expenditure. However, imprisonment is the most expensive form of punishment and thus, a contradiction arises. Additionally, while focusing on reducing costs with regards to the criminal justice system, Right Realists contribute only minimally to policies regarding reducing crime and rehabilitating criminals. This means that offenders will keep offending and consequently costs will not be reduced. Finally, in arguing that individual factors are completely responsible for crime, Right Realists are permitting the state to pay little attention to crime – just enough to punish those who are found guilty.

In this assignment I have examined New Realism and both of its strands – Left Realism and Right Realism. With regards to Right Realism, I have also delved into the four subsections of the socio-biological explanation, administrative criminology, rational choice theory and the routine activity approach. Whilst looking at the differences between the two branches and their respective policy implications, I went on to analyse their similarities. I have concluded this assignment by stating my case for Left Realism, including both why I selected it as well as why I did not choose Right Realism as my preferred theoretical perspective for explaining and dealing with crime.

Compiled by Darryl, from Malta - Online

Criminology Files : #1 - Introduction to Criminology

Here's a new 7-part series for my blog where I will post the full assignments which I have handed in for my course. The point behind it is that...well...they're quite useless once they've been corrected so might as well do something with them for dry blog periods (such as this one).

There are seven parts (projected figure). The first three will be posted over the next couple of days. The rest haven't been completed yet and will only be posted once they have been corrected and the mark confirmed. Thus you can expect the final four parts (unless one of the lecturers decides to scrap an assignment in favour of some other form of assessment...which has been done...in spite of the regulations) during the summer months.

I was also considering posting my presentation transcripts but ultimately decided against it since there's no structure and is largely dependent on the work of my partners.

So, my first post in this series deals with an introduction to criminology. The topic discussed is :

Compare and contrast the Classical and the Positivist Schools of Criminology with reference to the main proponents (Beccaria, Bentham and Lombroso) and their contributions.

Naturally, and this holds for the entire series, the assignments are not free flowing as I am bound by references and bibliography (Don't worry, it won't be posted here - the references will though). Hence, don't expect any inspirational revelations.

This edition is likely to appeal to those interested in : Philosophy, Criminology, History of Biology, Law, 18th Century Literature and Lost (but purely on a superficial level).

The entire series is posted as has been presented to the university, and no part has been altered or inserted after it's presentation.

In this assignment I aim to analyse two major schools of criminological thought. The first being the classical school where I shall refer to the contributions of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. I will then move on to the positivist school where the work of Cesare Lombroso will be examined. Thus, throughout the course of this assignment, the comparisons and divergences of the two schools of thought will be presented as well as an overview of the ideas of the proponents of both schools.

One of the foundation stones of classical criminology is that humans choose whether or not to resort to criminal activity when faced with challenges throughout in day-to-day life. This is the attitude adopted by Right Realism when it comes to policy implementation in terms of crime and criminals. Proponents of classical criminology believe that committing crimes may be seen as an easy way out of problems by some people as a decent result may be achieved with very little sacrifice. In fact, Bentham claims that it is only the guarantee of punishment, and to a degree which exceeds the potential gain from committing a crime, which deters the would-be criminal from going through with the criminal act. One can add to this by citing Beccaria’s assertion that punishment must be proportional to the crime committed. I will explore these principles further later in this assignment (Siegel, 2006).

John Locke (1689) discussed the idea of a social contract. This idea takes into account that every human being is born with free will and a blank slate (or tabula rasa). Thus, this social contract includes the ideas that the governing bodies govern with the consent of those being governed. Furthermore, in covers the belief that everybody is equal under the law and that a de facto agreement exists between the governing body and the citizens binding both sides to a set of duties while entitling them to certain rights and, in the case of the governing body, the appropriate level of power required to lead the nation. Hence, while citizens are born free and with no pre-disposed mental ideas of appropriate behaviour, a set of norms and values in instilled into the child through socialisation based on the social contract, according to the classical school.

One can now go on to examine utilitarianism, which is one of bases of the classical approach. Utilitarianism promotes the idea that one should act in favour of the greatest good for the greatest number. Hence, for the sake of the argument, if the planting a tree will cause more happiness than not planting it, one should plant the tree. The idea is often associated with Jeremy Bentham, however a similar approach exists in Epicurean philosophy. Epicurus believed that one should act towards the maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of pain (Friggieri, 2000). Having covered the basics of classical criminology, I will now go on to elaborate on Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy and his contributions to the classical school.

In order to prove that people balance the possible pleasure achieved from committing a crime against the pain of punishment before proceeding with the crime, Bentham comes up with a mathematical formula which he claims all people subconsciously evaluate in their heads. He mentions this utility calculus in 1789 and goes on to explain the component parts of the calculation. These are the intensity and duration of the pleasure, the likelihood that similar pleasures will follow and/or opposite feelings will not follow, the certainty that pleasure will be achieved and the time that elapses between the commission of a crime and achieving the pleasurable state. A seventh aspect is the number of people who will experience such pleasure, thus fulfilling the utilitarian concept of greatest good (or pleasure) for the greatest number. In 1780, Bentham also discussed the role of punishment.

He applies the utilitarian principles to his analysis. He claims that legislators should weigh the degree of harm caused against the degree of good done to society in terms of punishment. Thus, he argues that punishment which inflicts more harm on the human than the good it achieves in the society is not acceptable. He believed that punishment should be used as a means of prevention and hence, a means, rather than an end in itself. One can sum up Bentham’s beliefs when it comes to punishment by the simple principle that any punishment which benefits society in the long run, to a greater extent than the pain caused in the short run, is justifiable. One can now move on to discuss another proponent of the classical school – Cesare Beccaria.

Referring back to a previous point of discussion, Beccaria argued in favour of the proportionality of punishment to the crime. Beccaria claimed that :
“If an equal punishment be ordained for two crimes that injure society in different degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing the greater as often as it is attended with greater advantage.”
(Beccaria, 1764: Chapter 6)

To illustrate Beccaria’s point; if the twenty years imprisonment is the punishment awarded to a person convicted of petty theft and another of committing murder, then potential criminals are more likely to choose to commit murder as it the potential punishment remains the same while the possible rewards are greater than that of petty theft. In Chapter 19, Beccaria advocates swift delivery of punishment, especially for serious crimes, so that the crime and the subsequent punishment will be associated with each other. Furthermore, Beccaria affirmed his opposition to the use of torture and the death penalty. In the case of torture, he argued that those being tortured may sign fake confessions so as to put an end to the pain. With regards to the death penalty, one of his arguments in opposition to the practice is that the possibility of long term imprisonment is more likely to deter a person from committing a crime than death.

The other major school of criminological thought is the positivist school. Proponents of positivism promote the observation of phenomena and the use of the scientific method in coming up with theories as opposed to abstract thought (Siegel, 2006). Positivists believe that statements which are not supported by evidence and analysis of phenomena cannot be considered as valid theories of behaviour. The scientific method consists of various steps which must be followed, these being observation, hypothesising, experimentation and analysing and interpreting data. Furthermore, results must be published and the experiment must be able to be replicated by both the person as well as other researchers (Crawford and Stucki, 1990). Positivism can be split up into three distinct parts. These are social positivism, biological positivism and psychological positivism.

Social positivism argues that the society is the cause of criminal behaviour. A similar line of thought is present in Left Realism. Similarly, functionalists such as Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, argue that crime is a functional component of society and that it draws attention to problems in society and the need for a change (Durkheim, 1895). One can now move on to biological positivism. This strand sees biological and medical factors as being responsible for criminal behaviour. In doing so, it would appear that biological positivism clears society of any responsibility for criminal behaviour. Therefore, this approach argues that criminal potential and behaviour is a natural product rather than one acquired through nurture (socialisation). Proponents of this strand of positivism have cited lower level of evolution and deformities as being the signs of a criminal. Nowadays, biological positivism is not highly regarded and very often it is combined with social positivism so as to combine the physical and mental elements of a potential criminal (Siegel, 2006).

The final strand of positivism, psychological positivism, looks at the inner psychological construction of the person as the cause of criminal behaviour. In 1950, Glueck and Glueck argue that criminal behaviour is bred inside children of broken homes where the absence of good parenting turns misbehaviour of children into criminal activity. This idea, as well as other ideas within psychological positivism, has been influenced by the work of Sigmund Freud who claimed that criminal activity was the product of a mental illness or a poor conscience. Furthermore, some claim that once a person has been socialised into a criminal lifestyle, certain types of choices made will remain present for the rest of the person’s life unless they become conditioned into behaving in an acceptable manner (Marshall et al, 1990).

Critics of the positivist approach claim that researcher influence and bias prevents the documentation of adequate results and explanations of criminal behaviour. Part of the reason for this is that it is considered unethical to study subjects without their knowledge and consent. Furthermore, some assertions are restricted to time. This holds in several cases. First of all, the replication of experiments at a time of year when the activity being studied is more/less likely to occur, for example road rage in winter and summer. Secondly, any data collected in 2000 may not be an appropriate explanation for crime in 1980 and 2020 by which time social, political and cultural elements may have changed and evolved. Having said this, proponents of the positivist school, such as Cesare Lombroso, looked at positivist criminology in a different way.

In contrast to classical criminologists, Lombroso argued against free will as being present in criminal activity. On the contrary, he believed that criminals were less evolved than other people and inherited their criminal leanings. Thus, many of the arguments by proponents of biological positivism have their roots in the Lombroso’s work (Terman, 1916). He applied racial and sexual factors to this theory. He believed that Caucasians were more evolved than non-Caucasians and used this reasoning as an explanation for criminal tendencies in people belonging to other races (Herman, 1997). Furthermore, he claimed that while female criminals were rare, those that existed (such as prostitutes) also displayed a lower level of evolution. However, he saw women as already being less evolved than men as they lived passive lives and consequently had a lower level of intelligence and initiative in committing crimes (Burke, 2001).

It was Lombroso who founded the Italian School of Criminology together with Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofolo who became proponents of the positivist school in their own right. Ferri did not support biological determinism as Lombroso did; he favoured psychological positivism. He felt that crimes were committed by people who were not immediately turned off by the mere idea of committing a crime and who had no feelings of guilt afterwards (Ferri, 1905). Garofolo also rejected the idea of free will but, like Ferri, preferred psychological and sociological explanations of crime over biological ones. He suggests certain types of punishments for criminals of differing level. Firstly, he goes against Beccaria and Bentham by advocating the death penalty for a criminal who is not capable of conforming to the status quo of social life due to a permanent psychological problem. His second recommendation is a long-term prison sentence for those who are only fit for a tribal society. Finally, he argues that offenders who have only committed crimes under unique circumstances and this particular circumstance is likely to be a one-off occasion should be forced to atone for their wrongdoings before being reintegrated into society.

To conclude this assignment, one can look at what has been presented so far. In this assignment, I have examined the classical school in conjunction with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham and moved on to an opposing school of thought, positivist criminology. In discussing the positivist school, I brought forward some of the arguments of Cesare Lombroso and his students Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo. While neither school is able to give a perfect analysis of crime, be it as a result of statistical problems (positivist criminology) or lack of objective testing (classical criminology), both schools have made a significant contribution to criminological thought.

Brought to you by Darryl, from Malta - Online.