Full Answer Section

The Positivist School of Criminology

In contrast to the Classical School, the Positivist School emerged in the mid-19th century, shifting the focus from free will to determinism. This school, led by figures like Cesare Lombroso and Adolphe Quetelet, viewed criminal behavior as influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors beyond an individual’s control. They believed that individuals are predisposed to criminal behavior due to factors such as biological abnormalities, psychological deficiencies, or social environments.

The Positivist School introduced the use of scientific methods to study crime, utilizing data collection and statistical analysis to identify patterns and correlations. This led to the development of criminological theories such as biological determinism, which posits that individuals inherit criminal tendencies, and sociological theories, which examine the impact of social factors on criminal behavior.

Comparison and Limitations

The Classical and Positivist schools represent contrasting perspectives on the nature of crime and criminal behavior. While the Classical School emphasizes individual responsibility and free will, the Positivist School focuses on external factors and determinism. Both schools have significantly contributed to criminology by introducing concepts and methodologies that continue to influence contemporary research.

However, both schools also have limitations. The Classical School is criticized for its simplistic view of human behavior, failing to acknowledge the complexities of individual circumstances and social influences. Similarly, the Positivist School has been challenged for its potential to justify social inequalities and its tendency to overemphasize biological and psychological factors, neglecting the role of social structures in crime.

Subcultural Theory

Subcultural theory is a criminological perspective that explores how delinquent behavior arises from the norms and values of specific subcultures within society. These subcultures develop in response to social disadvantage, marginalization, or social strain. Subcultural theorists argue that individuals who identify with these subcultures adopt their unique values and norms, which may conflict with the dominant societal values, leading them to engage in criminal activities.

Examples of subcultural theories include Cohen’s “delinquent subcultures” and Cloward and Ohlin’s “differential opportunity theory.” Cohen argues that lower-class youth experience status frustration due to their inability to achieve success in the mainstream middle-class society. This frustration leads them to form delinquent subcultures where they create their own values and norms, often involving defiance of mainstream society. Cloward and Ohlin, on the other hand, focus on the opportunity structure for criminal success. They suggest that delinquent subcultures arise in areas with limited legitimate opportunities, providing alternative paths to success through criminal means.

Nwalozie’s Rethinking of Subcultural Theory

Nwalozie (2015) critiques the limitations of traditional subcultural theory, arguing for a more nuanced approach to understanding the role of subcultures in youth crime. He challenges the assumption that subcultures are monolithic and homogeneous, arguing that individual members within subcultures may have diverse motivations and varying levels of involvement in criminal behavior.

Nwalozie emphasizes the need to move beyond simplistic explanations of youth crime and instead consider the complex interactions between individual agency, social structures, and subcultural influences. His work suggests that subcultural theory needs to be re-examined in light of the dynamic and fluid nature of contemporary youth subcultures.

Conclusion

The Classical and Positivist schools provide foundational perspectives on the nature of crime and criminal behavior. While each school offers valuable insights, their limitations highlight the need for a more nuanced approach. Subcultural theory provides a framework for understanding the role of subcultures in shaping delinquent behavior, but its limitations require further examination. Nwalozie’s work underscores the importance of considering individual agency and social structures in understanding the complex relationship between subcultures and youth crime.