The Distinct Theories Of Classicism And Positivism Have Been Recognised In

The distinct theories of classicism and positivism have been recognised in criminological studies as the two major hypotheses in the science of penology, conceding criminal anthropology as inherent in identifying criminals through their genetic structure, likening it to atavism (Lombroso, 1876). All people are considered equal according to classicist precepts and governments are created by those individuals to protect the people's rights through the recognition of a social contract (McCoubrey and White, 1999: 60 84). Classicists aspire towards civil rights, realised through the law as a system of due process. It is this emphasis on the social contract that compounds the deviance as a moral offence against society. Punishment is proportional to the seriousness of the offence and can only be justified to preserve the social contract and deter others (Williams, 1997: 8).
The constrained concept of Classicism identifies as autonomous a person who is the result of their environment. Positivism, however, has been documented as either internal, [assuming an atavistic involvement of the psychological or biological aspect], or a sociological aspect of positivism which is outside an individual's control (Burke, 2001: 272) and assumes a dependency in individuals. Positivists approach deviance from a scientific perspective which enables deviance to be rectified through a combination of power and knowledge. The correlation between positivism and criminological theory identified criminals through an inherent genetic structure, perceived as atavistic features edifying villainous characteristics which could be identified through isolationist principles and surveillance experiments and through case studies (Lombroso, [1876] in Williams and McShane, 1991: 35).
These sociological studies exhibited a reciprocity which was attributed to a specific social order, deviation from which society recognised as a criminal act. Positivist theory attributed this deviation to an abnormality that could be treated, with the hypothesis suggesting that criminals could be reformed. As the final result was intended to protect society from harm, punishment was sanctioned to provide treatment, not to punish, with cognitive treatments involving group therapy sessions and the use of drug therapies to achieve these objectives. Conversely, Bentham and Beccaria propounded the classical theory of fundamental rights associated with natural law. Their utilitarian principles of autonomy, liberty and rationality acknowledged deviance as a rational act against the rules of society and from which these miscreants needed to be dissuaded through the application of punishments (Burke, 2001: 270).
2.