why a person would rob a local convenience store from the perspective of

classical theory and Psychosocial Positivism. Also throughout this essay, the way
in which these theories have contributed to influencing the justice system will be
explored. Finally the different ways the law could deal with this offender charged
with robbery will be discussed.
Firstly under the Classical approach to crime individuals are seen as agents who
attempt to maximise personal pleasure whilst minimising pain. Pleasure can be
defined as the benefit or gain of committing such a crime while the pain would
mean consequences. This theory would state that the robbery was an
infringement of the social contract and occurred because the individual
conducted a cost- benefit analysis of robbing the local convenient store and
concluded that the returns of robbing the store exceeded the punishment in
return. "Although free will may not exist perfectly, the criminal law is mainly based on its

presumed vitality and forms the foundation for penal sanction" (Fogel, 1995, pg183).
Classical theory is also influenced by the following principle greatest happiness
of the greatest number and punishment is based on the notion that For a
punishment to attain its end, the evil which it inflicts has only to exceed the
advantages derivable from the crime or simply, the penalty received by the
robber should fit the crime. In this sense, the law does not take into fact the
individual circumstances and sees people being capapble of making their own
choices and facing the same consequences. This theory bases punishments in
accordance to the criminal act committed. Punishment should also be quick in
order for punishment not to be . An act of violence.

Classicisms response to the crime is punishment. The punishment should be proportionate to

the crime. for example if a wealthy women walks out of a shop and is found that she has
stolen a pen she should be charged with theft, and if another woman who is poor and walks
out of the shop with baby food to feed her child she also should be charged with theft. So
therefore classicists would assume that both should be punished for their actions no matter
what the circumstances are as people are seen as being capable of being able to make their
own choice in what they do so therefore should face the consequences of their actions
everyone's response to crime should be equal.

Within Classic Theory, crime prevention is based on the notion of deterrence. It

was believed that punishments should equal to the offences, to defer criminals
from re-offending. If punishment were greater than the pleasure received this
would prevent the crime. Therefore from this philosophy it can be deduced that
the criminal justice system aimed to prevent criminal activity through
deterrence. It believed that the individual would decide not to rob the local
convenient store because the punishment would be too costly. However this is
not the case.

On the other hand, Psychological Positivism would entirely disregard the notion
of free will as human behaviour is determined. There is a heavy emphasis
placed on the criminals personality, genetic transmission and geographic and
moral development to explain criminal behaviour.
An in-depth analysis of the two forms of positivism, which is biological and
psychological, will be used to explain why this particular crime occurred. Under
this philosophy the reason why the individual robbed the local convenience store
is due to the under socialisation of the individual. It is said that if an individual is

exposed or surrounded by criminal activities from family and friends, the chances
of them committing a crime is likely. Every criminal is the result of individual,
physical and social conditions.
Causes of crime are due to pathology, individual deficiency, its not a matter of
the individual making their own choice.

Moving away from punishment to respond to a crime, Psychological Positivists take into
account the individuals behaviour when responding to a crime. In this sense it is able to better
understand the individuals circumstances in robbing the convenience store. There is an
understanding that certain actions by the individual may be beyond their control, and hence
all offenders should be treated differently. It should be noted that under classical theory,
sentencing is based on the nature of the crime, however Psychological positivism takes into
account the behaviour of the individual.
Positivism on the other hand tries to diagnose and classify. They have the idea of early
intervention. Individuals learn not to offend when they gain self control, those who do offend
don't have self control therefore are likely to control. Child rearing is seen to be a important
development in having the ability to have self control which was argued by Gottfredson and
Hirschi from the control theory. Poor child rearing methods which involve lack of supervision
from parents lead to individuals with low self control which then could turn into them
becoming offenders in the future.

Classicism and Positivism oppose with each other on the response to crime, classicism
focuses on punishing the offender for the crime they have committed whereas positivism
focuses on trying to give treatment to the offender and reform, both theories response to
crime differ.

Based on the way these theories have influenced the modern criminal justice
system, what are the different ways the law could deal with this offender charged
with robbery?

Certain aspects of both Classical and Psychological Positivism are evident in the
modern criminal justice system in Australia today. Punishment is still used a
deterrence mechanism while reform and educating strategies to prevent criminal
activity are visible in society.
The law could deal with this offender charged with robbery in numerous ways
depending on whether the robbery was aggravated or if individuals were injured.
If it were a first time offence by the offender there are usually a reduction in
penalties which include:
- Good character
- Need for rehabilitation
- Greater remorse
Incorporates the idea of psychological positivism
The average jail time for first time offender ranges from two years to five years
and for repeat offenders is 14 years.
http://studysites.sagepub.com/hanserintro/study/materials/reference/ref3.1.pdf

An aspect of classical theory is evident in the just deserts principle of sentencing.

Although deterrence is primarily concerned with preventing future criminal
offences, just deserts takes into account punishing crimes that have already
been committed.

Different way law could deal with this offender charged with robbery?
Can be broken down to 5 different methods:
1. Just deserts
Retribution is based on the idea that if harm is inflicted on others the offenders
should suffer a proportionate penalty.
(however, sentencing practice based on this theory of justice has been heavily
crisiticsed for its failure to examine the underlying casuses of crime and to

adequately address an offenders personal circumstances, such as deprived

social background).
The more modern adaptation of the theory of retribution (just deserts) asserts
that the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with or
proportionate to the seriousness of the wrongdoing or moral culpability of the
offender. This is said to be of particular importance when an offender has a
mental disorder that may cause the offender to be less culpable for his or her
actions. In these cases the mental disorder is often considered a mitigating
factor
2. Treatment based punishment
On the other hand, rehabilitation seeks to address those factors considered to
cause or contribute to the offending behaviour and offers an alternative to
conventional sentencing options.
3. Juvenile conferences
Reforming

4. Sentencing rationale

Australian courts have put forward a number of different objectives as the primary aim of
sentencing,19 for example, rehabilitation,20 retribution, general and specific deterrence21 and
the protection of the community.22 According to Bargaric the pronouncement of different
sentencing objectives partially arises from the fact that there is no consistent approach to the
underlying theory of punishment.23 However, the task of sentencing is a complex and often
difficult one. The court must balance the competing aims of sentencing by looking at the
individual circumstances of each case "The purposes of criminal punishment are various: protection of society, deterrence of the
offender and of others who might be tempted to offend, retribution and reform. The
purposes overlap and none of them can be considered in isolation from the others when
determining what is an appropriate sentence in a particular case. They are guideposts to
the appropriate sentence but sometimes they point in different directions."24
The various purposes of sentencing are also reflected in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914
(Cth) and s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which set out all
the factors the court must consider when imposing a sentence.25 However, the legislation
provides no guidance on how these factors should be balanced where there is a conflict
between the different sentencing considerations. According to Professor Andrew
Ashworth, there is no reason why a primary sentencing rationale cannot be declared,
while acknowledging that in certain cases a different rationale may require priority.26

Punishment, though justified primarily through the idea of desrt, is aimed at

deterring the individual offender from further infractions of the criminal law.

However one of the main similarities between them is that they both look for causes of crime
and have ideas in reducing crime but they have very different views in ways to achieve that
result. Classicism and positivism oppose each other to quite an extent, they have some
similarities however the amount the both oppose is a lot higher.

Classicisms response to the crime is punishment. The punishment should be proportionate to

the crime. for example if a wealthy women walks out of a shop and is found that she has
stolen a pen she should be charged with theft, and if another woman who is poor and walks
out of the shop with baby food to feed her child she also should be charged with theft. So
therefore classicists would assume that both should be punished for their actions no matter
what the circumstances are as people are seen as being capable of being able to make their
own choice in what they do so therefore should face the consequences of their actions
everyone's response to crime should be equal.