1

Classical Criminology and Human Nature

By Randy Gonzalez
 2

Classical Criminology and Human Nature

By Randy Gonzalez

Classical criminology, and its recent expression in rational choice theory, does not cut
slack in terms of excusing, or otherwise mitigating, counterproductive and maladaptive
social behaviors. An essential component is the assertion you are responsible and
accountable for your actions. No matter how much you blame others, abuse substances,
claim “victimization” or invoke the nebulous notions of alleged “mental illness”,
classicists remain unmoved. From this historic school of thought, as well as its variations,
the primary philosophical notion is that people are always responsible for their behaviors,
especially when they choose to do harm to others.
From the arrogant greed of corporate criminal conspiracies, to the assassination of a
public official, the perpetrator is self-motived, intentional and premeditated. The
rationality of choice means purposeful decision-making, especially if you are a terrorist,
or others like those in the news media and politicians, who seek to mitigate that by claims
you have somehow mysteriously become “radicalized”. Criminality and human behavior
in general, regardless of the criminal typology, from street crimes to commercial fraud,
involve decisive “cost-benefit” analyses. The basis is gain minus the risk.
Motivational factors are complex and reside within the intricate thinking processes of
the individual personality. While an act of particular cruelty may seem “irrational” to the
public, such terroristic action is very rational to the instigator. Yet, in the reactivity of
emotional self-interests as to “why” he or she committed the horrific crime, speculation
devolves to dangerous notions for a simplistic answer. There are no easy answers.
Particularly frustrating are those quick to embrace an alternative “school of thought”
within the schemes of the pseudosciences where one answer fits all. Other philosophical
perspectives like psychology and sociology are good examples. From their own ranks of
adherents, there are no specific concurrences on cause-effect explanations.
In a court of law in the U.S., where actual definitive evidence is required, both sides
compete as to who has the most believable reason regarding behavioral issues. Outside a
legal framework, many apply less than provable assertions about the causative factors
involved in the nature of criminality. More so today, with increasing acceptance of
paranormal phenomenon, many pursue external deterministic concepts.
 3

From within the framework of those aligned to a classical criminological perspective,

everyone, no matter who they are, remains answerable for every aspect of his or her
behavior. Regardless of socio-economic status, political “aristocracy”, or corporate
“oligarchy”, the primary societal parameter is that no one is above the law. Yet, the gross
arrogance of a gluttonous culture claims otherwise. Many feel a sense of entitlement
because, in their minds, they are somehow more special.
It might be the alleged “expert” from academia, who claims a certain school of
thought has found all the answers to life’s mysteries. In their smug piety, safe and secure
in the ivory towers of “higher education”, they appeal to their own deceptions. Then
again, another claimant to personal exception might be “landed gentry” or upper social
status. By wealth and materiality, they believe they are “different”. Still though, others
claim their “entitled status” to elected office, or even the presidency.
There are no excuses for the abusive behaviors inflicted upon others. People are very
capable of being dangerously aggressive, predatory and malevolent creatures. With
calculation and malice aforethought, and intent, everyone is capable of anything in order
to get his or her way. People are extraordinarily hedonistic. Human nature has not
changed very much in the history of the human species. Given our inclination to self-
destructive behavior, we are likely increasing the rapidity by which our devolution will
hasten eventual extinction. Counterproductive processes are underway.
There are no justifications, pretentious alibis, or make-believe paranormal mitigations,
regardless of theories to the contrary, that alleviate the accountability for the evils people
do. While others may sternly disagree with this perspective, as various fields of the
pseudosciences might assert, people makes choices, both good and evil. In the decision
making process, cost versus benefit is elemental. What really matters is whether the
individual is transforming by becoming a more differentiated and mature personality.
Self-evolving individuality requires the courage of personal liberation for one’s
thinking processes, in pursuit of a higher ascendency for thought and action. Maturity
assumes a profound growth in responsibility for personal choices and subsequent
behaviors. An evolving individual is labors diligently for selfless personal growth. For
him or her, the personal quest spans a lifetime. From grown up thinking processes, he or
she embraces accountability for the responsibility of personal transformation.
 4

Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs slants in the direction that colludes a sleight of
hand, in the never-ending deceptions of human behavior. Unevolved and self-centered
motivations promulgate the easy mitigations of unscientific conjecture that fosters
intentional gullibility in deterministic simplicity. From academia to commercial and
political oligarchies of power and control, for the satiation of economic self-interests,
careers and industries have been constructed around the psychobabbles of misdirection.
While tacitly, behind the scenes, some might decry the flagrant and unjustified fallacies
that sell hasty generalizations reinforced by emotion reactivity, change is futile.
Too late, the devolution process continues a regression of the human species into the
macabre anti-thinking of arrogant selfishness. There is an excuse for everything, a pill to
cure anything and a “diagnosis” to excuse horrendous and torturous behaviors. Whether
pontificating about a perpetrator’s upbringing, bad parenting, neighborhood, poverty of
“broken windows”, and any other externality of “cause and effect”, the majority of
contemporary explanations do not solve the crisis of a faltering global civilization.
Several noted physicists and futurist have asserted the eventual demise of the human
species. Nonetheless, we come up with excuses to blame someone or something.
However, we have “experts” that frequently appear alongside smugly self-righteous
newscasters, and explain the alleged mitigating factors, from assassinations to genocide,
and commercial fraud to political corruption. The fascinating prospect about most
“experts”, especially in the so-called hallowed halls of academia, is that they never
actually were practitioners who plied their craft in the real world. One might ponder, how
do they “know” so much, when they do not share any significant experience in the reality
of human interactivities? Whoa, that should be scary. However, it is not.
As suggested earlier, in the realm of the pseudosciences, anything is possible from a
theoretical viewpoint, especially as some attempt to articulate a biased perspective. From
theory to belief, mainstream acceptance and political acquiescence demonstrates
complicity across a wide audience. Politically, the judicial, legislative and executive
branches of government, partly in courtrooms, allow the viability of alleged “expertise”.
Even if there is no scientific validation, the proof of questionable behavioral theories is
readily considered. In an adversarial system of jurisprudence, for instance, “experts” on
both sides can offer “expert opinion” testimony as “evidence”.
 5

Absent the science, as in fingerprints, DNA, toxicology, etc., which opinion is valid?
After all, both sides in a controversy get to claim and otherwise assert the philosophy of
their school of thought as though it reflects confirmed scientific authenticity.
Subsequently, a panel of laypersons, a jury, gets to decide whom they believe. Such
manifestations of speculation are often treated as if they are true beyond any doubt and to
the exclusion of all other possibilities. Frequently, adherents of one of the interpretations
will argue vehemently with opposing views as to which or what is the truth.
When it comes to human behavior, no one has all the answers, and no certainty as to
anything close to solutions. To the criminology classicists, particularly the practitioners
(i.e. police, corrections, probation officers, etc.), outside the schemes of academia, human
nature is simultaneously good and evil, through an intricate psychodynamic weaving of
complex personality. From the basis of this theoretical construct, humans are rational
individuals, often hiding behind masks of deception. Yet, to cover the individuality of
malevolent intentions, many conceal their biases within a framework of illusions.
Nonetheless, for some human beings, they have cleverly invented a maze of
mitigations or excuses. By extraordinary means, from academia, commercial, and
medical enterprises, to political collusions, the smoke and mirrors of promulgates public
deception. As to the frauds of misrepresentation of “pseudoscience” versus hard science,
the public’s gullibility chooses easy acceptance as to the misdirection. While some claims
hide behind an array of terms, labels and “diagnoses”, the scientific efficacy remains
unsubstantial. For the classical adherents however, people are supremely capable of
exercising the scary notion of volition, or freedom to choose.
The frightening prospect of accountability in the exercise of free will troubles many
theorists. As a result, the multifaceted U.S. “criminal justice systems”, reflect many
influences from both schools of thought. At the beginning, the process to investigate and
arrest, prosecute and sentence is primarily from a classical model, strongly supported by
evidence-based procedures. In the next, phases, post-sentencing, so called correctional
facilities become predisposed to “rehabilitation” leanings. Misbehavior, in terms of
criminality, is the result of other causes external to the criminal. Predisposition to
criminal behavior becomes the passageway by which illegality is the result of the typical
excuses. These include poverty, family, neighborhood and abuse.
 6

For the classical perspective, no one gets away with excuses. In fact, mitigations are
virtually non-concerns. What matters is the unlawful behavior. The classicist asserts that
everyone is free to make choices, regardless of personal circumstances, which challenges
the “positivism” of the deterministic conceptions of culpability. As to perhaps thirty
other “schools of thought”, that considers a person “hardwired”, “predestined”,
exceptionally influenced by prior “causes”, such as “mental illness”, is not within the
socio-economic framework of the classic view of criminality. Personal responsibility is of
immediate consideration and eventual sanction by certainty of punishment.
Opposing views would argue and protest differently. Nonetheless, swift retribution is
necessary along an ethical continuum of moral justification. By reason and logic of
capable capacity, the perpetrator, regardless of high standing or communal connections,
is responsible for every act of malevolent commission inflicted upon others. There are no
exceptions, particularly as pertains to wealth, power and political connections. Especially,
in those cases of defendant affluence, the upper reaches of oligarchy receive no special
dispensation as to occupancy in a penal facility. Of all groups of criminals, the rich
should share the same accommodations alongside the not so wealthy.
For every human, irrespective of academic allusion, social rank, or theoretical
speculation, intends any given action based upon the self-interests of a personal decision-
making process. By whatever means, to augment and further clarify the choices to be
made, subsequent actions weigh in the balance between gain and risk, productivity and
loss, and ultimately essential satiation. Convenient and comfortable utility to reinforce
the thinking processes, as well as express that, which is necessary to personal enrichment,
encompasses individual selfishness. The rationality, as seen by others less predisposed to
observe their own shortcomings, may dismiss the reasoning behind counterproductive
actions. Other schools of thought have tried to dismiss any particular notion of one’s
actions as freely chosen. Instead, by clever diversion, excuses are many.
Regardless of deterministic insistence, classical admonitions assert the primacy of free
choice. Inventions of a wide spectrum of “mental illness” does not lesson or mitigate
individual responsibility for malevolent actions. Oriented toward the goals of self-
gratification and personal enrichment, at the expense of others, illicit and anti-communal
actions are to be dealt with in equal retribution regardless of socio-economic status.
 7

Whether by smug piety in amative arrogance of corrupt politicians, or corporate

moguls who exploit others and the environment, their anti-social maladaptation are
intentionally calculated. Cruel behavior is nothing new for the human species, and not
much has changed in a couple hundred thousand years. Sure, many would like to believe
there is such a thing as “civilization”. In addition, there is the mournful refrain, almost
whining tone frequently in the news media, about something called a “civilized society”.
Yet, that is a biased misrepresentation of one or more individual perceptions.
The real world is a decidedly dangerous place. Treachery and oppression are disguised
and camouflaged by deceptions. In order to satiate a gullible public, pacify large
segments of the population, and foster a climate of irresponsible dependence,
pseudoscience can be sold as “science”. Furthermore, to ensure consumer marketing,
sales and consumption, why not invent all kinds of diagnoses, and makeup something
called “mental illness”. As to the metaphorical reference regarding thinking, the “mind”
reflects a complex internal infrastructure not easily quantified.
Counterproductive actions that harm people and environments are perpetrated from a
premeditated and intention design. It does not matter if the malevolent individual is a
corporatist, politician or street thug, the malice in thinking follows similar processes from
thought to action. The most important ingredient is in the decision-making that devolves
to the adverse nature of choices. Offenders understand they are harming others, but
decide for their on enrichment to do it anyway.
Selfish, self-focused, manipulative thinking, entitlement, and whiny “victimization”,
characterize additional elements of immature behaviors. Being self-centered and
exploitive could be descriptive of most people in general. Regardless of the “disguise”
one wears in public, there is always the hidden dimension behind the “mask”. From
assassins to white-collar embezzlers, murderers and terrorists, motivational factors follow
an interpersonal trajectory of power, control and domination over others. In the aftermath
of a calamitous event, it is very easy and notoriously simplistic to speculate on
comforting deterministic factors outside the perpetrator. Criminal justice personnel, many
who should know better, like politicians and the press, rush to hasty unsubstantiated
conclusions. What a person chooses to think and do is part of their purposely calculated
freedom of choice. Inanimate objects do not make people do things.
 8

Lifeless, non-living, inorganic things do not make people do illicit and dastardly
deeds. Humans are all too capable to commit atrocious acts of personal culpability freely,
readily and with serious malevolent intentions. Similarly, the internet does not force
people to do “evil” actions. Likewise, vast innovations in “technology” do not cause
people to carryout cyber intrusions, swindles, and sordid illegalities.
Terrorism “radicalization”, so easily tossed around by pundits and others who should
know better, does not force people to commit terroristic criminalities. Additionally, the
usual suspect scapegoats, like “peer pressure”, “bullying”, poverty or bad parenting,
cause someone to “snap”. Unfortunately, the list of deceptive diversions goes on, and
eventually collides with a number theoretical claims, sometimes called diagnoses. All of
which reflects someone’s philosophical perspective.
Nevertheless, if you need to feel better about yourself, others, society, etc., reassured
by trouble-free answers and convenient conjecture absent scientific validation, then
embrace any aspect of the pseudosciences you wish. If you are fearful that your school of
thought might be in error if challenged by opposing perspectives, you are free to be as
defensive and resentment to any extent desired. There will be opposition.
You can believe anything you want, no matter how deficient the facts are. Such
divisiveness and condescension happens every day, from academia to the courtroom.
Irrational causal connections arise in every facet of social interaction, as many clamor to
justify nebulous notions claiming to answer complex behavioral questions. Often
overlooked is the ethical responsibility of the individual adherent for implementing
honest, straightforward evidence based strategies in problem-solving processes.
For the classical criminologist, from the non-deterministic viewpoint presented here, it
is not the environment, family conditions, society, community and so forth, which are
definitive precursor factors causing criminal behavior. Everyone makes choices and
determines their eventual behavioral responses. It does not matter whether corporate
pirate or international terrorist and everything in between, responsibility, and ultimate
accountability, rests fully with the perpetrator. From corrupt politicians to Wall Street
“gangsters”, premeditation configures with malevolent intentions to commit illegalities
that harm others. A particular school of thought can argue a certain philosophical
perspective to mitigate, excuse or otherwise rationalize the limited culpability.
 9

However, in the end, the absence of sure, swift and certain punishment, regardless of
socio-economic status, political connections, alleged “mental illness”, or assorted
excuses, hastens the regression of the human species. In furtherance of social decay, a
devolving society bent on extinction collectively rationalizes any possibility for aberrant
behavior. Every effort to ensure the criminal’s responsibility, and subsequent
incapacitation, remain essential to safeguarding societal stability.
Unfortunately, in an alleged modern society and so-called civilized culture, which are
actually not the case, counterproductive actions insist upon different results. With the
varied schools of thought perpetrated by various pseudosciences, the probability of
change and transformation of humankind is likely too late. The illusions fostered by non-
scientific instigations in egregious fallacies of inference, contravene and stifle productive
countermeasures for realistic appraisals of human malevolence.
Criminals come in all sizes, shapes and severity of harm they inflict. They corporatists
who exploit the economic system, and politicians who abuse the political systems they
manipulate. Their ranks span a spectrum of self-indulgent hedonistic armed robbers, to
greedy telemarketers who fled the mail and internet with hideous advertisements. The
scope, extent and nature of their criminality are contingent on a “cost-risk-reward”
premeditation. Arguments as to the essence of causality are frivolous and unproductive
when such claims devolve to the externality of deterministic sources.
An abundance of “experts” from many fields of study claim to know the “single
bullet” factor that solves the proverbial “why” question. Why did he or she do the
heinous deed? Politicians, pundits, proselytes and the majority of the public, rush to hasty
generalizations, based on a specious conjecture, to answer that solitary question. Yet,
that part of the cause-effect equation cannot find easy solution. Who knows and
furthermore who cares? More importantly, what happened, what is an appropriate
sanction, and what restores the imbalance caused by the harm?
Of the rudimentary components of who, what, where, when, why and how, in the
criminal justice rubric, it is the “what” that outweighs the “why”. As regards criminality,
knowing the “why” infers invasive actions by the state to oppress civil liberties for the
sake of “public safety and security”. That is the clever ruse of “wannabe scientific” fields
to foster deceptions in order to sell products, services and specious theories.
 10

To that perspective, of the nature of specious or hallow or otherwise deceptive

inferences, contemporary conjecture confuses the spectrum of critical analysis.
Deterministic afflictions, “hard wired” cerebral fixations and alleged DNA malfunctions,
among others, assert a non-science stream of excuses for perpetrators. Beyond the control
and capability of the individual, the criminal as “victim”, the pseudosciences of
positivistic heritage continue to claim a variety of nebulous notions. As conclusive
explanations for the mitigation of criminality, many claim the sufficiency of easy
“answers”, absent scientific validity. Yet, the mystery of human nature continues.
Nonetheless, in an age of “anti-intellectualism”, where serious thought is weighed
between emotional assertion and factual evidence, public policy is adversely affected by
the misguidance of competing interests. As to the classical philosophy, everyone is
responsible for his or her thinking processes and subsequent actions taken. Whether
classical, neo-classical, rational choice, or seductions to adversity and maladaptation, the
centrality of belief remains in the notion of one’s freedom to choose. To that end, without
interventions of self-serving excuses, accountability is essential.
To the classical criminologist, and in particular, those who are real world practitioners,
there is no viability for the influence of ideological mysticism, superstition and anything
purporting to be of supernatural interference as deterministic factors. Yet, among the
pseudosciences, there are inclinations of some schools of thought that come very close to
the edge of such unsubstantiated “magical thinking”. By their insistence upon that which
is not well established by scientific validation, claiming positions of science, where
scientific provability is untenable, commits damage to reason and rationality.
Criminality comes from within the individual and everyone has the capacity to
commit criminal acts. It could be argued, depending on a definition of “criminality”, that
everyone at one time or another has committed some type of criminal behavior. To think
that through, and consider the myriad social rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, and
so on, a number of possibilities exist in many aspects of daily living. From assaultive
threats, to hate speech, to discrimination and all manner of thievery, people choose their
communal disruptions. Humans misbehave, not objects or things. Fundamentally,
rationality in choosing behavioral actions is based upon psychodynamic complexity not
easily answered or quantified in precise and definitive ways.
 11

In spite of contemporary illusions, reinforced by magical thinking as hope springs

eternal, the realization is that there will always be “anti-social” people who will do “evil
things” to others. As such, in order to salvage the viability of public safety, order
maintenance, and social ascendancy, the classical or rational perspective on the criminal
behavior must expand in more realistic, rational and methodical progressions.
Criminality, as an aspect of human nature, with its attendant complexity will not change
dramatically, regardless of the myriad of pseudoscientific assertions.
Mitigations to the contrary of sure, swift and certain actions, will continue to
circumvent every effort to control or otherwise interdict maladaptive choices. In post-
modern American society, erroneous beliefs characterized by admonitions of politicians,
pundits and other self-serving interests, in emotional reactivity to heinous acts, represent
futile energies at the expense of those victimized.
Recently, in the sensationalized reporting of various murderous incidents, calls for
more laws, increased “mental health” expenditures, excessive labeling by way of
questionable “diagnoses”, and a range of sectarian ideologies that over-ride rational
applications, hasten the demise of the human species. In the wake of terroristic incidents,
emotion driven pretenses to journalism stir the “false cause” fallacies of inference,
whereby anything is rationalized for the sake of simplistic answers.
While career politicians pander the public to ensure easy pacification with hasty and
unsubstantiated conclusions, others call for the collectivist notion of “national unity” and
“peace and harmony”, by offering weak, empty and feeble responses. Alternatively, most
simply whine and complain without proposing serious, well-studied, and logically sound
solutions to deal with complicated societal interactions. Meanwhile, some academicians
who have never served or practiced in the real world continue to promote their
“expertise” for a particular philosophy assumed “scientific”.
Feel good proclamations only fulfill the satiation of the moment to appease emotional
reactivity, as opposed to thoughtful coherent and genuine actions. The never-ending
debate regarding criminality, in which “good vs. evil” considers “nature vs. nurture”,
often regresses to the shallowness of deterministic factors. Sometimes, the “single factor”
issue drives misdirection instead of investigating the reality of choice. Within the scope
of classical criminology, choice requires accountability and that is scary.
 12

https://www.amazon.com/Widows-Bondage-Sterling-Striffe-Adventure-
ebook/dp/B013RTEQ5A