By watching this video I really got more of a sense and breakdown of what each school of thought is, specifically neoclassical. He described neoclassical as the common ground between classical and positivism. Classical is shared as being someone who has free will in committing a crime and we should not take into account the other factors around them. Positivism is the opposite meaning that the other factors around the person to commit a crime is the only factor and free will has nothing to do with it at all. So neoclassical is the inbetweener that has a mixture of both. Which is what I agree with a bit more than the other two. I definitely think that we have to take into account that it is a mixture of the two. Now i definitely think there is a difference between adults and juveniles with these theories because they are both in different stages of life. Each person has there own free will to make a choice and stick with it but there are always some defining factors that can play into their decision. Say for an example if someone wants to steal a tv from the store. An adult might be around his friends but ultimately he is a little more grown to think of his consequences and has more of a choice in the matter to take that tv or not. If a juvenile is around his friends he or she might be a little more inclined to fit in with his group of friends and be pushed to steal that tv. Ultimately they both have factors around them but they both have some type of free will in them to make a decision. It might just be a little less in a younger adult or juvenile based on them maybe not having a say or trying to find their true self. -hollywood007
I agree with you that neoclassical is the school of thought that I agree with most because it is a nice in-between balance of the other two schools of thought. I also like that you gave an example of how a juvenile might think and act around his friends and how that might effect his or her ability to think on a rational level as it pertains to breaking the law. When alone they kid might never have even thought to steal anything from a store however when with his friends the peer pressure might lead him to go through with stealing an item because a social factor persuaded him to. RHB007
This video made me get a better sense of what each school of thought is. The guy in the video described neoclassical as the common ground between classical and positivism. He says classical is shared and being someone who has their own free will in the act of committing a crime. While, positivism is seen as the complete opposite. The positivism thought argues that other factors play a part in a person’s ability to commit a crime. Free will has nothing to do with it at all according to positivism. Neoclassical is the hybrid of both previous schools of thought. I agree with this thought more than just having one thought to turn to. I think it is important to take into account both thoughts and look at them together. I like how he said that neoclassical is seen as the common ground between the two schools of thought. You can’t leave out one school of thought, you need to have both. Neoclassical takes into account the rational decisions that individuals make. I think these schools of thoughts could differ between juveniles and adults. Juveniles are more pressured by outside forces like friends and their environment, I think, more than adults are. I think experiences of adults plays a role as they now the consequences if they do something wrong and what will happen. Juveniles might not weigh those consequences or think things through before doing it. -CUBSFAN007
I agree with you and liked how he said neoclassical is like the common ground between the two. You definitely need to have both schools of thought to have a clear answer. One is no better than the other. Yes it differs between age groups but one doesn't dominate the other in each age group. They each have there slight differences but I definitely think that every criminal has a little of both, a hybrid as you said. These two thoughts mesh and coexist with each other because someone is always going to have free will but it also includes the factors around them that push it even further. hollywood007
I agree with you about how juveniles may not way their consequences like adults would and I agree with him that neoclassical criminology is a good balance between both classical criminology and positivism criminology. I personally think that classical by itself is too harsh and that positivism by itself is too soft on the individual. But together, they are a perfect pair. -KiiNG007
After watching this video I was able to get a better understanding on the basic schools of thought as far as neoclassical and classical criminology. Specifically neoclassical criminology is described in this video as the middle ground between classical and positivism criminology. It doesn’t put all the blame on free will even though they might be a rational person. It highlights that you cannot throughout social factors such as what type of household someone grew up in and if they had anyone to tell them right from wrong. I personally think that is a good thing we look more and more at the background of offenders especially when they are juveniles because of the simple fact their brain is still developing and if they don’t have proper structure whether that is in school or at home there is a better chance no one has disciplined them or told them right from wrong. I am more inclined to think that neoclassical Criminology is a good way to look at crime especially the types of crime that juveniles often commit. I think it is good to take in account a mixture of the other two schools of thought. I am not saying that just because an offenders background and home life should completely excuse of punishment for the crime committed that obviously depends on the situation and how serious the crime is. I just think especially in juveniles even if they are considered able to think rationally most younger offenders will do things just to impress their friends and or they just have not been taught. So they might not be thinking in that moment about the law and what the consequences would be if they break that law. RHB007
Yes I agree with you about Neoclassical because it's the new way of thinking things especially with junvinel and how to punish them bases of the seriousness of the crime and also the age of the juvenile. In also how kids so things just because of they want to please their fake friends. And sometimes when you commit a crime you don't really think it thru and just do it or you don't have nothing to live for so you might as well do it anyways. Juveniles also do it because do it for the thrill so that's when positivism crimongly come in because the society make things seem fun but it's really not so delinquency react to it the same way society does. Smiles007
I agree with you in the way that neoclassical is a perfect balance between the two. I believe both the other options go too far in either direction and will more than likely yield minimal results. You have to find a common ground between punishing and educating the criminal in order to produce rehabilitative results.
I agree with you in the way that neoclassical is a perfect balance between the two. I believe both the other options go too far in either direction and will more than likely yield minimal results. You have to find a common ground between punishing and educating the criminal in order to produce rehabilitative results. Gray007
The first thing that I learned about was classical criminology and what it meant,that crime is a result of exercsing freewill and personal choices based on caclculation on prices cost and benefit. And we all have free will, rational thoughts and if we commit a crime we are at fault. And their are consequences if we commit crime. And the two people behind the concept are Caesare Beccaeria and Jermey Bentham. I agree with the classical crimmongly more than positivism. If you go back into the Word of God and the history of it, he talks about how God gave man the choice between life and death which in other words God gave man "freewill" and man choosed death. And going back with the classical crimongly when you have freewill and you commit a crime you get in trouble. The second definition that I learned was positivism was that it's not the person fault but it's actually the socialization impact of it, genetics, economic condition and per group influence, etc makes us commit crime. Positivism does make some sort of sense because in when you apart of society you do things that are not actually you doing it but what was seen and you followed the behavior it of it. And with neoclassical it's basically the same thing as classical and positivism just combined to make a new word and a definition. Smiles007
I agree with you when you say that it’s not the person’s fault, it’s the socialization impact. Sociology plays a big role in everyone’s individual lives. By seeing and hearing people do/say certain things, they are influencing us to do those same things the same ways that they did them. Also, other outside factors like genetics, economic status, etc. can play a part as well. Some people are genetically prone to certain acts, that is just how they were born. It’s not the person’s fault because they cannot control these types of things, they just have to learn how to live their lives and manage them. -Fozz007
This video helped me understand how to understand the difference between classical criminology and neoclassical criminology. In the video, neoclassical criminology is talked about being in the middle of classical and positivism. It is described as being able to somewhat clear up any of the confusing parts of the two and helps create a better understanding of the topics. For example, classical criminology talks about how all of the emphasis is put on a person’s free will. People can think things through, so they will know if what they are doing is a criminal act and if they will most likely be caught or not. As far as positivism goes, it talks about how it is not a person’s fault for committing crimes, it is actually the fault of all the outside factors that the person had been exposed to. Some of these outside factors could be things like: genetics, society, etc. An example of classical criminology would be the difference between a juvenile and an adult. If a juvenile is with their friends and all their friends are doing drugs and ask them if they want to do them, they will more than likely say yes. This is due to the fact that juvenile brains are still developing, so their ability of free will to think long term about what their next few actions could bring them is not at its full strength yet. An adult, however, has their ability of free will at full strength because their brains are fully grown. Let’s say an adult is in this same situation and is asked if they would like to do some drugs. Being able to think long-term and all of the consequences and things that could happen to them, the adult would be more likely to say no. I agree with the view of positivism as well. Outside factors definitely have a certain level of impact on people. But, I think that the neoclassical view of criminology is the best at explaining everything and making it easier for everyone to understand. -Fozz007
Hi, I liked what you had to say in regards to Juveniles and their brain development. Specifically in the decision making processes they have for when they decide to do something that they know is wrong. Consequently, their actions, may or may not be influenced by the actions of their fellow peers. Juveniles brains are still growing, and will continue to grow into the mid to late 20s. Juveniles, then cannot make decisions for themselves until the age of 18. Why 18, if the human brain fully develops at mid to late 20s? The juvenile justice system is a continuous work-in-progress. --YouMustAcquit007--
I do agree with what you said, and although juveniles may not legally be able to make decisions for themselves, comparing them to adults by law is understandable but there are many adults out there that think and act as juveniles. I also read an article once written by a world renowned doctor about the studies and the human brain not being fully developed until mid twenties, I believe 25 or 26. Even then, that does not mean that we are fully grown and all of a sudden make better decisions or have now reached the full extent of maturity. I know 18 year olds that make better choices than 40 year olds. Being someone who wants to be in law enforcement, our job is to enforce the law whether we agree with it or not. I think looking into these theories more thoroughly would be cool because it puts it in the understanding for us the differences. -notacop007
I really appreciate the way he explained each theory/perspective on crime and criminals. He took a relatively unbiased approach and just gave the facts he could. It helped me to understand each point a little better. I definitely agree with the neoclassical approach and the balance it brings between the two. I don’t think we should lean too heavily one way or another on classical criminology or positivism because both play a role in developing a person’s decision. Overall though I think that this debate, as well as many others, seems to come down to the age-old question: Nature or Nurture? On one hand, the classical approach has a point in which we all inhabit free will. We’re born with a choice of whether or not we want to abide by the predetermined definitions of crime. Whether we agree or not is beside the point. The point is that we have the capability of understanding and weighing our options and the free will to choose which we decide to act on. Criminals have that capability as well; the only difference is that they decide that the profits of the crime are worth the impending punishment or more likely that they matter more. Of course, in no way does that mean that we shouldn’t take into consideration the effects other factors have on the individual making the decision because, on the other hand, hard determinism has a point in that there are multiple different preexisting or uncontrollable factors that have a large affect on the way we develop and sub sequentially the choices we make. That being said, in most cases people aren’t incapable of making a decision to the point that they should be exempt of all punishment, so this concept should not be applied to that extent. It should be used to further the intent of rehabilitation because no punishment at all would have little effect in doing so; which is exactly why I believe the neo classical concept is balanced relatively well enough for it to be effective. Grey007
This video was very informative on the difference between Classical versa Neoclassical Criminology, I agree with you that he was unbiased in giving out his information on the subject. I agree with you that criminals have the free will if they want to commit the crime. They decided if the benefits out weigh the punishment. I also agree that some outside factors do play a part in what criminal act that a criminal does. This is why I like Neoclassical Criminology, it is in the middle between we have the free will to do something and their outside forces that contribute to our bad behavior. -ClatkKent007
All in all I would honestly have to say watching this video was a refresher. Specifically, on all the basic understandings of the basic schools of thought as it relates to criminology. The two main schools of thought; classical and neo-classical criminology are the main focuses of the video. Yet neo-classical criminology was more of the focal point in the video. Neo-classical criminology is the go between positivism and classical criminology. The terms free will and consequences of our actions, i.e. punishments come into play. Yes, we as human beings do have free will. Classical criminology argues, that humans, specifically juveniles, do have free will to make and act on decisions. Either made by us or us being influenced, into making those decisions. Therefore, our free will can be influenced into doing something that is against the law. Positivism on the other hand holds that there are certain factors in the juveniles life such as their home environment, economic status, and peers they hangout with, to be just a few of the factors that surround why a juvenile commits a crime. The brain is still growing, when juveniles decide to do things that they know are wrong. but do not know the seriousness of those wrongs. As juveniles grow older either they will grow out of doing things that are dangerous, stupid, and illegal, or they will not.
Juveniles will either grow out of crime or start being just another number and file in the system. Juveniles who get and maintain jobs are less likely to want to commit crime, or they work to help support their family. I use this as an example of someone using their free will properly. Instead of committing crimes to get the money to live and support their family. Instead of being another file/number in the juvenile/adult prison system. --YouMustAcquit007--
Jacob Cooper lays out the information really well. I also think that he is more relatable to college students. He first talks about the classical criminology which is the the thought that crime is exercised on free will. A interesting point that he talks about is the in classical criminology we commit a crime on a rational mind, we had the free will to exercise that act. Another point that is interesting that Mr. Cooper talks about is that Classical Criminology deters aways from the supernatural. It focuses on the person really is responsible for the crime and can not blame it on a spiritual influence or being possessed. In Classical Criminology the punishment only meets the weight of the crime. The punishment will not be cruel or unusual, it also will not exceed the crime that has been committed. The last thing that he talks about on Classical Criminology is that criminals have control over their behavior, they choose to commit crimes and they can be deterred with punishment. By the end of the enlightenment period classical criminology was being pushed out by positivism. Positivism was a belief that crime results from forces beyond the human being. The human being is not responsible, we have free will but it is determined on our social status, genetic, peer pressure, and many other different factors. Positivism was later addressed in the 1970s when we “got tough on crime” This is when NeoClassical Criminology came to be. This new classical criminology is a balance between the old classical criminology and positivism. NeoClassical Criminology says that people are rational and have free will but it does not count out other factors such as genetics and social environment. It focuses on the character, character development, and the rational choices that people make faced with criminal opportunity. -ClarkKent007
You explained what was talked about perfectly. I personally think that Neoclassical criminology is the better of the two. Seems like people were lazy before the enlightenment period and we just threw people in jail based on their actions, and not why their were acting out. I feel that neoclassical is more about helping people stop recommitting crime. ^~^Itis007
The video is describing the difference between classical and neoclassical criminology. Jacob Cooper does a perfect job doing such. Basically, classic criminology is putting the entire blame on the individual. Under no circumstances were you not able to think of your actions before you did it. As the book defines as free will. You are in charge of your own decisions. It also talks about everyone being a utilitarian. Which also means you are weighing out the consequences of doing whatever crime before you do it. Which is why, back in the day, they thought having severe enough punishments would stop people from committing crime. Probably why the death sentence was used for everything. But keep in mind for this type of crime prevention to work, the punishment must be carried out swiftly, and certain. To say that kids are in complete control over their actions is not always right. Sometimes kids act out for a certain reasons, not because they thought the punishment for getting caught isn't severe enough. Now, some kids do, but some kids have what we talked about, trait theory. Bobby stole some candy from the store, not because he thought, “hey, if I get caught, it’s only a slap on the wrist.” But because he wanted some candy, but had no money. So he did it on impulse. Neoclassical criminology is my kind of criminology. It puts together all the outside forces that could’ve played a factor in why the crime was committed. This, in my opinion, really matters in juvenile cases. Instead of us being mean about someone's issues, we take the time to figure out why this person does these things. Aka, we can get them help instead of hoping jail time will sort them out. Overall, great video and he explained everything more than once, and in different ways to really get people to understand the difference in the two. ^~^ Itis007
I still have questions but... Positivism is not making any sense to me. So what I got out of Jacob's video is that you commit a crime and do not feel as if you should be punished? The people, setting, and other objects around you is a reason you committed a criminal act? I feel if you commit something you caused that upon yourself. You were bold enough to make a decision so shouldn't you own up to it? To me that is saying , due to the neighborhood that I live in, I can commit any type of criminal act and it wouldn't be my fault. I wonder if this act is still relevant today. And what crimes we have to be committed for that topic to even be made up. When people practice or act Neoclassical criminology will the individual still be punished? I don't agree with this act at all. I feel that a lot of individuals will get away with this and others will probably get a harsher sentence. Example, I feel that with the Afluenza teen, this idea of Neoclassical criminology could've been brought up. Caucasian kid who's parents weren't around often. They could've said that he committed dangerous acts because his parents neglected him. I feel that an african american kid wouldn't be able to use that term for an excuse of why they committed their criminal acts. That's what I mean when saying some people would get off the hook more than others. Then with juveniles, I feel that the judge would probably not take this type of criminology because if you commit crimes, it's your fault. They have to learn you won't be able to say certain factors caused you to commit something. You were bold enough to do something wrong, so just take up for what you did. okurrr007
I kind of did not understand the Positivism thing but I feel the same way about Jacob’s video. I agree with your opinion on if someone commits a crime it is on them, it is no one else’s fault. No matter the environment, they know right from wrong, so it is up to them to make the right choices or not. I also agree that the affluenza excuse only works for certain people to get away with things. African American’s most likely would not have gotten off the hook for saying the actions they did were caused from their parents not being around. -pieface007
This video helps me understand the difference between the two and the understanding of both. Neoclassical criminology is a school of thought that is differentiated between a number of different theories. Positvism is in reference to the neoclassical school of criminology. It focuses on an individuals rights mainly. Classical criminology falls under the assumption and belief that someone who commits a crime should be punished harsher or their sentences should reflect their crimes. Positivism helps the juveniles in a sense in the long run. It comes to show that juveniles and their environments and their family and home lives as well as who they associate with play a big role in determining their outlook in the crime community so to say. I firmly believe positivism is a big factor in juvenile crime. I never knew there were ways as such to categorize crimes. Juveniles are growing and sometimes it is a whole "wrong place, wrong time" scenario. But I do not believe every juvenile should be given that freebie. Some do know exactly what they are doing and will make a lifetime/career out of being a criminal. Sometimes juveniles associate themselves with people they do not truly know or may just choose to see the good in them. And then when the crime opportunity presents itself. I think a child's mine is 100 times different from an adults at times. Children are identified as juveniles for a reason and I think the way criminology truly depicts and distinguishes these theories from each other is absolutely amazing. I like how neoclassical is defined though for the rationality part but also that it does not rule out the heredity and environment because I firmly believe those truly begin a child's choice to partake and crime. Some commit the crimes as kids for the simple fact that they do not understand the severity and outcome and find it to be a thrill. -notacop007
Classical criminological suggest that an individual's decision to participate in deviant behavior is based upon free thought and a consideration of the pleasure of the act versus the pain of punishment if caught. While similar in several ways, neoclassical criminology expand upon the classical viewpoint. While individuals commit crimes in many ways, an absolute punishment was once a traditional method for sentencing. Whether the offense was trivial or extreme, individuals would receive the same type of punishment. Laws presented the regulations to justified punishment for crimes. However, there was no distinction between human rights, scientific evidence and consequences. You can also get the sense of how law officials and law enforcement or the criminal justice field makes their decisions. Neoclassical criminology basically means reforming new thoughts from old thoughts in my opinion. Classical criminology is exercising free will and having personal choices and also having human behaviors that can result from forces that are beyond the control of the person. Postivism criminology explains that free will is in the hands the person or people. Suggesting that people make decisions on personal and first person point of view. The times are changing and laws are changing everyday. Neoclassical criminology entails that classical thinking changes. In fact, focusing on other factors that contribute to a crime is what neoclassical criminology proves morally correct. I tend to think that classical criminology gives the criminal justice field a concrete base for decisions of any kind. SR
This video really broke down the differences between classical and neoclassical and I feel like lots of people could learn from watching this video. He explains both sides very well and even in different ways so more people could really grasp the understanding. He states that classical criminology is exercising free will and personal choices which also means that we all have free will and rational thoughts in order to make every day decisions and that means we are at fault for our criminal actions and that we rationally thought about those decisions before they were committed. I 100% agree with him on this. Everyone that completes a criminal act thinks about it first, no matter how long they thought... they still thought about doing it! He also talks about how before classical ideas you could really blame crime on spiritual short comings or maybe someone being possessed when in doubt the person really is in fact responsible for their actions. He then goes on to say that neoclassical is a balance in between hard determinism and free will. This is huge for juvenile delinquents because yes they made the decision but young kids have social factors, genetic factors, and the impact of socialization in their lives and you cant completely ignore that. I do like how explains this because those things are hard to pass in life and especially if its genetic, there inst a way around all of it necessarily. I really liked this video and the way he explained everything. freckles007
^^ He took his time and explained the true meaning and differences behind classical and neoclassical. I do believe that we are responsible for our actions especially if you are an adult. We think about everything and if you committed a crime, you took the the time to think about it then you take the time they gave you without any arguments we are responsible for ourselves. freckles007
I agree that we are in control when it comes to making decisions. When someone commits a crime, they think about the reward, the possibility of getting caught, what the punishment could be. I also found it interesting that people use to blame things on the supernatural. People probably thought that a lot of people were possessed. I agree with you that it will help with the juvenile delinquents, they did commit a crime put some of the factors that they had, they might not have any control over. -Soccer31007
In this video I got a better understanding of classical. He explained that classical criminology deals more with with free will and personal choices. We all have the free will to make decisions and to think about what we are going to do and that includes making decisions when we commit a crime. We thought about it before we did it. I learned about what people use to think about classical criminology in the early days and before classical criminology was thought more in depth, people use to think that you were possessed when you commited a crime. I liked how Jacob talked about the theorist named Jeremy Bentham. He explained his theory on how a criminal will weigh the result of committing a crime before they commit the crime. It kind of reminded me of weighing pros and cons of something. I agree that we are able to think and make decisions and that we have free will to do that. When he started to talk about positivism, he started talking about other factors. The factors are the reasons why people commit crimes. He said is was more about not being in control compared to classical criminology. I agree that there can be other factors that can lead to criminal behavior. Neoclassical criminology is more in the middle of hard determinism and free will. I think this is good because some things can't be one sided. I think neoclassical criminology is the better one. People may think that this person who committed crime has complete control over what they were doing when they might actually not. People may think that this person didn't have complete control when maybe they did. Neoclassical criminology is a nice balance between the two and I think it will be more beneficial especially in the juvenile system. If they find out that the person was not in complete control, the punishment might be different and that person might be able to get help depending on the situation. -Soccer31007
This video definitely gave me an idea of what each school of thought is. After viewing this I realized I agree more with neoclassical, as it is is a better way of doing things. The neoclassical idea assigns proper punishment to the crime, while still making sure offenders are punished. The idea also tightens up restrictions on offenders, which may prevent them from committing offenses in the future. The neoclassical idea also seems to understand that sometimes people do things without really thinking about them. It brings together the two extremes. Redranger007
After watching this video I found that it was quite interesting. The main slide that stood out to me in the video was about how Beccaria thought the certainty of punishment will always make a stronger impression than fear of another. I believe that Beccaria is saying when you are certain you will be punished, you will be less likely to do the crime. He is also saying, even If someone was do a small moderate crime, their punishment will be harsh enough for them not to want to do the crime again. When people know that they will be easily caught from doing a crime it will lessen the amount of crimes that are occurring todays society. For example, if someone was to try to steal from a store and there were officers inside, they would be less likely to want to steal from there because they are more likely to get caught than if they were not inside the store. -pieface007
After watching this video, I learned the differences between the three criminology theories, classical, positivism, and neoclassical. This video really helped me develop an understanding of how different each theory is. The classical theory is stating that a person has full control over their actions, so any action involving committing a crime is strictly one hundred percent that individuals fault. The classical theory is the harsher theory out of the three. Positivism criminology on the other hand makes a statement that the juvenile does not have complete control over his or her own actions and that an individual commits a crime depending on many other factors. Society, family life, school, etc. may have a say to why a crime would be committed. The neoclassical criminology theory means new theory. In the video, the guy explained how this theory was a balance between classical criminology and positivism criminology. It states that people do have a large amount of control over their actions when committing a crime, but they possibly may not be one hundred percent in control. I personally agree with neoclassical criminology the most because the balance helps especially in the juvenile cases. Classical criminology may be too harsh on an individual. I personally think that classical criminology is too harsh on the individual and does not really give an open eye perspective on the situation at hand. With that being said, I think that positivism criminology does the exact opposite. It is not harsh enough on an individual and states that a person has really no control over their actions, and I think that is way wrong. I agree with neoclassical criminology. I think that neoclassical criminology will be the theory that continues to help make the right judgement calls when it comes to criminal cases and especially in the juvenile field. I think it is important to realize that a person has control to an extent and that they can be persuaded by others or society to do a certain action. In the long run, it is a equal balance between the two. -KiiNG007
By watching this video I really got more of a sense and breakdown of what each school of thought is, specifically neoclassical. He described neoclassical as the common ground between classical and positivism. Classical is shared as being someone who has free will in committing a crime and we should not take into account the other factors around them. Positivism is the opposite meaning that the other factors around the person to commit a crime is the only factor and free will has nothing to do with it at all. So neoclassical is the inbetweener that has a mixture of both. Which is what I agree with a bit more than the other two. I definitely think that we have to take into account that it is a mixture of the two. Now i definitely think there is a difference between adults and juveniles with these theories because they are both in different stages of life. Each person has there own free will to make a choice and stick with it but there are always some defining factors that can play into their decision. Say for an example if someone wants to steal a tv from the store. An adult might be around his friends but ultimately he is a little more grown to think of his consequences and has more of a choice in the matter to take that tv or not. If a juvenile is around his friends he or she might be a little more inclined to fit in with his group of friends and be pushed to steal that tv. Ultimately they both have factors around them but they both have some type of free will in them to make a decision. It might just be a little less in a younger adult or juvenile based on them maybe not having a say or trying to find their true self.
ReplyDelete-hollywood007
I agree with you that neoclassical is the school of thought that I agree with most because it is a nice in-between balance of the other two schools of thought. I also like that you gave an example of how a juvenile might think and act around his friends and how that might effect his or her ability to think on a rational level as it pertains to breaking the law. When alone they kid might never have even thought to steal anything from a store however when with his friends the peer pressure might lead him to go through with stealing an item because a social factor persuaded him to.
DeleteRHB007
This video made me get a better sense of what each school of thought is. The guy in the video described neoclassical as the common ground between classical and positivism. He says classical is shared and being someone who has their own free will in the act of committing a crime. While, positivism is seen as the complete opposite. The positivism thought argues that other factors play a part in a person’s ability to commit a crime. Free will has nothing to do with it at all according to positivism. Neoclassical is the hybrid of both previous schools of thought. I agree with this thought more than just having one thought to turn to. I think it is important to take into account both thoughts and look at them together. I like how he said that neoclassical is seen as the common ground between the two schools of thought. You can’t leave out one school of thought, you need to have both. Neoclassical takes into account the rational decisions that individuals make. I think these schools of thoughts could differ between juveniles and adults. Juveniles are more pressured by outside forces like friends and their environment, I think, more than adults are. I think experiences of adults plays a role as they now the consequences if they do something wrong and what will happen. Juveniles might not weigh those consequences or think things through before doing it.
ReplyDelete-CUBSFAN007
I agree with you and liked how he said neoclassical is like the common ground between the two. You definitely need to have both schools of thought to have a clear answer. One is no better than the other. Yes it differs between age groups but one doesn't dominate the other in each age group. They each have there slight differences but I definitely think that every criminal has a little of both, a hybrid as you said. These two thoughts mesh and coexist with each other because someone is always going to have free will but it also includes the factors around them that push it even further.
Deletehollywood007
I agree with you about how juveniles may not way their consequences like adults would and I agree with him that neoclassical criminology is a good balance between both classical criminology and positivism criminology. I personally think that classical by itself is too harsh and that positivism by itself is too soft on the individual. But together, they are a perfect pair. -KiiNG007
DeleteAfter watching this video I was able to get a better understanding on the basic schools of thought as far as neoclassical and classical criminology. Specifically neoclassical criminology is described in this video as the middle ground between classical and positivism criminology. It doesn’t put all the blame on free will even though they might be a rational person. It highlights that you cannot throughout social factors such as what type of household someone grew up in and if they had anyone to tell them right from wrong. I personally think that is a good thing we look more and more at the background of offenders especially when they are juveniles because of the simple fact their brain is still developing and if they don’t have proper structure whether that is in school or at home there is a better chance no one has disciplined them or told them right from wrong. I am more inclined to think that neoclassical Criminology is a good way to look at crime especially the types of crime that juveniles often commit. I think it is good to take in account a mixture of the other two schools of thought. I am not saying that just because an offenders background and home life should completely excuse of punishment for the crime committed that obviously depends on the situation and how serious the crime is. I just think especially in juveniles even if they are considered able to think rationally most younger offenders will do things just to impress their friends and or they just have not been taught. So they might not be thinking in that moment about the law and what the consequences would be if they break that law.
ReplyDeleteRHB007
Yes I agree with you about Neoclassical because it's the new way of thinking things especially with junvinel and how to punish them bases of the seriousness of the crime and also the age of the juvenile. In also how kids so things just because of they want to please their fake friends. And sometimes when you commit a crime you don't really think it thru and just do it or you don't have nothing to live for so you might as well do it anyways. Juveniles also do it because do it for the thrill so that's when positivism crimongly come in because the society make things seem fun but it's really not so delinquency react to it the same way society does. Smiles007
DeleteI agree with you in the way that neoclassical is a perfect balance between the two. I believe both the other options go too far in either direction and will more than likely yield minimal results. You have to find a common ground between punishing and educating the criminal in order to produce rehabilitative results.
DeleteI agree with you in the way that neoclassical is a perfect balance between the two. I believe both the other options go too far in either direction and will more than likely yield minimal results. You have to find a common ground between punishing and educating the criminal in order to produce rehabilitative results.
DeleteGray007
The first thing that I learned about was classical criminology and what it meant,that crime is a result of exercsing freewill and personal choices based on caclculation on prices cost and benefit. And we all have free will, rational thoughts and if we commit a crime we are at fault. And their are consequences if we commit crime. And the two people behind the concept are Caesare Beccaeria and Jermey Bentham. I agree with the classical crimmongly more than positivism. If you go back into the Word of God and the history of it, he talks about how God gave man the choice between life and death which in other words God gave man "freewill" and man choosed death. And going back with the classical crimongly when you have freewill and you commit a crime you get in trouble.
ReplyDeleteThe second definition that I learned was positivism was that it's not the person fault but it's actually the socialization impact of it, genetics, economic condition and per group influence, etc makes us commit crime. Positivism does make some sort of sense because in when you apart of society you do things that are not actually you doing it but what was seen and you followed the behavior it of it. And with neoclassical it's basically the same thing as classical and positivism just combined to make a new word and a definition. Smiles007
I agree with you when you say that it’s not the person’s fault, it’s the socialization impact. Sociology plays a big role in everyone’s individual lives. By seeing and hearing people do/say certain things, they are influencing us to do those same things the same ways that they did them. Also, other outside factors like genetics, economic status, etc. can play a part as well. Some people are genetically prone to certain acts, that is just how they were born. It’s not the person’s fault because they cannot control these types of things, they just have to learn how to live their lives and manage them.
Delete-Fozz007
This video helped me understand how to understand the difference between classical criminology and neoclassical criminology. In the video, neoclassical criminology is talked about being in the middle of classical and positivism. It is described as being able to somewhat clear up any of the confusing parts of the two and helps create a better understanding of the topics. For example, classical criminology talks about how all of the emphasis is put on a person’s free will. People can think things through, so they will know if what they are doing is a criminal act and if they will most likely be caught or not. As far as positivism goes, it talks about how it is not a person’s fault for committing crimes, it is actually the fault of all the outside factors that the person had been exposed to. Some of these outside factors could be things like: genetics, society, etc. An example of classical criminology would be the difference between a juvenile and an adult. If a juvenile is with their friends and all their friends are doing drugs and ask them if they want to do them, they will more than likely say yes. This is due to the fact that juvenile brains are still developing, so their ability of free will to think long term about what their next few actions could bring them is not at its full strength yet. An adult, however, has their ability of free will at full strength because their brains are fully grown. Let’s say an adult is in this same situation and is asked if they would like to do some drugs. Being able to think long-term and all of the consequences and things that could happen to them, the adult would be more likely to say no. I agree with the view of positivism as well. Outside factors definitely have a certain level of impact on people. But, I think that the neoclassical view of criminology is the best at explaining everything and making it easier for everyone to understand.
ReplyDelete-Fozz007
Hi, I liked what you had to say in regards to Juveniles and their brain development. Specifically in the decision making processes they have for when they decide to do something that they know is wrong. Consequently, their actions, may or may not be influenced by the actions of their fellow peers. Juveniles brains are still growing, and will continue to grow into the mid to late 20s. Juveniles, then cannot make decisions for themselves until the age of 18. Why 18, if the human brain fully develops at mid to late 20s? The juvenile justice system is a continuous work-in-progress. --YouMustAcquit007--
DeleteI do agree with what you said, and although juveniles may not legally be able to make decisions for themselves, comparing them to adults by law is understandable but there are many adults out there that think and act as juveniles. I also read an article once written by a world renowned doctor about the studies and the human brain not being fully developed until mid twenties, I believe 25 or 26. Even then, that does not mean that we are fully grown and all of a sudden make better decisions or have now reached the full extent of maturity. I know 18 year olds that make better choices than 40 year olds. Being someone who wants to be in law enforcement, our job is to enforce the law whether we agree with it or not. I think looking into these theories more thoroughly would be cool because it puts it in the understanding for us the differences. -notacop007
DeleteI really appreciate the way he explained each theory/perspective on crime and criminals. He took a relatively unbiased approach and just gave the facts he could. It helped me to understand each point a little better. I definitely agree with the neoclassical approach and the balance it brings between the two. I don’t think we should lean too heavily one way or another on classical criminology or positivism because both play a role in developing a person’s decision. Overall though I think that this debate, as well as many others, seems to come down to the age-old question: Nature or Nurture? On one hand, the classical approach has a point in which we all inhabit free will. We’re born with a choice of whether or not we want to abide by the predetermined definitions of crime. Whether we agree or not is beside the point. The point is that we have the capability of understanding and weighing our options and the free will to choose which we decide to act on. Criminals have that capability as well; the only difference is that they decide that the profits of the crime are worth the impending punishment or more likely that they matter more. Of course, in no way does that mean that we shouldn’t take into consideration the effects other factors have on the individual making the decision because, on the other hand, hard determinism has a point in that there are multiple different preexisting or uncontrollable factors that have a large affect on the way we develop and sub sequentially the choices we make. That being said, in most cases people aren’t incapable of making a decision to the point that they should be exempt of all punishment, so this concept should not be applied to that extent. It should be used to further the intent of rehabilitation because no punishment at all would have little effect in doing so; which is exactly why I believe the neo classical concept is balanced relatively well enough for it to be effective.
ReplyDeleteGrey007
This video was very informative on the difference between Classical versa Neoclassical Criminology, I agree with you that he was unbiased in giving out his information on the subject. I agree with you that criminals have the free will if they want to commit the crime. They decided if the benefits out weigh the punishment. I also agree that some outside factors do play a part in what criminal act that a criminal does. This is why I like Neoclassical Criminology, it is in the middle between we have the free will to do something and their outside forces that contribute to our bad behavior. -ClatkKent007
DeleteAll in all I would honestly have to say watching this video was a refresher. Specifically, on all the basic understandings of the basic schools of thought as it relates to criminology. The two main schools of thought; classical and neo-classical criminology are the main focuses of the video. Yet neo-classical criminology was more of the focal point in the video. Neo-classical criminology is the go between positivism and classical criminology. The terms free will and consequences of our actions, i.e. punishments come into play.
ReplyDeleteYes, we as human beings do have free will. Classical criminology argues, that humans, specifically juveniles, do have free will to make and act on decisions. Either made by us or us being influenced, into making those decisions. Therefore, our free will can be influenced into doing something that is against the law. Positivism on the other hand holds that there are certain factors in the juveniles life such as their home environment, economic status, and peers they hangout with, to be just a few of the factors that surround why a juvenile commits a crime. The brain is still growing, when juveniles decide to do things that they know are wrong. but do not know the seriousness of those wrongs. As juveniles grow older either they will grow out of doing things that are dangerous, stupid, and illegal, or they will not.
Juveniles will either grow out of crime or start being just another number and file in the system. Juveniles who get and maintain jobs are less likely to want to commit crime, or they work to help support their family. I use this as an example of someone using their free will properly. Instead of committing crimes to get the money to live and support their family. Instead of being another file/number in the juvenile/adult prison system. --YouMustAcquit007--
Jacob Cooper lays out the information really well. I also think that he is more relatable to college students. He first talks about the classical criminology which is the the thought that crime is exercised on free will. A interesting point that he talks about is the in classical criminology we commit a crime on a rational mind, we had the free will to exercise that act. Another point that is interesting that Mr. Cooper talks about is that Classical Criminology deters aways from the supernatural. It focuses on the person really is responsible for the crime and can not blame it on a spiritual influence or being possessed. In Classical Criminology the punishment only meets the weight of the crime. The punishment will not be cruel or unusual, it also will not exceed the crime that has been committed. The last thing that he talks about on Classical Criminology is that criminals have control over their behavior, they choose to commit crimes and they can be deterred with punishment. By the end of the enlightenment period classical criminology was being pushed out by positivism. Positivism was a belief that crime results from forces beyond the human being. The human being is not responsible, we have free will but it is determined on our social status, genetic, peer pressure, and many other different factors. Positivism was later addressed in the 1970s when we “got tough on crime” This is when NeoClassical Criminology came to be. This new classical criminology is a balance between the old classical criminology and positivism. NeoClassical Criminology says that people are rational and have free will but it does not count out other factors such as genetics and social environment. It focuses on the character, character development, and the rational choices that people make faced with criminal opportunity. -ClarkKent007
ReplyDeleteYou explained what was talked about perfectly. I personally think that Neoclassical criminology is the better of the two. Seems like people were lazy before the enlightenment period and we just threw people in jail based on their actions, and not why their were acting out. I feel that neoclassical is more about helping people stop recommitting crime.
Delete^~^Itis007
The video is describing the difference between classical and neoclassical criminology. Jacob Cooper does a perfect job doing such. Basically, classic criminology is putting the entire blame on the individual. Under no circumstances were you not able to think of your actions before you did it. As the book defines as free will. You are in charge of your own decisions. It also talks about everyone being a utilitarian. Which also means you are weighing out the consequences of doing whatever crime before you do it. Which is why, back in the day, they thought having severe enough punishments would stop people from committing crime. Probably why the death sentence was used for everything. But keep in mind for this type of crime prevention to work, the punishment must be carried out swiftly, and certain. To say that kids are in complete control over their actions is not always right. Sometimes kids act out for a certain reasons, not because they thought the punishment for getting caught isn't severe enough. Now, some kids do, but some kids have what we talked about, trait theory. Bobby stole some candy from the store, not because he thought, “hey, if I get caught, it’s only a slap on the wrist.” But because he wanted some candy, but had no money. So he did it on impulse. Neoclassical criminology is my kind of criminology. It puts together all the outside forces that could’ve played a factor in why the crime was committed. This, in my opinion, really matters in juvenile cases. Instead of us being mean about someone's issues, we take the time to figure out why this person does these things. Aka, we can get them help instead of hoping jail time will sort them out. Overall, great video and he explained everything more than once, and in different ways to really get people to understand the difference in the two.
ReplyDelete^~^ Itis007
I still have questions but... Positivism is not making any sense to me. So what I got out of Jacob's video is that you commit a crime and do not feel as if you should be punished? The people, setting, and other objects around you is a reason you committed a criminal act? I feel if you commit something you caused that upon yourself. You were bold enough to make a decision so shouldn't you own up to it? To me that is saying , due to the neighborhood that I live in, I can commit any type of criminal act and it wouldn't be my fault. I wonder if this act is still relevant today. And what crimes we have to be committed for that topic to even be made up. When people practice or act Neoclassical criminology will the individual still be punished? I don't agree with this act at all. I feel that a lot of individuals will get away with this and others will probably get a harsher sentence. Example, I feel that with the Afluenza teen, this idea of Neoclassical criminology could've been brought up. Caucasian kid who's parents weren't around often. They could've said that he committed dangerous acts because his parents neglected him. I feel that an african american kid wouldn't be able to use that term for an excuse of why they committed their criminal acts. That's what I mean when saying some people would get off the hook more than others. Then with juveniles, I feel that the judge would probably not take this type of criminology because if you commit crimes, it's your fault. They have to learn you won't be able to say certain factors caused you to commit something. You were bold enough to do something wrong, so just take up for what you did. okurrr007
ReplyDeleteI kind of did not understand the Positivism thing but I feel the same way about Jacob’s video. I agree with your opinion on if someone commits a crime it is on them, it is no one else’s fault. No matter the environment, they know right from wrong, so it is up to them to make the right choices or not. I also agree that the affluenza excuse only works for certain people to get away with things. African American’s most likely would not have gotten off the hook for saying the actions they did were caused from their parents not being around. -pieface007
DeleteThis video helps me understand the difference between the two and the understanding of both. Neoclassical criminology is a school of thought that is differentiated between a number of different theories. Positvism is in reference to the neoclassical school of criminology. It focuses on an individuals rights mainly. Classical criminology falls under the assumption and belief that someone who commits a crime should be punished harsher or their sentences should reflect their crimes. Positivism helps the juveniles in a sense in the long run. It comes to show that juveniles and their environments and their family and home lives as well as who they associate with play a big role in determining their outlook in the crime community so to say. I firmly believe positivism is a big factor in juvenile crime. I never knew there were ways as such to categorize crimes. Juveniles are growing and sometimes it is a whole "wrong place, wrong time" scenario. But I do not believe every juvenile should be given that freebie. Some do know exactly what they are doing and will make a lifetime/career out of being a criminal. Sometimes juveniles associate themselves with people they do not truly know or may just choose to see the good in them. And then when the crime opportunity presents itself. I think a child's mine is 100 times different from an adults at times. Children are identified as juveniles for a reason and I think the way criminology truly depicts and distinguishes these theories from each other is absolutely amazing. I like how neoclassical is defined though for the rationality part but also that it does not rule out the heredity and environment because I firmly believe those truly begin a child's choice to partake and crime. Some commit the crimes as kids for the simple fact that they do not understand the severity and outcome and find it to be a thrill. -notacop007
ReplyDeleteClassical criminological suggest that an individual's decision to participate in deviant behavior is based upon free thought and a consideration of the pleasure of the act versus the pain of punishment if caught. While similar in several ways, neoclassical criminology expand upon the classical viewpoint. While individuals commit crimes in many ways, an absolute punishment was once a traditional method for sentencing. Whether the offense was trivial or extreme, individuals would receive the same type of punishment. Laws presented the regulations to justified punishment for crimes. However, there was no distinction between human rights, scientific evidence and consequences. You can also get the sense of how law officials and law enforcement or the criminal justice field makes their decisions. Neoclassical criminology basically means reforming new thoughts from old thoughts in my opinion. Classical criminology is exercising free will and having personal choices and also having human behaviors that can result from forces that are beyond the control of the person. Postivism criminology explains that free will is in the hands the person or people. Suggesting that people make decisions on personal and first person point of view. The times are changing and laws are changing everyday. Neoclassical criminology entails that classical thinking changes. In fact, focusing on other factors that contribute to a crime is what neoclassical criminology proves morally correct. I tend to think that classical criminology gives the criminal justice field a concrete base for decisions of any kind.
ReplyDeleteSR
This video really broke down the differences between classical and neoclassical and I feel like lots of people could learn from watching this video. He explains both sides very well and even in different ways so more people could really grasp the understanding. He states that classical criminology is exercising free will and personal choices which also means that we all have free will and rational thoughts in order to make every day decisions and that means we are at fault for our criminal actions and that we rationally thought about those decisions before they were committed. I 100% agree with him on this. Everyone that completes a criminal act thinks about it first, no matter how long they thought... they still thought about doing it! He also talks about how before classical ideas you could really blame crime on spiritual short comings or maybe someone being possessed when in doubt the person really is in fact responsible for their actions. He then goes on to say that neoclassical is a balance in between hard determinism and free will. This is huge for juvenile delinquents because yes they made the decision but young kids have social factors, genetic factors, and the impact of socialization in their lives and you cant completely ignore that. I do like how explains this because those things are hard to pass in life and especially if its genetic, there inst a way around all of it necessarily. I really liked this video and the way he explained everything. freckles007
ReplyDelete^^ He took his time and explained the true meaning and differences behind classical and neoclassical. I do believe that we are responsible for our actions especially if you are an adult. We think about everything and if you committed a crime, you took the the time to think about it then you take the time they gave you without any arguments we are responsible for ourselves. freckles007
DeleteI agree that we are in control when it comes to making decisions. When someone commits a crime, they think about the reward, the possibility of getting caught, what the punishment could be. I also found it interesting that people use to blame things on the supernatural. People probably thought that a lot of people were possessed. I agree with you that it will help with the juvenile delinquents, they did commit a crime put some of the factors that they had, they might not have any control over. -Soccer31007
DeleteIn this video I got a better understanding of classical. He explained that classical criminology deals more with with free will and personal choices. We all have the free will to make decisions and to think about what we are going to do and that includes making decisions when we commit a crime. We thought about it before we did it. I learned about what people use to think about classical criminology in the early days and before classical criminology was thought more in depth, people use to think that you were possessed when you commited a crime. I liked how Jacob talked about the theorist named Jeremy Bentham. He explained his theory on how a criminal will weigh the result of committing a crime before they commit the crime. It kind of reminded me of weighing pros and cons of something. I agree that we are able to think and make decisions and that we have free will to do that. When he started to talk about positivism, he started talking about other factors. The factors are the reasons why people commit crimes. He said is was more about not being in control compared to classical criminology. I agree that there can be other factors that can lead to criminal behavior. Neoclassical criminology is more in the middle of hard determinism and free will. I think this is good because some things can't be one sided. I think neoclassical criminology is the better one. People may think that this person who committed crime has complete control over what they were doing when they might actually not. People may think that this person didn't have complete control when maybe they did. Neoclassical criminology is a nice balance between the two and I think it will be more beneficial especially in the juvenile system. If they find out that the person was not in complete control, the punishment might be different and that person might be able to get help depending on the situation. -Soccer31007
ReplyDeleteThis video definitely gave me an idea of what each school of thought is. After viewing this I realized I agree more with neoclassical, as it is is a better way of doing things. The neoclassical idea assigns proper punishment to the crime, while still making sure offenders are punished. The idea also tightens up restrictions on offenders, which may prevent them from committing offenses in the future. The neoclassical idea also seems to understand that sometimes people do things without really thinking about them. It brings together the two extremes.
ReplyDeleteRedranger007
After watching this video I found that it was quite interesting. The main slide that stood out to me in the video was about how Beccaria thought the certainty of punishment will always make a stronger impression than fear of another. I believe that Beccaria is saying when you are certain you will be punished, you will be less likely to do the crime. He is also saying, even If someone was do a small moderate crime, their punishment will be harsh enough for them not to want to do the crime again. When people know that they will be easily caught from doing a crime it will lessen the amount of crimes that are occurring todays society. For example, if someone was to try to steal from a store and there were officers inside, they would be less likely to want to steal from there because they are more likely to get caught than if they were not inside the store. -pieface007
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video, I learned the differences between the three criminology theories, classical, positivism, and neoclassical. This video really helped me develop an understanding of how different each theory is. The classical theory is stating that a person has full control over their actions, so any action involving committing a crime is strictly one hundred percent that individuals fault. The classical theory is the harsher theory out of the three. Positivism criminology on the other hand makes a statement that the juvenile does not have complete control over his or her own actions and that an individual commits a crime depending on many other factors. Society, family life, school, etc. may have a say to why a crime would be committed. The neoclassical criminology theory means new theory. In the video, the guy explained how this theory was a balance between classical criminology and positivism criminology. It states that people do have a large amount of control over their actions when committing a crime, but they possibly may not be one hundred percent in control. I personally agree with neoclassical criminology the most because the balance helps especially in the juvenile cases. Classical criminology may be too harsh on an individual. I personally think that classical criminology is too harsh on the individual and does not really give an open eye perspective on the situation at hand. With that being said, I think that positivism criminology does the exact opposite. It is not harsh enough on an individual and states that a person has really no control over their actions, and I think that is way wrong. I agree with neoclassical criminology. I think that neoclassical criminology will be the theory that continues to help make the right judgement calls when it comes to criminal cases and especially in the juvenile field. I think it is important to realize that a person has control to an extent and that they can be persuaded by others or society to do a certain action. In the long run, it is a equal balance between the two. -KiiNG007
ReplyDelete