Lombroso And Durkheim
Dialogue between Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Dialogue between Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim
Criminology, as every science, relies on facts and evidence. This paper is aimed at creating a dialogue between three criminologists of the nineteenth century Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim; in this discussion, they will explain their points of view and try to implement their theories into the reality at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first century. Their doctrines were a response to the processes of industrialization and the modernization in the 18th and 19th centuries; they aimed to promote cohesion and rationality in the society (Vold & Bernard, 1986, p.101)
Lombroso …show more content…
Lombroso, your theory is not perfect. I am sure that there are no those, who were born to be criminals; we live in a free country, and every person is willing to choose what he or she wants; therefore, I am sure that if a person is a criminal, he or she has chosen to act so. I do not say that your approach is not right, but it cannot be implemented in life.
Lombroso: I have read your book On Crimes and Punishment, where you have presented your own point of view on this issue. I know that you think that there are two characteristics to explain a human behavior: rationality and intelligence. However, I cannot understand how this is related to criminology.
Beccaria: Let me explain you, my dear Lombroso. Let us take as an example the case, we have discussed before, the case of the Op shop vandalism. Those juveniles, who were committing this misdemeanor, thought that they would have some particular profit out of this robbery. “Every single individual is said to be not the servant but the master or manipulator of his/her fate. They are more possessed of free will rather than driven by spiritual phenomena” (Vold & Bernard, 1986, pp. 8-9). They were acting according to their free will; they wrongly thought that they will have some benefit after this act of …show more content…
Some criminals, it does not matter whether they are Atavists, Criminaloids or Insane criminals, commit some crimes driven only by some particular obsession. For example, Atavists are born criminals, they have no other choice, but to commit crimes, it is their nature. I have talked to those criminals who belong to three different types, and those who are Atavists did not even confess that they have committed a crime. To my mind, criminals are not something extraordinary, they are a part of the modern society, and one cannot do anything with this. Those teenagers, as I have already mentioned, looked like Atavists, they act in a different way in order to feel special. How do you think, why do they have tattoos? Because this reflects their inner insensitivity to pain and their love to adornment (Lombroso, 2006, pp.
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Dialogue between Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim
Criminology, as every science, relies on facts and evidence. This paper is aimed at creating a dialogue between three criminologists of the nineteenth century Beccaria, Lombroso and Durkheim; in this discussion, they will explain their points of view and try to implement their theories into the reality at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first century. Their doctrines were a response to the processes of industrialization and the modernization in the 18th and 19th centuries; they aimed to promote cohesion and rationality in the society (Vold & Bernard, 1986, p.101)
Lombroso …show more content…
Lombroso, your theory is not perfect. I am sure that there are no those, who were born to be criminals; we live in a free country, and every person is willing to choose what he or she wants; therefore, I am sure that if a person is a criminal, he or she has chosen to act so. I do not say that your approach is not right, but it cannot be implemented in life.
Lombroso: I have read your book On Crimes and Punishment, where you have presented your own point of view on this issue. I know that you think that there are two characteristics to explain a human behavior: rationality and intelligence. However, I cannot understand how this is related to criminology.
Beccaria: Let me explain you, my dear Lombroso. Let us take as an example the case, we have discussed before, the case of the Op shop vandalism. Those juveniles, who were committing this misdemeanor, thought that they would have some particular profit out of this robbery. “Every single individual is said to be not the servant but the master or manipulator of his/her fate. They are more possessed of free will rather than driven by spiritual phenomena” (Vold & Bernard, 1986, pp. 8-9). They were acting according to their free will; they wrongly thought that they will have some benefit after this act of …show more content…
Some criminals, it does not matter whether they are Atavists, Criminaloids or Insane criminals, commit some crimes driven only by some particular obsession. For example, Atavists are born criminals, they have no other choice, but to commit crimes, it is their nature. I have talked to those criminals who belong to three different types, and those who are Atavists did not even confess that they have committed a crime. To my mind, criminals are not something extraordinary, they are a part of the modern society, and one cannot do anything with this. Those teenagers, as I have already mentioned, looked like Atavists, they act in a different way in order to feel special. How do you think, why do they have tattoos? Because this reflects their inner insensitivity to pain and their love to adornment (Lombroso, 2006, pp.