How did the positive school of criminology differ from the classical school?

The classical and positive schools of criminology represent fundamentally different approaches to understanding criminal behavior and the purpose of the justice system.

The Classical School

Emerging in the late 18th century, the classical school—associated with thinkers like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham—viewed the criminal as a free moral agent. Its core tenets included:12
* Rational Choice: Criminal acts were seen as deliberate choices based on a calculation of pleasure versus pain.1
* Deterrence: The primary goal of the justice system was to provide penalties that outweighed the benefits of a crime, thereby deterring future offenses.12
* Legal Reform: Reformers sought to humanize the law, reduce arbitrary punishments, and ensure due process, though they often ignored the individual characteristics of the offender.12

The Positive School

Developing in the late 19th century, the positive school—led by Cesare Lombroso—shifted the focus from the crime to the criminal. Its key differences included:13
* Scientific Method: It applied the methods of modern science to study the causes of crime, moving away from the abstract legalism of the classical school.13
* Determinism: It rejected the idea of free will, arguing that criminal behavior was determined by biological, psychological, or environmental factors.12
* Individualization: Because criminals were seen as products of their circumstances or traits rather than rational actors, the school advocated for the "individualization of treatment" rather than uniform punishment.1

While the positive school’s specific theories on biological "born criminals" were eventually rejected, it left a lasting legacy by establishing the study of the criminal's mental and social background as essential to modern criminology.123