Criminology and Penology

Lombroso is considered as the father of modern criminology. Why? Discuss.

Introduction

Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909), an Italian physician, psychiatrist and prison doctor, is widely regarded as the father of modern criminology. Before him, crime was explained mainly in moral, religious or legal terms. Lombroso was the first to study criminals scientifically, using observation, measurement and classification. He shifted criminology from speculation to empirical study, which is why he is called the father of modern criminology. His major work, L'Uomo Delinquente (The Criminal Man, 1876), laid the foundation of the biological school of criminology.

Reasons why Lombroso is regarded as the father of modern criminology

1. Scientific and empirical approach: Lombroso examined thousands of criminals, soldiers and ordinary people. He measured skulls, jaws, arms, height and other physical features. He used data and comparison rather than moral preaching. This made the study of crime a science.

2. Theory of the born criminal: He argued that some persons are born criminals. They carry atavistic (primitive) physical traits such as a sloping forehead, large jaws, long arms, flat nose, unusual ears and insensitivity to pain. Such a person is a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution and is naturally inclined to crime.

3. Classification of criminals: He divided criminals into categories — born criminals, insane criminals, occasional criminals and criminals of passion. This classification helped in understanding different causes of crime and in suggesting different treatments.

4. Study of female offenders: In The Female Offender (1895), he studied women criminals and held that women commit fewer crimes because of their biological and social conditions. This opened the field of gender and crime.

5. Influence on criminal policy: His ideas supported the individual study of the offender, the use of expert opinion, preventive detention of dangerous offenders and reform of the penal system. Cesare Beccaria had earlier attacked the harshness of punishment, but Lombroso studied the offender himself. This is why he, and not Beccaria, is called the father of modern criminology.

6. Foundation for later schools: His work inspired Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo, who developed the Italian positivist school. It also influenced the study of heredity, body type (Kretschmer, Sheldon) and later biological and psychological theories of crime.

Criticism

1. His method was not fully scientific; he often selected data to support his theory and did not use proper control groups.
2. His concept of the born criminal is not supported by modern research. No fixed set of physical traits proves criminality.
3. Goring's study of English prisoners found no such physical type.
4. His findings were biased by the poor and mentally ill prisoners he observed, and they ignored social and economic causes of crime.
5. His theory was misused to justify racism, eugenics and forced sterilization.

Conclusion

Despite serious criticism, Lombroso's contribution is historic. He was the first to make the study of crime and the criminal scientific, to classify offenders and to turn attention from the act of crime to the personality of the criminal. For this pioneering work, he is rightly called the father of modern criminology.

"Crime is learnt, not born." Correlate this statement with Differential Association Theory

Introduction

The statement "crime is learnt, not born" means that criminal behaviour is not inherited or biologically determined; rather, it is acquired through interaction and socialization in society. This idea is systematically explained by the Differential Association Theory of Edwin H. Sutherland, an American criminologist. He presented this theory in the Principles of Criminology (1939) and later revised it. The theory is regarded as the most influential sociological explanation of crime, and it directly supports the view that crime is a learned phenomenon.

Meaning of Differential Association Theory

Sutherland argued that criminal behaviour is learned in intimate personal groups. A person becomes criminal when he or she associates more with persons who favour violation of law than with those who favour obedience to law. The word "differential" indicates that the association with criminal and non-criminal patterns differs from person to person in frequency, duration, priority and intensity. Hence, crime is not a matter of birth or heredity but of learning.

Sutherland's Nine Propositions

1. Criminal behaviour is learned.
2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups (family, friends, peers, neighbourhood).
4. When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to the violation of law over definitions unfavourable to the violation of law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values.

Correlation with the Statement "Crime is Learnt, Not Born"

(a) Rejection of biological inheritance of crime: The statement denies that criminals are born with criminal traits. Sutherland also rejects the born-criminal theory of Lombroso. He holds that no one is born criminal; a person becomes criminal by learning.

(b) Learning through communication: The statement implies that crime is transmitted from one person to another. Sutherland explains that this transmission takes place through communication within intimate groups such as family, friends and peers. A child in a criminal family or delinquent peer group learns criminal values and techniques.

(c) Learning of techniques and attitudes: The statement "crime is learnt" is not limited to learning how to commit crime. Sutherland clarifies that the learner also acquires motives, rationalizations and attitudes favourable to crime. For example, a boy learns from his companions that stealing is not wrong because "everyone does it."

(d) Excess of definitions favourable to crime: A person adopts crime when the definitions favourable to law violation outweigh those favourable to law obedience. This is a learning process, not a birth quality. Thus, the statement is fully consistent with the theory.

(e) Role of frequency, duration, priority and intensity: Whether a person learns crime or law-abiding behaviour depends on which association is earlier (priority), lasts longer (duration), occurs more often (frequency) and is emotionally closer (intensity). This again proves that crime is a product of learning, not of birth.

(f) Learning like any other learning: Sutherland states that criminal behaviour is learned through the same mechanisms as lawful behaviour. This strongly supports the statement that crime is learnt, not born.

Conclusion

The statement "crime is learnt, not born" is fully consistent with Sutherland's Differential Association Theory. The theory explains that criminal behaviour is acquired through interaction with intimate groups, where a person learns techniques, motives and attitudes favourable to crime. When definitions favourable to law violation exceed those favourable to law obedience, the person becomes criminal. Hence, crime is a learned social phenomenon, not an inborn trait. However, the theory has been criticized for ignoring individual personality factors and for being difficult to test empirically.

Media and Movies as Influences on Criminal Behaviour — A Critical Comment

1. The claim being examined

It is often argued that media and movies "cause" crime — that films showing violence, gangster life, heists, drug use and revenge killings plant the idea of crime in the viewer's mind and push him to commit it. This is the causal or stimulus–response claim. A critical look shows that the relationship is real but far more limited and indirect than this claim suggests.

2. How media and movies may influence offenders

• Providing the technique (the "how-to" effect). Films and news reports supply practical knowledge — how a lock is picked, how a bank or ATM is robbed, how a kidnapping is planned, how evidence is destroyed. The offender may already be motivated; the media merely supplies the method. This is the strongest and best-documented form of influence.
• Providing the motive and the model (imitation). Bandura's social learning theory holds that people learn behaviour by observing models, especially when the model is attractive, high-status and rewarded. The glamorous gangster who "wins" at the end of the film becomes an identification figure for a frustrated youth. Copycat crimes — a suicide or a school shooting repeated after wide publicity — are the clearest examples.
• Neutralisation of guilt. Repeated exposure to violence on screen makes it familiar and dulls the moral inhibition against it. Sykes and Matza's techniques of neutralisation are helped along when the offender can tell himself "everyone does it" or "this is how the world works," a picture the media constantly reinforces.
• Creating a culture of violence and consumerism. Constant portrayal of aggression as the normal way to settle disputes, and of wealth as the only measure of success, shapes the values of the young. Where legitimate means to such wealth are blocked (Merton's strain theory), the screen offers illegitimate means as the ready alternative.
• Labelling and reinforcement. Media coverage gives the offender notoriety — the "status" of being a known criminal — which some offenders actively seek. It also spreads fear in society, which may push authorities towards harsher, sometimes unjust, responses.

3. Critical objections to the causal claim

• Correlation is not causation. Exposure to violent media and criminality are both associated with a third factor — poverty, broken family, poor schooling, delinquent peer group, low self-control. The screen is not the seed; it is at most the water.
• Most viewers do not become criminals. Millions watch the same films and remain law-abiding. If the media were a sufficient cause, crime would be far more widespread than it is. The effect, if any, is weak and conditional.
• Selection and differential susceptibility. Aggressive persons tend to choose aggressive films; the media confirms rather than creates the tendency. Susceptibility is highest among those already at risk — children, the emotionally unstable, the socially isolated.
• Catharsis and deterrence. Some argue that vicarious violence on screen drains off aggressive impulse (catharsis), and that crime films and news reports also teach the consequences of crime — arrest, punishment, ruined life — and thus deter.
• Media as a mirror, not a maker. Films and news largely reflect the violence already present in society; they sell what the audience already wants. Blaming the screen alone lets the real causes — inequality, unemployment, weak family and community control, ineffective policing — escape scrutiny.
• Methodological weakness. Laboratory studies measure short-term aggression (hitting a doll, noise blasts), not real crime. Field studies cannot isolate media from the dozens of other influences acting on the same person. Findings are therefore suggestive, not conclusive.

4. Conclusion

Media and movies do influence crime, but chiefly as facilitators and reinforcers, not as the root cause. They supply the technique, the model, the vocabulary of justification and the glamour that a frustrated person may imitate. The decisive causes remain social and economic — poverty, broken social bonds, weak informal control and blocked opportunity. A sound policy therefore combines responsible media content and regulation with real attention to the social conditions in which crime is bred; censoring the screen alone will not reduce crime.

Retributive Theory of Punishment

Meaning

The retributive theory (from Latin retribuere, "to pay back") holds that punishment is justified because the offender deserves to suffer in return for the wrong he has done. It is backward-looking: it looks to the past offence, not to any future benefit. The offender is punished because he has violated the law and the moral order, and punishment restores the balance of justice. Its classic expression is the lex talionis — "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Chief exponents

Kant and Hegel are the leading philosophical exponents. Kant argued that a person who commits a crime must be punished because he deserves it; punishment is a categorical imperative and must never be used merely as a means to some other end (such as deterrence). Hegel saw crime as a negation of the legal order, and punishment as the negation of that negation — thereby restoring the right. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen also supported the theory on the ground that punishment should express the community's hatred of the crime.

Main features

1. Backward-looking: The justification lies in the offence already committed, not in future consequences.
2. Desert-based: Punishment is imposed because it is deserved, not because it is useful.
3. Proportionality: The punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence — the graver the crime, the severer the punishment.
4. Moral condemnation: It treats the offender as a rational, responsible moral agent who is answerable for his act.
5. No ulterior purpose: It does not aim at reforming the offender or deterring others; those may be incidental effects only.

Forms

• Lex talionis (exact retaliation): The same injury is inflicted on the offender — the primitive form.
• Proportional retribution: Punishment is measured by the gravity of the offence, not by identical injury. This is the modern, civilised form.

Merits

1. It satisfies the natural human sense of justice and the victim's demand for vengeance, reducing the risk of private retaliation and vigilantism.
2. It recognises the offender as a free, rational and responsible person, and thus respects his dignity.
3. It provides a clear, objective yardstick — the seriousness of the offence — for fixing the quantum of punishment.
4. It upholds the authority of the law and the moral order of society.
5. It is simple and easy to apply, and it satisfies the victim and the public.

Demerits

1. It is essentially revengeful and vindictive; it adds one evil to another without removing the cause of crime.
2. It is backward-looking and therefore ignores the reform of the offender and the prevention of future crime.
3. It is difficult in practice to measure the exact amount of suffering that a particular crime "deserves."
4. It ignores the circumstances of the offender — poverty, ignorance, provocation, mental abnormality — which may reduce his moral guilt.
5. It may harden the offender instead of correcting him, and it fails to compensate the victim.
6. It is based on the assumption of free will, which is questioned by the deterministic school.

Conclusion

The retributive theory supplies the moral foundation of punishment — that the guilty must suffer in proportion to their guilt — and it survives in modern sentencing as the principle of proportionality. But taken alone it is inadequate, for punishment today must also aim at deterrence, prevention and reformation. Modern penal systems therefore adopt a mixed or composite theory, in which retribution fixes the outer limit of the sentence while reform and deterrence guide its actual content.

Short Notes (any THREE)

a) Demonological Theory of Crime

The demonological theory is the oldest explanation of crime. It holds that criminal behaviour is caused by supernatural forces — evil spirits, demons, or the devil — that enter or possess a person and drive him to commit wrong.

• Crime was seen as sin and the offender as one possessed by an evil spirit.
• The remedy was not punishment in the modern sense but exorcism, torture, or death to drive out the demon.
• It dominated Europe during the Middle Ages, when trials by ordeal and witch-hunts were common.
• Its contribution is historical: it was the first attempt to explain crime, but it is unscientific because it ignores social, economic, and psychological causes.

b) Purposes of Criminal Law

Criminal law defines offences, fixes punishment, and thereby serves several purposes:

1. Retribution — the offender is made to suffer in proportion to the harm done, satisfying society's sense of justice.
2. Deterrence — punishment of the offender warns others (general deterrence) and the offender himself (special deterrence) against future crime.
3. Prevention — by declaring acts as offences and by removing the offender from society, further harm is prevented.
4. Reformation — punishment aims to correct and rehabilitate the offender so he can return as a law-abiding citizen.
5. Protection of society — life, liberty, and property of citizens are safeguarded and social order is maintained.
6. Declaring public morality — it declares what conduct society condemns, thus strengthening social norms.

c) Case Study Method of Criminology

The case study method is a clinical, intensive study of a single offender, group, or criminal event in its full setting.

• The researcher collects detailed data through interviews, observation, records, family history, and medical or psychiatric reports.
• It studies the offender's background, personality, motive, circumstances, and treatment response.
• It is qualitative and intensive rather than extensive; the number of cases is small but the depth is great.
• Advantages: gives deep insight into causes of crime, useful in individualised treatment, probation, and parole decisions.
• Limitations: findings cannot be generalised, it is time-consuming, and the researcher's bias may affect the result.

d) Scope of Criminology

Criminology is the scientific study of crime as a social phenomenon — its making, causation, and control. Its scope covers:

1. Study of crime — nature, definition, types, and extent (measurement) of crime.
2. Causation of crime — biological, psychological, economic, social, and cultural factors behind criminal behaviour.
3. Study of the criminal — the personality, background, and typology of offenders.
4. Study of victims — victimology, i.e. the role and characteristics of victims.
5. Penology — punishment, treatment, and correction of offenders, including prisons, probation, and parole.
6. Prevention and control — police, courts, and correctional agencies, and crime-prevention policy.
7. Criminal law and justice administration — the legal framework within which crime is defined and handled.

Thus criminology is interdisciplinary, drawing on sociology, psychology, law, medicine, and statistics.

e) Difference between Probation and Parole

In short, probation is a substitute for imprisonment, while parole is a release from imprisonment.

The Classical School of criminology emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century in Western Europe, mainly in England, France and Italy. It was the first systematic, secular and rational approach to crime and punishment, and it arose as a direct reaction to the existing legal order. Its emergence can be explained by the following causes, each of which also serves as its justification.

1. Reaction against the barbaric and arbitrary criminal justice system Before the Classical School, criminal law in Europe was cruel, uncertain and irrational. Punishments included torture, branding, mutilation and capital punishment for even petty offences. Judges had wide discretionary powers, so punishment depended on the judge's whim rather than on the offence. Trials were secret, and the accused had few procedural safeguards. The Classical thinkers argued that such a system was unjust and ineffective, and demanded a rational, predictable and humane system based on law. This is the strongest justification for the emergence of the school.

2. Influence of the Enlightenment philosophy The eighteenth century was the age of Enlightenment, led by thinkers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau. They stressed reason, natural rights, liberty, equality and the social contract. These ideas challenged the divine right of kings and the authority of the church over crime and sin. Crime came to be viewed as a legal and social problem rather than a moral or religious one. The Classical School applied this rational philosophy to crime and punishment.

3. Need for certainty and deterrence in punishment The existing system failed to deter crime because punishment was inconsistent — the same offence could bring death in one court and a fine in another. Classical thinkers held that crime is the result of free will and rational calculation of pleasure and pain. Therefore, punishment should be certain, swift and proportionate so that the pain of punishment outweighs the pleasure of crime. This principle of deterrence justified a new school of thought.

4. Emergence of the doctrine of free will and rational choice The Classical School rejected the demonological and fatalistic explanations of crime. It assumed that every person is a rational being who chooses crime after weighing its benefits against its costs. This assumption provided a scientific and secular explanation of criminal behaviour and laid the foundation of modern criminology.

5. Contribution of Beccaria and Bentham Cesare Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments (1764) attacked torture and the death penalty and laid down the principles of legality, proportionality and deterrence. Jeremy Bentham developed the theory of utilitarianism and the idea that law should aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Their writings gave the school its theoretical base and practical programme of reform.

6. Growth of capitalism and the need for a stable legal order The rise of capitalism and the market economy required a predictable legal system to protect property and contracts. The arbitrary and cruel system of the feudal period was incompatible with the new economic order. The Classical School provided legal certainty and equality before the law, which suited the emerging bourgeois society. This economic and social change is an important justification for its emergence.

7. Demand for codification and the rule of law The Classical School insisted that crimes and punishments must be defined in advance in a written penal code, that judges should only apply the law and not make it, and that no one should be punished except for a breach of the law. This doctrine of nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege led to the codification of criminal law in Europe and justified the school as a movement for the rule of law.

Conclusion The Classical School emerged because the old criminal justice system was cruel, uncertain and ineffective, and because Enlightenment philosophy, rational choice theory, the writings of Beccaria and Bentham, and the needs of the rising capitalist economy demanded a new approach. Its justification lies in the fact that it replaced torture and arbitrariness with legality, proportionality, certainty and humanity, and thus laid the foundation of the modern criminal law and criminology.

Definition of Criminal

A criminal is a person who commits an act or omission that is prohibited by law, is punishable by the State, and who is held legally responsible for that act through a competent court of law. In other words, a criminal is an individual who violates the criminal law of the land and is convicted for such violation. The essential elements of a crime — mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act) — must be present for a person to be labelled a criminal.

Types of Criminals according to Cesare Lombroso

Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909), an Italian criminologist known as the "father of modern criminology," in his famous work The Criminal Man (1876) classified criminals into the following types:

1. Born Criminal (Atavistic Criminal): Lombroso believed that some persons are born criminals. They are born with certain physical and biological abnormalities (stigmata) such as a sloping forehead, large jaws, long arms, flat nose, etc., which resemble primitive human beings. Such criminals are said to be atavistic — a throwback to an earlier stage of evolution — and are considered incorrigible by nature.

2. Insane Criminal: This category includes persons who commit crime due to mental abnormality, mental disease, or psychological disorder. Idiots, imbeciles, melancholics, paranoiacs, and epileptics fall under this group. They are not fully responsible for their acts because of their unsound mind.

3. Criminal by Passion (Occasional Criminal): These are persons who commit crime not due to any inborn tendency but due to sudden emotional outbursts such as anger, jealousy, love, or hatred. They are generally of good character but are carried away by intense passion or provocation at a particular moment.

Conclusion

Lombroso's biological classification, though later criticised for its unscientific approach, laid the foundation for the scientific study of criminals and contributed significantly to the development of criminology.

Prison: The Right Place for Some Criminals, but Wrong for Many Others — A Critical Discussion

1. Introduction

Imprisonment is the most visible and widely used form of punishment in modern criminal justice systems. It rests on the idea that depriving a person of liberty is a just and effective response to wrongdoing. However, the proposition that "prison is the right place for some criminals, but wrong for many others" captures an important truth: imprisonment is not a uniform good. Its appropriateness depends on the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the purpose the sentence is meant to serve. This answer critically examines when prison is justified and when it is not, drawing on the major theories of punishment and the realities of prison systems such as Nepal's.

2. Theories of Punishment and the Place of Prison

The justification for prison flows from four classical theories:

• Retribution: The offender deserves to suffer in proportion to the harm caused. Prison satisfies the community's sense of justice.
• Deterrence: The threat and experience of imprisonment discourage the offender and others from committing crimes.
• Incapacitation: Confining the offender prevents further harm to society.
• Reformation: Prison should correct and rehabilitate the offender so that he or she can return to society as a law-abiding citizen.

Prison is "right" where these theories converge — that is, where the offender is dangerous, the offence is grave, and no less restrictive measure would serve the purpose. It is "wrong" where imprisonment serves none of these aims and instead produces more harm than good.

3. When Prison Is the Right Place

(a) Serious and heinous offences. Murder, rape, aggravated robbery, terrorism, drug trafficking, and organised crime call for long-term imprisonment. Here retribution and incapacitation justify the deprivation of liberty. In Nepal, the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017) prescribes imprisonment for such offences, reflecting this rationale.

(b) Dangerous and repeat offenders. Habitual offenders and those with a high risk of recidivism must be incapacitated to protect society. The community's right to safety outweighs the offender's liberty.

(c) Offenders who pose a threat to witnesses or the justice process. Where there is a real risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating victims, custodial detention is justified.

(d) Where no effective alternative exists. In the absence of a functioning probation or community service system, prison may be the only available sanction for serious wrongdoing.

4. When Prison Is Wrong

(a) Petty and non-violent offences. Imprisoning a person for minor theft, small drug possession, or trivial property disputes is disproportionate. It violates the principle of proportionality and clogs prisons with offenders who pose little danger. Nepal's prisons are notoriously overcrowded — with occupancy often exceeding 150% of capacity — largely because of pre-trial detention and short sentences for minor offences.

(b) First-time and youthful offenders. For a young first offender, prison is often a school for crime rather than a correctional institution. Contact with hardened criminals leads to prisonisation — the adoption of criminal values and habits — and increases the likelihood of reoffending.

(c) Offenders with mental illness or addiction. Prisons are not hospitals. Mentally ill and drug-dependent offenders need treatment, not incarceration. Jailing them violates their dignity and fails to address the root cause of their conduct.

(d) Where imprisonment destroys more than it repairs. A poor breadwinner jailed for a trivial offence may lose his job, his family may disintegrate, and his children may be pushed into crime. The social cost of imprisonment often exceeds the harm of the original offence. This is the core of the "prison is wrong for many others" argument.

(e) Pre-trial detainees. Many prisoners in Nepal and South Asia are undertrials who have not yet been convicted. Keeping them in prison violates the presumption of innocence and is a grave injustice.

5. Critical Evaluation

The statement is essentially a plea for individualised sentencing and restorative and rehabilitative alternatives. The critical points are:

1. Prison is a blunt instrument. It treats all offenders alike, ignoring differences in culpability, motive, and capacity for reform. A just system must tailor the punishment to the offender, not merely to the offence.

2. The reformation theory is often defeated by prison conditions. Overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and violence within prisons make true reformation impossible. A prison that brutalises its inmates cannot claim to correct them.

3. Alternatives are underused. Probation, parole, community service, suspended sentences, fines, and restorative justice (mediation between victim and offender) are cheaper, more humane, and often more effective for minor offences. Nepal's Probation and Parole Act, 2064 (2007) provides for such measures, but their application remains limited.

4. Human rights concerns. The Constitution of Nepal, 2072 guarantees the right to a fair trial and prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Prison conditions that violate these guarantees make imprisonment unlawful in spirit, even if lawful in form.

5. The purpose must match the person. For a dangerous murderer, prison is right. For a starving man who steals food, prison is wrong. The same punishment cannot be right for both. This is the essence of the statement.

6. Conclusion

Prison is neither universally right nor universally wrong. It is a necessary institution for serious, dangerous, and repeat offenders, where retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation genuinely justify the loss of liberty. But for petty offenders, first-timers, the mentally ill, addicts, and undertrials, imprisonment is often disproportionate, counterproductive, and destructive. A just and effective criminal justice system must therefore reserve prison for those who truly need to be there, and develop robust alternatives — probation, parole, fines, community service, and restorative justice — for the many for whom prison is the wrong place. The statement is thus not a rejection of prison, but a call for its rational, humane, and individualised use.

Definition of Criminology

The term criminology is derived from the Latin word crimen (meaning "crime" or "accusation") and the Greek word logos (meaning "study" or "knowledge"). Literally, therefore, criminology means the study of crime.

Definitions by jurists:

• Edwin H. Sutherland — "Criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. It includes within its scope the processes of making laws, of breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws."
• Donald Taft — "Criminology is the study of crime, its causes, its treatment and prevention."
• Sutherland and Cressey — Criminology deals with the three processes of (i) making laws, (ii) breaking laws, and (iii) reacting to the breaking of laws.

From these definitions, criminology may be defined as the scientific, interdisciplinary study of crime as a social phenomenon — its nature, causes, forms, consequences, and the methods of its prevention, control and treatment of offenders.

Scope of Criminology

Criminology is broadly divided into:

1. Penology — the study of punishment, treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
2. Criminal Etiology — the study of the causes of crime.
3. Criminal Phenomenology — the study of the forms and patterns of crime.
4. Victimology — the study of victims of crime.

It draws upon sociology, psychology, psychiatry, law, anthropology, statistics and biology, and is therefore an interdisciplinary science.

Importance of Criminology in Modern Times

1. Understanding the causes of crime Criminology investigates the biological, psychological, economic and social factors behind criminal behaviour. This knowledge helps society address the root causes — poverty, unemployment, broken families, drug addiction, illiteracy — rather than merely punishing the symptoms.

2. Formulation of sound criminal law and policy Legislators rely on criminological research to frame laws that reflect the actual nature and extent of crime. Penal reforms, juvenile justice, and laws on cybercrime, human trafficking and organized crime are all shaped by criminological findings.

3. Effective prevention and control of crime By identifying high-risk groups, crime-prone areas and emerging crime trends, criminology enables the State to design preventive strategies such as community policing, surveillance, awareness campaigns and social welfare programmes.

4. Reform and rehabilitation of offenders Penology, a branch of criminology, studies the effectiveness of punishment. It supports reformative and rehabilitative measures — probation, parole, correctional education, vocational training — so that offenders may be reintegrated into society as law-abiding citizens.

5. Protection of victims and delivery of justice Victimology has led to victim compensation schemes, witness protection and victim-friendly procedures. This strengthens public confidence in the criminal justice system.

6. Scientific investigation and law enforcement Criminalistics, forensic science and crime statistics — offshoots of criminology — assist the police in detection, investigation and prosecution of crime through scientific evidence.

7. Control of new and emerging crimes Modern crimes such as cybercrime, money laundering, trafficking, terrorism and white-collar crime demand specialized knowledge. Criminology provides the theoretical and practical framework to understand and combat them.

8. Reduction of crime and social cost Crime imposes heavy social and economic costs — loss of life and property, expenditure on prisons and police, and loss of productive manpower. Criminology helps reduce these costs through rational, evidence-based policies.

9. Professional and academic value Criminology forms the foundation for the training of police officers, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, prison officials and social workers. It is also an important academic discipline for research and higher study.

10. Protection of human rights By insisting on proportionate punishment, fair procedure and humane treatment of offenders, criminology safeguards human rights and prevents the abuse of State power.

Conclusion

Criminology is not merely an academic study of crime; it is an applied social science that guides law-making, law enforcement, punishment and social reform. In the modern age of rapid social change, technological advancement and new forms of crime, its importance has become greater than ever. A society that neglects criminology must rely on blind punishment; a society that cultivates it can aspire to a rational, humane and effective criminal justice system.

a) Study methods of criminology (with explanation of one)

Criminology is an empirical discipline, so it relies on systematic methods to collect and analyse data on crime, criminals and criminal behaviour. The main study methods are:

1. Statistical method – use of crime statistics, police records, court records and prison data to measure the volume, trend and distribution of crime.
2. Case study method – intensive study of a single offender, group or criminal event to understand the causes in depth.
3. Survey method – questionnaires, interviews and schedules administered to offenders, victims or the general public, including self-report and victim surveys.
4. Experimental method – controlled observation of variables to test cause-and-effect relationships, e.g. effect of a rehabilitation programme on recidivism.
5. Observational method – direct or participant observation of behaviour in its natural setting.
6. Comparative method – comparison of crime and justice systems across countries, regions or time periods.
7. Biographical and case-history method – study of the offender's life history to trace the development of criminality.

Explanation of the Case Study Method: In this method the researcher selects one offender, family, gang or locality and studies it thoroughly using interviews, records, family history and observation. Its merit is that it gives a deep, holistic picture of the causes of crime, which statistics cannot supply. Its demerit is that findings from one case cannot be generalised to all offenders. It is widely used in clinical criminology and in probation and parole work.

---

b) Neo-classical School of Criminology

The Neo-classical School arose in the late 18th and 19th centuries as a modification of the classical school of Beccaria and Bentham. The classical school held that man is a free, rational being who commits crime after calculating pleasure and pain, and that punishment should be certain, swift and proportionate. The neo-classical school accepted the doctrine of free will and deterrence but added that free will is not absolute.

Its main features are:

1. Modification of free will – it recognised that certain offenders (children, the insane, the feeble-minded) lack full capacity to exercise free will, so they should not be punished like normal adults.
2. Individualisation of punishment – punishment should be adjusted to the age, mental condition, circumstances and motive of the offender rather than being uniform for the same offence.
3. Doctrine of partial responsibility – responsibility may be diminished by infancy, insanity, intoxication or coercion.
4. Mitigating circumstances – provocation, necessity, mistake and duress were accepted as grounds for reducing liability.
5. Indeterminate sentence and probation – it paved the way for reformative measures such as probation, parole and indeterminate sentences.

Criticism: It was not a complete break from the classical school; it merely patched its rigidity. It still rested on the unscientific assumption of free will and gave no positive theory of the causes of crime. Its real contribution was to introduce individualisation and the idea that the offender, not merely the offence, must be considered in awarding punishment.

---

c) Retributive Theory of Punishment

The retributive theory is the oldest theory of punishment. It is based on the principle of lex talionis — "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" — and on the idea that the offender deserves to suffer because he has wilfully done wrong. Punishment is not imposed to reform the offender or to deter others but to give him his just deserts and to satisfy the moral indignation of society.

Main features:

1. Punishment as an end in itself – the offender is punished because he has committed a wrong, not for any future benefit.
2. Proportionality – the severity of punishment should correspond to the gravity of the offence.
3. Moral justification – it restores the moral balance disturbed by the crime and vindicates the authority of law.
4. Social satisfaction – it satisfies the victim's desire for revenge and prevents private vengeance and mob violence.

Forms: It may take the form of death penalty, corporal punishment, imprisonment or payment of compensation to the victim.

Criticism:

1. It is based on revenge, a primitive and uncivilised sentiment.
2. It is retrospective — it looks to the past act rather than to the future reform of the offender.
3. It fails to consider the circumstances, motive and mental condition of the offender.
4. It has not proved effective in reducing crime; released offenders often become more hardened.
5. It ignores the possibility of reformation and the social causes of crime.

In modern times the theory survives only in a modified form — in the death penalty for heinous offences and in the idea of "just deserts" in sentencing.

---

d) Difference between Conviction and Sentencing

In short, conviction establishes guilt; sentencing determines the consequence of that guilt. Both are distinct stages, though in summary trials they may be combined in one order.

---

e) Major Factors of Crime (with description of any two)

Crime is the product of many interacting factors, which are generally grouped as biological, psychological, sociological and economic.

Major factors:

1. Biological factors – heredity, defective physique, glandular and hormonal imbalance, brain abnormality.
2. Psychological factors – mental illness, psychopathic personality, low intelligence, emotional maladjustment.
3. Sociological factors – family disorganisation, broken homes, defective upbringing, bad company, slums, caste and communal conflict, weak social control.
4. Economic factors – poverty, unemployment, low wages, economic inequality, indebtedness, desire for quick wealth.
5. Cultural and environmental factors – cinema, internet and pornography, drug and alcohol culture, urbanisation, migration.
6. Legal and administrative factors – defective laws, delay in justice, weak policing, corruption in law-enforcement agencies.

Description of two factors:

(i) Economic factors: Poverty and unemployment are among the strongest causes of crime. A person who cannot meet even basic needs may resort to theft, robbery, dacoity, cheating or prostitution. Economic inequality creates a sense of deprivation and frustration among the poor when they compare their condition with the rich, and this relative deprivation often expresses itself in property crimes and violence. Indebtedness among peasants and workers, low wages and the desire to become rich quickly also lead to crimes such as smuggling, drug trafficking and fraud. Most prison inmates in Nepal belong to the economically weaker sections, which shows the close link between economic condition and crime.

(ii) Sociological factors: The family is the primary agency of socialisation, and its breakdown is a major source of criminality. In broken homes, homes with constant quarrels, or homes where parents are themselves criminals or addicts, children fail to develop internal control and drift into delinquency. Bad company and criminal gangs provide both the technique and the rationalisation for crime. Slum life, overcrowding, migration to cities and the weakening of community and neighbourhood control reduce the risk of detection and increase opportunity for crime. Caste and communal conflict, dowry practices and domestic violence also produce crimes such as assault, murder and rioting. Thus defective socialisation and weak social bonds are important sociological causes of crime.