PENOLOGY
INTRODUCTION TO PENOLOGY
DR. AYMAN ELZEINY
A. Definition :
The "penology" word is derived from "punishment or penalty" word .
The energetic movement of human rights contributed to the adoption
of the reforms penology as a science.
Now, as the struggle against criminality uses not only penalties but
also security measures and pure social methods, the denomination of
penology became anachronistic.
penology as a science could be divided into prevention science and
treatment science. The prevention science operates before the
commission of the crime, while the treatment science takes place
after the occurrence of the crime to emend the criminal and avoid his
recidivism. And also suggests the ideal methods of prevention and
treatment, therefore it traces the ideal criminal policy.
In conclusion we mean by penology nowadays
"a substitute which we call "science of struggle against
criminality"that means the ideal methods of prevention and treatment
as regards criminality ".
so we shall explain at first the prevention and after that the treatment
whether its method is legislative, judicial or executive.
B . Crime Prevention
B.1- Concepts of Crime Prevention
Terms such as"prevention," "control," and "deterrence" are frequently
encountered in the literature of crime. However, their meaning often
varies from one text to another. In this respect, penology is like most
social sciences that is, there are few rigorous and universally
accepted definitions.
Rather, certain terms and concepts take on a general meaning, with
more agreement on usage than on definition.
Page|1
"Crime prevention" is a term that is often used very broadly.It has
served to justify many diverse programs.
Thus, proposals to censor children's television, raise the minimum
wage, or require school prayer all have proponents who argue that
these measures will contribute to a reduction in crime and
delinquency.
While most of the basic constraints on criminal behavior are
established by such institutions as the family, schools, media, and
other forces that inculcate general cultural values, there are other
institutions involved, more directly connected to the prevention of
crime. The most apparent of these is the criminal justice system, with
its concepts of deterrence and its mechanisms for apprehension of
offenders, adjudication of their guilt or innocence, and the
punishment and hopefully the rehabilitation of those found guilty of
violating the law. (1)
___________________
(1)Andenaes, Johannes , "The general preventive effects of
punishment." University of Pennsylvania Law Review ,U.S.A ,1966,
pp: 949-983.
- Bailey, William C. , "Deterrence and the death penalty for murders
in Utah: A time series analysis." Journal of Contemporary Law ,
1978 , pp: 1-20.
B.2-Crime Prevention and crime Control
Crime prevention and control are usually differentiated in that
prevention is thought of as the effort to forestall or deter the
commission of a crime while control refers to measures of dealing
with the crime and the criminal after the act has been committed.
Thus police patrol, job-training, and youth counseling can all be seen
as preventive measures.
In contrast, arrest, trial, and incarceration are aspects of control.
Some would argue, however, that police patrol is also an aspect of
crime control, since an effective patrol instills a fear of arrest and
punishment in the potential offender and thus discourages crime. In a
similar vein, treatment programs aimed at convicted offenders can be
considered control measures because they occur after a crime has
Page|2
taken place.
So crime Control refers to those activities (detection, apprehension,
prosecution, adjudication, and post-adjudicatory efforts) in which
society primarily engages in response to criminal acts once they have
occurred.
on the other hand Prevention of the crime" denotes a range of
societal activities which are designed to inhibit the occurrence of
criminal behavior by interrupting the social, psychological, and
situational processes believed to encourage it, and by supporting
those processes which are believed to encourage law-abiding
behavior.
In practice most people do not make such theoretical distinctions, and
in common parlance any measures taken to deter the commission of
an offense are usually considered crime prevention. The
prevention/control, before/ after dichotomy is useful, however, in
focusing attention on philosophical approaches to the crime problem.
An emphasis on prevention aims at significantly reducing, even
eradicating, crime. Control, on the other hand, concedes that a
certain amount of crime will always occur and emphasizes measures
to keep it within bounds. The practical effect of this distinction will be
apparent when we discuss anticrime policies.
B. 3- Models of Prevention and Control :-
All systems of prevention and control are implicitly or explicitly based
on theories of causation. Adherents of the classical school of
criminology subscribe to the belief that offenders knowingly choose to
engage in wrongful acts and that therefore the best means of
preventing crime is to make punishments for criminal behavior
greater than anticipated rewards. While few contemporary policy-
makers totally accept such tenets, classical philosophy still underlies
our criminal law in what might be termed the punitive or rational-legal
model of prevention and control.
The functions of arrest, prosecution, and punishment can of course
Page|3
be carried out by the criminal justice system only after the
commission of a crime has occurred, when general and specific (or
special) deterrence are called into play.
B. 3.1 THE PUNITIVE MODEL :
The imposition of criminal penalties on convicted offenders is the
essence of the punitive model. The basic rationale is that punishment
of convicted offenders "teaches them a lesson" while it serves as a
deterrent to others . The former is known as specific deterrence, the
latter as general deterrence.
At one time it was widely accepted that punishment must be severe in
order to have the desired effect of deterrence. Therefore, in some
societies, such as eighteenth-century England, hanging was common
for even the pettiest offenses.
An alternative notion is that severity of punishment is less important
than its certainty. One problem arises from the differential impact of
sanctions on individuals. To some people the mere fact of an arrest,
even without prosecution or further punishment, would constitute
such a severe disgrace in their own minds or public reputations that
they would never chance its happening. To others a jail term may
mean little unless it is of considerable duration. Differences of opinion
are rife in criminological and political circles over the effect of
punishment on inhibition of criminal behavior, reaching the point of
sharpest debate over the death penalty. (1)
_____________________
(1) Gibbs, Jack P. ,"Crime, punishment and deterrence." Southwest
Social Science Quarterly , 1968 , pp: 515-530.
- Green, Donald E., "Past behavior as a measure of actual future
behavior: An unresolved issue in perceptual deterrence research."
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1989 , pp: 781-804.
- Green, Gary S. , "General deterrence and television cable crime: A
field experiment in social control." Criminology , 1985 , pp : 629-
645.
- Lewis, Donald E. , The general deterrent effect of longer
sentences." British
Journal of Criminology , 1986 , pp: 47- 62.
A view that has received considerable attention is a modified version
Page|4
of the punitive model. Adherents argue that apprehended criminals
must be incarcerated in order to "incapacitate" them-a technical term
that covers all methods of making a person incapable of committing
another criminal act, methods that may include execution, exile,
detention, physical mutilation, and incarceration.
B. 3.2 THE CORRECTIONAL MODEL :
Explanations of crime causation other than the classical one suggest
alternative rationales for prevention and control.
The tenets of positivism have given rise to what might be termed the
socio-psychological or correctional concept of crime prevention. This
holds that criminal offenders are motivated by either individual
personality defects or societal imperfections or by both.
The means used for the prevention of crime will largely depend on
which aspect of causation is embraced. For example, the notion that
criminal behavior is primarily a result of individual maladjustment
suggests that attempts be made to identify potential offenders
through their personality patterns, and that they be offered treatment
before engaging in crime or after conviction to discourage further
illegal activity.
Counseling, behavior modification, transactional analysis, drug
treatment, psychotherapy, and other methods have been tried for
effecting change in prospective or actual offenders. In this approach,
correctional concepts can serve as both preventive and control
measures because they can be administered before or after the
commission of a crime.
If the etiology of crime is believed to be rooted in the social
organization, or lack of it, the correctional model proposes that the
remedy is to "treat" society itself. This may involve programs to
eliminate poverty and racial discrimination or create a sense of
community. It might also mean basic structural changes in the
economic and political system. Some schools of thought, for
example, contend that only a socialist state can adequately meet the
problem of crime.
The correctional model is based on the proposition that the formation
Page|5
of criminal desire should be prevented before offenses are
perpetrated, or, if this is not successful, that such desire should be
eradicated from convicted offenders. The implementation of
correctional efforts on a broad scale can be most costly. The varied
approaches may be directed toward individuals or whole societies.
However, correctional approaches differ widely from one another in
their policy implications. Those who believe that crime is a function of
individual maladjustment do not differ from those who support
punitive concepts in their approval of the arrest of offenders. Indeed,
some support the use of legal authority to compel individuals to be
"treated." This is not the case with those who view crime as a failure
of society.
If criminals are victims of society, it follows (for some people) that
they should not be punished and cannot be treated, since it is society
that is the culprit. The proponents of societal guilt occasionally
contend that the logical extension of this viewpoint is to arrest virtually
no conventional index crime offenders, although most shrink from the
full implications of this position. Rather, they combine the
responsibility of society for its inequities with the necessity of social
defense against their consequences: that is, one must work toward
radical change in society, while at the same time protecting its
members from being victimized by its victims (i.e., potential or actual
offenders).
In the 1970s considerable doubt was cast on the notion that the
correctional system can rehabilitate offenders. Indeed, the system
was characterized as providing only human warehouses where no
rehabilitation can take place. Proposals for reform range from
abandonment of the idea of rehabilitation in favor of a return to
punitive functions (with mandatory prison sentences) to closing of
penal facilities in favor of an alternative system of treatment. It is
generally agreed, however, that some form of incarceration must
continue in all societies, if for no other reason than that
incapacitation, at least temporarily, protects society from dangerous
offenders .(1)
Page|6
_____________________
(1) McDowall, David, Alan Lizotte, and Brian Wiersema , "General
deterrence
through civilian gun ownership." Criminology, 1991 , pp: 541-559.
- Minor, William M., and Joseph Harry , "Deterrent and experiential
effects in perceptual deterrence research: A replication and
extension." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1982 , pp
: 190-203.
B. 3.3 THE MECHANISTIC MODEL:
A third approach to crime prevention involves measures to reduce the
opportunity for crime to occur. For example, placing strong locks on
apartment doors may discourage all but the most skilled burglar; use
of exact-fare systems in public transportation often seems to reduce
the robbery rate. Opportunity reduction has been called mechanical
or mechanistic prevention because it seeks to redesign the
environment (not because it necessarily involves any mechanical
device).
The mechanistic model differs from other types of prevention
because it emphasizes the victim or object of crime rather than the
offender, and does not primarily involve punishment or rehabilitation.
Certain aspects of the mechanistic approach do, however, depend on
altering offender perceptions. These are measures designed to
increase the risks in committing crime. For example, the rationale for
the installation of bright street lighting is that it will make street crime
more visible and therefore more likely to be interrupted, either directly
by police or by citizens who may summon them. Thus the preventive
aspects of the mechanistic model interact with the control aspects of
the punitive model, since it would not be worthwhile to increase the
risks of apprehension if there were no possibility of punishment.
The mechanistic or mechanical model concentrates on the victims of
crime, the persons and objects injured or threatened, and the material
property vulnerable to theft or actually stolen. It seeks to foreclose
criminal opportunities. It overlaps with the punitive in that both seek to
increase the risks and hazards of crime and thus discourage the
Page|7
criminal. The mechanical approach, however, poses a problem in that
it fails to come to terms with the dedicated offender. Since not all
opportunities can be foreclosed at all times, the criminal may simply
move from one target to another.
B. 3.4 THE POLICY OF IMPLICATIONS:
The Models Weighed and Considered
Over the past few decades, the essence of crime prevention and
indeed of the overall system of criminal justice has been a
combination of punitive and correctional concepts. The dominant
theme of the system is that criminals must be caught and processed,
but those who are convicted should be rehabilitated rather than
punished. Therefore, when a criminal is sent to prison, the
proponents both of punishment and of rehabilitation can feel some
satisfaction, the former because the offender is getting his due and
the latter because the maladjusted individual is receiving treatment.
In the real world, both ordinary citizens and, policy-makers are
constantly accepting or rejecting various strands of criminological
theory ,even though they may not be aware of it. Political candidates
who promise mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers are
espousing the tenets of classical criminology, urging a punitive model
of crime prevention.
That is, they are arguing that the behavior of drug dealers is
essentially rational and can therefore be prevented by making the
penalty sufficiently severe.
In some Criminologists point of view prisons must be closed and
inmates transferred to community treatment centers are affirming
their faith in the correctional model, as developed in theories of
positivism.
A community group that petitions the city to install street lights is in
effect supporting the mechanical model of crime prevention, since its
members evidently believe that the lights will reduce the opportunity
for crime and therefore the likelihood of its occurring. Then there are
Page|8
those who contend that priorities must be reordered-that, for
example, the most serious public danger is posed by white-collar and
corporate offenders who commit crimes with far-reaching effects but
are rarely caught, tried, or punished, and if punished generally
receive lenient treatment.
One problem in determining crime prevention policies is the fact that
in speaking of crime some Criminologists are using a single term to
describe what we have seen is a considerably complex array of
heterogeneous human behavior. Even index crime covers a wide
range of activities, and conventional street crime covers such
disparate acts as juvenile automobile theft for joyriding purposes to
burglary, which does not literally occur on the street.
As a result, there has emerged among criminologists a movement to
deal with the various types of crime in a narrower and more specific
context. These crime-specific analysts seek to study a particular
offense, such as burglary or robbery (or, even more precisely, street
mugging),in all its dimensions, including the offender, victim ,
environmental factors, and legal processing, in the hope of arriving at
more realistic policy recommendations. In a similar vein, one can
study a specific geographical area and the forms, nature, and impact
of crime as it occurs in that locality. Such studies are based on the
concept that references to crime and criminals are too broad and
discussion . (1)
Page|9
_______________________
Gregory Zilboorg, M.D., The Psychology of the Criminal Act and
Punishment, Greenwood Press, New York, 1968 , p. 97.
- Ernest van den Haag, Punishing Criminals ,New York: Basic Books,
Inc., Publishers, 1975 , pp. 14-15.
P a g e | 10
