Search results

1

O niektórych ogólnych problemach kryminologii i znaczeniu paradygmatu humanistycznego

100%

Tyszkiewicz L.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2009

|

issue XXXI

61-72

EN

The article presents a series of statements concerning criminology: it is a autonomous and multidisciplinary science; it should be separated from the criminal policy and merged with the study of social pathology. The distinction between descriptive and explaining criminology is of certain importance. In the latter, the problem of assumed paradigm is of particular importance. Approximately since l960, in social sciences and in criminology the antinaturalistic paradigm prevails. Its nature is raises controversies. The author thinks that the antinaturalistic paradigm – understood correctly – must be a humanistic paradigm based on the idea of "homo eligens" (a choosing man) and a moderate indeterminism. This point of view has many advantages: among others, it explains poor effects of the research in the etiology of crime and the difficulties in the struggle against crime. Criminology must be developed. That is relatively easy within descriptive criminology but significantly more difficult in explanatory criminology, where the more interesting information must be obtained from the criminal himself.

2

Kryminologia kulturowa. Wprowadzenie do koncepcji

84%

Drzazga E.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2010

|

issue XXXII

5-22

EN

Cultural criminology which emerged in the 1990s, based on new criminology of Taylor, Walton, Young, and the achievements of National Defiance Conference and British studies of subcultures, can be regarded as part of the critical approach to the phenomenon of crime. Since it first appeared, cultural criminology has tried to adjust the point of view on crime by engaging various perspectives. By principle, cultural criminology is supposed to challenge conventional criminology and provide a distinguishable alternative. Its distinctive features are emphasis on cultural components (i.e. style, symbols, meanings, emotions and media information) in investigating the phenomenon of crime and use of postmodernist interpretation in the analyses. Cultural criminology, by placing crime and crime control in the context of culture and regarding them as cultural products, focuses on the way in which social actors – all potential participants to the phenomenon of crime, i.e. offenders, victims, organs of social control, journalists and reporters – construe meaning and attribute it to delinquency, act of crime and each other. One of the key problems of cultural criminology is critical reflection on the postmodern world, that is a world in constant flux, marked with the processes of marginalisation and social exclusion but also ambiguous potential of creativity, transcendence, and transgression. In a series of conceptions, one can find references to such symptoms of postmodernism like, on one hand, consumerism fuelled by the media, imperative of expressiveness and ever increasing significance of personal development, on the other hand decreasing job security and family ties stability, pluralism of values enhanced by migration and global conflicts. What results from the clash of these opposite forces is increasing loss of sense of security of the a modern man and in collective categories, loss of public confidence. The vision of society assumed by cultural criminology is a society based on conflict, and all explanations of subcultures must include current relations of power and patterns of social inequality. At the same time, accepting M. Weber’s statement that culture is a network of meanings which are continuously created by a man and in which a man is suspended, it is postulated to seek these meanings by interpretation. Such assumptions concerning culture and means of its examination, along with the conflict-based vision of society, puts cultural criminology at the charge of combining various methods of explanation assumed by social sciences. In ethnographic studies in the area of cultural criminology the pursue of meaning by thorough exploration of cultural practices is reserved only for deviant subcultures. The world of social control is labelled with terms in line with conflict orientations in criminology.

3

Rosyjska myśl kryminologiczna w XIX w.

71%

Arsoba M.

Forum Polityki Kryminalnej

|

2022

|

issue 1(3)

1-17

EN

Michał Arsoba presents the beginning of criminology in Russia in the period before the Revolution of 1905 in terms of a general historical and legal overview. His aim is to locate 19th-century Russian criminological thought in the global context of this discipline and to identify its major achievements within the international context. For this reason, Arsoba highlights three stages of the development of reflection on criminal law. The first stage concerns the views of Aleksander Radiszczew and the first publications on statistical research. The second stage includes the first legal act on prevention and the first criminal code. The third stage focuses on the emergence of the sociological school represented by Michaił Duchowski and Ivan Fojnicki and the anthropological school, represented by Dymitr Dril. Arsoba argues that Russian criminology as a discipline stems mainly from the field of criminal law, acting as its isolated reflection from legal sciences. It has its own achievements, manifested by the realization of ideas contained in the preventive act and criminal code, as well as making the contribution to the development of the global sociological and anthropological research. Furthermore, it can be said that Russia saw the occurrence of symbolical, ground-breaking moments for the criminological thought globally, aspects of which pioneered in that country.

PL

Niniejszy przeglądowy artykuł o charakterze historyczno-prawniczym przedstawia początki dziedziny nauki, jaką była kryminologia w przedrewolucyjnej Rosji. Jego celem jest wpisanie rosyjskiej myśli kryminologicznej XIX w. w kontekst światowy danej dyscypliny, wskazując na jej spektakularne oraz ważne osiągnięcia na tle międzynarodowym. Aby zrealizować ten zamiar, wydzielono i przedstawiono trzy etapy rozwoju refleksji nad prawem karnym w Rosji. Zaczynając od opisania pierwszego z nich, czyli poglądów Aleksandra Radiszczewa, autor przechodzi do omówienia: pierwszych publikacji badań statystycznych z dziedziny kryminologii, pojawienia się pierwszej ustawy prewencyjnej w Rosji (w tym także na świecie), pierwszego kodeksu karnego, utworzenia szkoły socjologicznej z Michaiłem Duchowskim, Iwanem Fojnickim na czele oraz antropologicznej z Dymitrem Drilem. Wnioski płynące z rozważań przedstawionych w artykule wskazują, że rosyjska kryminologia jako dyscyplina wyrasta głównie z dziedziny prawa karnego, jako swego rodzaju refleksja wyodrębniająca się z nauk prawniczych. Posiada ona swoje osiągnięcia objawiające się chociażby w sferze zainteresowań profilaktyki kryminalnej oraz wkładem w rozwój światowej szkoły socjologicznej czy również antropologicznej. Co więcej, można powiedzieć, że Rosja była także państwem, w którym doszło do symbolicznych momentów przełomowych dla kryminologii na świecie, i wpisała tym samym swoich przedstawicieli na listę prekursorów danej nauki.

4

Kryminologia feministyczna

67%

Rekosz-Cebula E.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2014

|

issue XXXVI

7-30

EN

This article discusses the defining characteristics of feminist criminology. Given the sheer volume of materials and data on feminist criminology, I have selected only those aspects which I believe enable it to be described as completely as possible. The theoretical and methodological premises of feminist criminology are discussed first. The focus is on the key concepts and methodological research principles that distinguish feminist criminology from other trends in criminology. The existing literature on feminist criminology is then presented to show the extent to which the topic has been explored both empirically and theoretically. The diverse interests of feminist researchers, both male and female, are also apparent in the next aspect of feminist criminology, viz. the divisions and different strands of feminist thinking on criminology. Those that appear most frequently in the literature are discussed. The premises, areas and variants of feminist criminology have to be described before questions can be asked about its status and its future. The status and future of feminist criminology are, I believe, the two key components of any discourse on the feminist perspective. As such, they are discussed as well. The final aspect of feminist criminology is its definition. This is derived from the topics mentioned above.

5

Dwa razy Lombroso, czyli o skutkach różnic w podejściu kryminologii pozytywistycznej i kryminologii feministycznej

67%

Płatek M.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2014

|

issue XXXVI

31-73

EN

Dwa razy Lombroso [Twice Lombroso] considers differences in the diagnoses and conclusions pivotal to criminal law and to criminal and social policy by way of a specific example. It would seem that so long as we rely on an accepted research paradigm, we are equipped to verify not only the validity of a theory, but also the social consequences of explaining pathological behaviour and criminality in a particular way. The story of Saartjie “Sarah” Baartman illustrates how positivist and feminist methodologies in criminality result in very different views of reality. The latter forces us to consider issues that have so far been ignored in the criminological literature. The genesis and evolution of criminology has clearly contributed to the development and modernisation of criminal law theory. Discarding the theory of free will has forced theoreticians to confront social realities when considering the creation and application of the law. What has gone unnoticed, however, is that criminology has also helped justify the creation and application of special criminal law institutions from the outset. Racism, racist practices, and the exclusion of certain groups in order to show authority and justify curtailing liberties under the pretext of having to ensure safety and social order have all been vindicated and cloaked in academic respectability with the assistance of criminology. Nowadays, it is often tempting to think that there is such a thing as safety from birth or through osmosis. On the one hand, this sometimes justifies creating separate institutions with the word “criminology” in the name. On the other hand, under the pretext of treatment, therapy or eliminating threats, it can justify maintaining institutions that greatly contribute to the arbitrary exclusion of individuals who are instrumentally exploited or deemed troublesome in order to show strength or demonstrate political efficiency. The text does not attempt to create a dichotomy of good and bad criminology. It is not about demonstrating that positive criminology is archaic and feminist criminology up-to-the-minute. It is rather a scholarly reflection on knowledge standards and on the consequences and hazards that flow from recognising a given claim as scholarly. The text, then, is merely a reflection on what characterises the feminist approach to criminology and what this approach contributes to the discipline. It also attempts to look at the beginnings of the evolution of criminology from a feminist criminological perspective. By illustrating how the work of Lombroso can be examined, described and appraised in terms of positivist and feminist criminology, I try to show how different descriptions of the reality (pathology) of criminality can be arrived at depending on whether we study it on the basis of positivist criminology or whether we also approach the problem from a feminist perspective appropriate for criminology.

6

Przyczyny przestępczości. Nowe aspekty międzynarodowej dyskusji o teoriach kryminologicznych

59%

Schneider H. J.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1998

|

issue XXIII-XXIV

13-44

EN

This survey intends to critically inform the reader about new and further developments of criminological theories on causality and about how successful these theories have proved in empirical and practical terms during the last three decades. From the point of view of mainstream criminology the criminalbiological, criminalpsychological, criminalsociological, socialpsychological, victimological, critical-radical, feminist, postmodernist and integrated theories are being considered. Preceding this is a discussion of the theory of national choise, according to which criminality is based on a costprofit-analysis and which, empirically speaking, has not exactly held good. Among the criminalbiological approaches the theory of constitutional predisposition is being discussed which assumes an interaction between genes and environment to produce criminality. Since the studies on family, twins and adoption, while attempting to prove this interaction, show both theoretical and methodological shortcomings, this theory is being rejected. Under the headline of "criminalbiological theories" a discussion of mental illness and crime can be found. A psychiatrisation of crime is not held advisable: Only between 0.2 % and 2 % of all schizophrenic persons are arrested for violent crimes per year, which amounts 1.1 % to 2.3 % of the total arrests for violent crime. Among the criminalpsychological theories the following three approaches are being discussed: the psychopathological theory, the theory of criminal personality according to Hans Jürgen Eysenck and the biosocial theory of inherited criminal tendencies according to Sarnoff A. Mednick. It is proposed to give up the term "psychopathy'' altogether since it contradicts modern findings of dark field research that personality traits not socially desirable are restricted to and concentrated in only a small section of the human race. The theories of Eysneck and Mednick, according to which criminal behaviour is tfre result of interaction between certain social environmental factors and inherited predispositions of the central nervous system, have empirically not been sufficiently proven. The survey's emphasis lies on criminalsociological, socialpsychological and victimological theories. In the context o criminalsociological approaches the theories of social disorganization and of anomie are being discussed. A society is socially disorganized when social bonds dissolve, when social control breaks down and when interpersonal disorientation spreads among its members. The theory of social disorganization has been further developed inasmuch as the social structuring of delinquency areas has been described as a dynamic process and as the spiral-like social downfall and dereliction of a neighbourhood ("community crime career"). In empirical studies making use of data from accounts showing how people have become perpetrator or victim ("British Crime Surveys"), this theory of social disorganization has been widely confirmed. The theory of anomie has undergone further development by the adaptation of two new approaches: the theory of institutional anomie according to Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld and the theory of general strain according to Robert Agnew. The theory of institutional anomie underlines the extreme importance western societies ascribe to monetary success while at the same time not stressing the component of achieving this success by legal means. One institution – economy – assumes priority over all non-economic institutions such as family, education or politics, which on their part are only insufficiently capable of restricting the criminogenic pressure phenomenon, i.e. the overestimation of monetary success. According to the theory of general strain the incapability of reaching positively marked aims results in overstraining (pressure). This pressure can be measured by ascertaining the gap between aspirations (ideal aims) and expectations on the one hand and actual achievements and successes on the other. The socialpsychological theories, which are theories of social processes can be subdivided into theories of cognitive-social learning, control, interaction and life-course. According to the theory of cognitive-social learning a person acquires his/her behaviour by way of reinforcement and modeling. In self-reinforcement processes people both reward and punish themselves. Finally, this theory regards human learning as an active, cognitively controlled psychical process of assimilating experience. Criminal behaviour is learned by reaffirming (rewarding) it more than socially conforming behaviour. Delinquents acquire it in criminal subcultures, in which criminal behaviour is justified by means of neutralisation techniques as being "not really'' criminal. The theory of cognitive-social learning of criminal behaviour (the theory of differential reinforcement and imitation) has held good empirically and practically and has been complemented by the theory of crime seduction according to Jack Katz stating that the euphoria of criminal success is relevant factor. The robber f.i. is not only rewarded by his material profit but also by experiencing domination during the criminal act. Among the theories of control the theory of social bonds according to Travis Hirschi is widely appreciated in practical terms. Empirically speaking, however, it has not quite achieved what it promised. It has been further developed by the theory of self-control, according to which delinquents are persons with a low level of self-control as a result from ineffective and inadequate socialization. Another new development is the theory of control balance according to Charles R. Tittle. The central statement of this theory is that the amount of control a person is subjected to, as compared to the control this person exercises, influences both the probability of committing delinquencies and the possibility to commit certain types of crime. The theory of interaction, which is a theory of social process, has been converted in the seventies and eighties to a radical socialstructural labeling approach. Control institutions (f.i police, law-courts) are assumed to produce delinquency and criminality by selectively sanctioning the lower class in the order to preserve the power of the ruling class. In the nineties, however, the interaction theory is distancing itself from this radical power conflict approach and reverting to its original focus: its connection to the cognitive-social learning theory. The interaction theory has been supplemented by the Australian criminologist John Braithwaite. He regards shame as an essential means of informal social control and distinguishes between reintegrative and disintegrative shaming. The life-course-theories are new developments stemming from the late eighties and early nineties. According to these theories, delinquency and criminality develop in interactive processes spanning the whole cycle of life. Developmental crirninology focusses on the questions why people become delinquent (onset, activation), why their delinquencies continue (maintenance), why delinquencies often increase both in frequency and in seriousness (acceleration, escalation, aggravation) and, lastly, why people stop being delinquent (deceleration, desistance, termination). It is concept of casuality is dynamic and interactive. Personal and social damages cause delinquency and criminality which in their turn again result in personal and social damages. Basically, three life-course-theories have recently been developed: the interaction theory by Terence P. Thornberry, the theory of social turning-points by Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub and the theory of criminal tendencies by David P. Farrington. Victimological theories open a range of completely new criminal-aetiological perspectives. For victimogenesis (enquiring into the causes for becoming a victim) the model of lifestyle-exposure and opportunity deals with the probability of individuals being in certain places at certain times and under certiatin circumstances and thereby meeting certain categories of people. The routine-activity-theory according to Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson distinguishes between three elements: a motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of capable protectors (guardians) of this object against a violation. The routine-activity-approach accordingly predicts the highest risk of delinquency when the victim's suitability is highest: best social visibility, easiest access, strongest attraction and when the level of object observation is low. The routine-activity-theory has been further developed into a structural-choise model of victimization. Within this reconsidered and verified model the nearness and protection of a potential victim represent components of choise. The critical-radical school in modern criminology intends to develop an alternative to mainstream criminology and in the long run to replace mainstream criminology. While having achieved their first aim, thus far they have failed in thier second. The critical-radical school of thought can be divided into three theories: According to marxist theory the basis of crime can be found in the contradictions of capitalism oppresing and exploiting the working class. Crime originates in the basic conflict between the bourgeoisie and the working class, which is a conflict of power and interests. The anarchistic theory aims at showing that that kind of justice by which our modern1egal system defines itself is in reality a facade for an intrinsic system of institutionalized injustice. Left-wing realism holds a „theory” consisting of four variables: victim, offender, state agencies and the public. Without disregarding the victims of so-called street-crimes, radical realism is based not-only on comprehending the victimization of the offender by the state, but also on the understanding of victimizition of the working class by the working class. Feminist theories in criminology focus on the four following issues: the problem of generalization: It is questionable whether the criminological theories developed so far are readily applicable to women and girls; the problem of gender relations: an explanation is required on why women and girls; commit fewer and less serious crimes and delinquencies than man and boys and how significant a factor masculinity is for the genesis of crime; the victimalization problem: Both the manifestations and the causes of male physical and sexual violence towards woman have to be describeds much more accurately; the problem of equal treatment of man and woman in the criminal justice system: It is questionable whether the principles of masculinity or feminity, should define the climate of the criminal justice system. Constutive criminology is a postmodernist school. It questions the attempt of institutions and individuals to claim priority of ''expert'' knowledge. Truth to them is a form of domination. Linked with constitutive criminology is the peacemaking criminology, which tries to soothe human sufferings and reduce criminality in this way. Solutions of the criminal justice system are rejected as violent. Individual violence cannot be overcome through state violence. Integrated theories attempt to take the best of every ''middle-range" theory and combine this into a more comprehensive new theory. Finally, as an example of an integrated theory, John Hagan's theory of power control is put forward which aims at explaining the lower frequency and seriousness of woman's criminality and girls' delinquency by looking at patriarchy and class structures.

7

Przestępczość kobiet i dziewcząt – wybrane teorie kryminologiczne

42%

Woźniakowska-Fajst D.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2008

|

issue XXIX-XXX

239-252

Refine search results

6 Archiwum Kryminologii

1 Forum Polityki Kryminalnej

1 2022

2 2014

1 2010

1 2009

1 2008

1 1998

1 Arsoba M.

1 Drzazga E.

1 Płatek M.

1 Rekosz-Cebula E.

1 Schneider H. J.

1 Tyszkiewicz L.

1 Woźniakowska-Fajst D.

O niektórych ogólnych problemach kryminologii i znaczeniu paradygmatu humanistycznego

Kryminologia kulturowa. Wprowadzenie do koncepcji

Rosyjska myśl kryminologiczna w XIX w.

Kryminologia feministyczna

Dwa razy Lombroso, czyli o skutkach różnic w podejściu kryminologii pozytywistycznej i kryminologii feministycznej

Przyczyny przestępczości. Nowe aspekty międzynarodowej dyskusji o teoriach kryminologicznych

Przestępczość kobiet i dziewcząt – wybrane teorie kryminologiczne