Skip to main content

pre - sociological postion of crime cauesation



๐Ÿ’  Pre-Sociological Position of Crime Causation – Detailed Analysis (LLB Exam Perspective)


๐Ÿ”น 1. Introduction

Before the rise of sociology as a scientific discipline in the 19th century, the study of crime was dominated by moral, religious, and philosophical ideas rather than by social or scientific thinking.

This early period is called the “Pre-Sociological Period of Criminology” or the “Classical and Non-Scientific Era of Crime Causation.”

In this stage, crime was seen as an individual choice or sin, not as a product of society or environment. People believed that criminals were morally weak or possessed by evil forces.


๐Ÿ”น 2. Meaning of “Pre-Sociological”

  • “Pre” means before, and “sociological” refers to the scientific study of society and human behavior.
  • So, the Pre-Sociological position of crime causation means the theories of crime that existed before criminology became scientific — mainly between the 16th to early 19th century.

In this period, crime was linked to religion, morality, and free will, not to social, economic, or psychological causes.


๐Ÿ”น 3. Historical Background

Period Belief About Crime Explanation
Ancient Period Crime = Sin or Devil’s act People believed crime was caused by evil spirits or supernatural forces.
Middle Ages (13th–16th century) Crime = Moral weakness Criminals were thought to be morally bad or sinners against God.
18th Century (Age of Enlightenment) Crime = Rational Choice Thinkers like Beccaria and Bentham said people commit crime after calculating pleasure and pain.

๐Ÿ”น 4. Main Approaches in the Pre-Sociological Era

There are three main approaches to crime causation before sociology developed:

1️⃣ Theological or Demonological Approach

2️⃣ Classical School of Criminology

3️⃣ Neo-Classical School of Criminology

Let’s understand each in detail ๐Ÿ‘‡


๐Ÿ”น 5. (A) Theological or Demonological Approach

This is the oldest explanation of crime, found in ancient and medieval times.

๐Ÿ”ธ Main Idea:

Crime was believed to be caused by evil spirits, demons, or supernatural powers.

People thought:

“The criminal is possessed by the devil, and punishment will remove the evil.”

๐Ÿ”ธ Beliefs:

  • Crime = Sin against God.
  • Punishment = Purification of soul.
  • Crime was controlled through religious rituals, torture, or execution.

๐Ÿ”ธ Methods Used:

  • Trial by Ordeal: Suspects were made to walk on fire, or thrown into water; if they survived, they were declared innocent.
  • Religious Confession: Priests played the role of judges.

๐Ÿ”ธ Criticism:

  • Based on superstition, not reason.
  • Ignored social and economic causes.
  • Promoted cruelty instead of justice.

๐Ÿ”ธ Importance:

  • Shows how religion and morality influenced early justice systems.
  • But it had no scientific basis.

๐Ÿ”น 5. (B) Classical School of Criminology (18th Century)

The Classical School marks the beginning of modern criminology, though it is still part of the Pre-Sociological era because it focused on individual choice, not social causes.

๐Ÿ”ธ Main Idea:

People commit crime by free will and rational choice. They weigh pleasure against pain — if the pleasure is greater, they commit the crime.

๐Ÿ”ธ Main Scholars:

  1. Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794)“An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” (1764)

    • Laws should be clear and certain.
    • Punishment should be proportionate and aimed at deterrence, not revenge.
    • Opposed torture and death penalty.
  2. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)Utilitarian Theory

    • Based on “Hedonism” – people seek pleasure and avoid pain.
    • Proposed the “Hedonistic Calculus” — crime can be prevented if punishment is certain and severe enough to outweigh the pleasure of crime.

๐Ÿ”ธ Key Principles:

Principle Explanation
Free Will Human beings choose to commit crime voluntarily.
Rationality Criminals act after reasoning between gain and loss.
Deterrence Punishment should discourage others from crime.
Equality before Law All people are equal under the law.

๐Ÿ”ธ Criticism:

  • Ignored mental illness, poverty, and social conditions.
  • Treated all criminals alike, without understanding motives.
  • Too idealistic — assumes all people are rational.

๐Ÿ”ธ Contribution:

  • Laid the foundation of modern legal systems and criminal justice.
  • Introduced ideas of fair trial, legality, and deterrent punishment.

๐Ÿ”น 5. (C) Neo-Classical School (19th Century)

Neo-classical thinkers modified the rigid ideas of the Classical School.

๐Ÿ”ธ Main Idea:

Criminals have free will, but some factors like age, insanity, or mental condition can reduce responsibility.

๐Ÿ”ธ Main Scholars:

  • Rossi, Guerry, and Quetelet – introduced early ideas of statistics in crime.
  • They believed that crime has both moral and social factors.

๐Ÿ”ธ Key Contributions:

  • Introduced the concept of mitigating circumstances.
    Example: Children, insane persons, and the mentally ill should not be punished like adults.
  • The idea of individualized punishment started here.

๐Ÿ”ธ Criticism:

  • Still focused more on individual behavior than on social structure.
  • Lacked deep sociological understanding of crime.

๐Ÿ”น 6. Summary of Pre-Sociological Thought

School / Approach Cause of Crime Focus Main Thinkers Type of Punishment
Theological / Demonological Evil spirits, sin Religion, superstition Priests, Church Harsh, torture, death
Classical School Free will, rational choice Law and reason Beccaria, Bentham Deterrent and proportionate
Neo-Classical School Free will + personal factors Morality and mental state Rossi, Guerry, Quetelet Reformative and fair

๐Ÿ”น 7. Criticisms of Pre-Sociological Theories

  1. Non-scientific: Relied on religion or abstract philosophy, not evidence.
  2. Ignored social causes: Poverty, family, education, and culture were not considered.
  3. Too harsh: Punishments were cruel and inhuman.
  4. Ignored psychology: Didn’t understand the mental health of offenders.
  5. Not reformative: Focused only on punishment, not rehabilitation.

๐Ÿ”น 8. Importance of Pre-Sociological Thought

Even though early theories were limited, they were important foundations for later sociological schools.
They helped move thinking from superstition to reason, and from revenge to deterrence.

  • The Classical School brought ideas of law, equality, and justice.
  • The Neo-Classical School paved the way for sociological and positivist criminology.

๐Ÿ”น 9. Conclusion

The Pre-Sociological position of crime causation shows the journey of human thought — from religious fear to rational understanding.
It reflects how society gradually learned to see crime not as sin or devil’s work, but as a human act influenced by choice and morality.

“From punishing evil to understanding behavior — that is the legacy of the pre-sociological era.”

These early ideas laid the foundation for modern criminology, which later developed through the Positivist, Sociological, Marxian, and Feminist schools.


✍️ Exam Writing Tip (14–16 Marks)

Structure your answer like this:

  1. Introduction
  2. Meaning of Pre-Sociological
  3. Historical Background
  4. Demonological Theory
  5. Classical School
  6. Neo-Classical School
  7. Summary Table
  8. Criticisms
  9. Conclusion

Underline keywords: Free Will, Rational Choice, Beccaria, Bentham, Hedonistic Calculus, Deterrence, Evil Spirits, Classical School.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

UPSI Syllabus 2025 & Exam pattern 2025

UP SI 2025 Exam Pattern Subject Questions Marks General Hindi 40 100 Law/Constitution & General Knowledge 40 100 Numerical & Mental Ability Test 40 100 Mental Aptitude/Intelligence/Reasoning 40 100 Total 160 400 Exam Mode : Online (CBT) Duration : 2 hours (120 minutes) Negative Marking : No Qualifying Marks : Minimum 35% in each subject and 50% overall Subject-Wise Syllabus 1. General Hindi เคธเคฎाเคธ, เคธंเคงि, เคตाเค•्เคฏांเคถ เค•े เคฒिเค เคเค• เคถเคฌ्เคฆ เคชเคฐ्เคฏाเคฏเคตाเคšी, เคตिเคฒोเคฎ เคถเคฌ्เคฆ เคฎुเคนाเคตเคฐे เค”เคฐ เคฒोเค•ोเค•्เคคिเคฏाँ เคฐเคธ, เค…เคฒंเค•ाเคฐ, เค›ंเคฆ เคตाเค•्เคฏ เคธंเคถोเคงเคจ, เคตเคฐ्เคคเคจी เค…เคชเค िเคค เค—เคฆ्เคฏांเคถ (Comprehension) เคนिंเคฆी เคธाเคนिเคค्เคฏ เค•े เคช्เคฐเคฎुเค– เคฒेเค–เค• เค”เคฐ เคฐเคšเคจाเคँ 2. Law, Constitution & General Knowledge A. General Knowledge เคญाเคฐเคค เค•ा เค‡เคคिเคนाเคธ เค”เคฐ เคธ्เคตเคคंเคค्เคฐเคคा เคธंเค—्เคฐाเคฎ เคญूเค—ोเคฒ (เคญाเคฐเคค เค”เคฐ เคตिเคถ्เคต) เคตिเคœ्เคžाเคจ เค”เคฐ เคคเค•เคจीเค• เค•เคฐेंเคŸ เค…เคซेเคฏเคฐ्เคธ เคชुเคฐเคธ्เค•ाเคฐ, เค•िเคคाเคฌें เค”เคฐ เคฒेเค–เค• เคฎเคนเคค्เคตเคชूเคฐ्เคฃ เคฐाเคท्เคŸ्เคฐीเคฏ/เค…ंเคคเคฐ्เคฐाเคท्เคŸ्เคฐीเคฏ เคธंเค—เค เคจ เค–ेเคฒเค•ूเคฆ, เคฐाเคœเคจीเคคि, เค…เคฐ्เคฅเคต्เคฏเคตเคธ्เคฅा B. Indian Constitution & Law เคธंเคตिเคงाเคจ เค•ी เคตिเคถेเคทเคคाเคँ เคฎौเคฒिเค• เค…เคงिเค•ाเคฐ เค”เคฐ เค•เคฐ्เคคเคต...

Arrest under BNSS 2023: Grounds, Sections, and Case Laws

Bare act provision  Arrest by private person [section 40] Section 40 lays down the circumstances  when a private person can arrest and procedure on such arrest Circumstances in which a private person can arrest: Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested who in the presence of private person. i) commits a non - bailable and           cognizable offence. ii) Any proclaimed offender. 2: Arrest by magistrate section 41 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), enacted to replace the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), brings a renewed focus on balancing citizen rights and policing powers . Arrest, being a powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement, is rightly placed under scrutiny in BNSS 2023. Let’s break down what "arrest" means under this new law, the grounds under which it can occur, and the protective safeguards embedded within. What is Arrest Arrest is the legal restraint of a person’s libe...

Smith v Hughes (1959): A Landmark Case on Interpreting the Law

Smith v Hughes (1959): Introduction The case of Smith v Hughes (1959) is one of the most iconic examples in English law that demonstrates the Mischief Rule of statutory interpretation. At first glance, it may seem like a simple case involving a street solicitor (a prostitute), but it ended up clarifying how judges should interpret the true purpose of a law. Facts of the Case Mrs. Smith, the defendant, was a prostitute. However, unlike many others, she wasn’t soliciting from the street. Instead, she operated from inside her apartment in London. She would call out or attract clients through her window or by tapping on the glass, facing the public street below. She was charged under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 , which says: “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.” Now here's the twist: Smith argued she wasn’t in the street , so she claimed the law didn’t apply to her ...