Two Children’s Murder Case: Classical And Positivist Schools Of Criminology

Murder has become a common crime. Classic criminological perspectives are not common. Is it logical to look at a case of murder from both the classical and positivist perspectives? Can this approach help to solve a crime? This is what we’ll explore when we examine the brutal murders of two young children in 2012.

On a late Thursday night in 2012, a mother returned home and found her daughter aged 6 years old and son aged 2 years old dead in the bath. According to an NY Times article, “The nanny of the family, Yoselyn Ortega slashed herself with a knife while standing over the children.” After years, the case will finally go to trial. Ortega’s defense is a not-guilty plea based on insanity. Some people say Ortega acted insanely because she was jealous. Ortega lived in a tiny apartment and worked a number of jobs to support her family. “Ms. Ortega’s statements to the prosecutors made after the murders said that she is angry with the Krims. They asked her too much work and that her face was damaged from the cleaning product she was forced use. New York Times asked: “Did her act out a vengeance? Or delusion?” It’s funny that, until that moment, the parents never even noticed Ortega was mentally unwell. This became one of her most important defenses during the trial.

Let’s first define what the classical criminology school is. It’s a school of thought that holds that people are driven to pleasure by their own will. Cesare Buccaria, an early founder of the classic school, claimed that people surrender their liberties for the sake of safety. They also believed laws and regulations should restrict their freedoms. Presumption of innocent should be the primary consideration in criminal cases, and a code of criminal procedure should be prepared beforehand. Punishments should be determined by the retributive principle, because an offender has attacked the rights of someone else. The punishment should be swift and sure. The offender should be seen as someone who is a rational person and weighs the pros and cons of the crime. Beccaria believes that the job of the law is to prevent crime.

What is the connection between this crime and classical education? Beccaria argues that in the case of this crime, the presumption is innocence. However, there’s no basis for such a presumption. Ortega had been in the bathroom when the bodies were discovered. Although it doesn’t say she confessed to the crime, the insanity plea implies that she admits that she murdered them. Beccaria, who was also an advocate of Ortega’s claim of insanity argued for the idea that Ortega is seen as a rational individual who weighs out the advantages and disadvantages of his crime. What were these crimes benefits? What was the benefit of murdering two children? Was Ortega seeking revenge? What happens to the case if she uses the insanity argument? You can use the classical school to look at this case, or you can look at it using the positivist perspective, which takes a more complex approach.

Cesare Lombroso was the first to introduce positivism in criminology. He wanted scientific proof of how an individual’s features caused crime. As the father of modern criminology, he was the pioneer of formal research into his theory. He classified people into four categories, the first being a born criminal. He classified criminals as insane, including idiots or imbeciles. They also included paranoiacs and alcoholics. Thirdly, there are those who commit crimes out of chance but also possess innate characteristics that predispose to criminality. The third category was crimes of opportunity, committed by people who have innate traits that may predispose them to crime. The positivist school of criminal psychology still adheres to these concepts, which are considered simple and naive.

Ortega’s crimes are connected to positivism on several levels. There are no obvious traits that would indicate a criminal by birth. The New York Times reported that Ortega was not a previous criminal, which indicates she is as sophisticated as anyone else. Insanity is a defense she uses when dealing with criminals. But how much? Some may also claim that Lombroso is out of date and his definition of an ‘insane crime’ is not accurate. Today, epileptics or alcoholics do not qualify as ‘insane crimes’. Ortega, however, would fall into this category if she used her insanity to defend herself. Other categories she might fall under include occasional criminals. She had only committed this crime once before – she was acting on an opportunity. She felt she was compelled to commit the crime. She also falls under the category of crime motivated by passion for the final category. The New York Times said that she hated those parents for making it so difficult for her to work. She was angry with them and wanted to get revenge. So she decided that she would kill their children. Whatever the reason, she was driven by an irresistible urge.

Can the classical and positivist schools of criminology be compared to modern crime and the criminal justice systems? It seems that the classical school protects criminals’ rights and is a form of protection. In this case, Ortega may have been charged a little easier if she hadn’t used the insanity defense and the case had only been reviewed using the classic school. The positivist school is so old-fashioned that it’s impossible to believe the facts of this case if you use it. Ortega’s crime hasn’t been charged yet, but it is in the works and she will appear before a courtroom this week.