• Dr. Hassan Mohammadi Nevisi,  Associate Professor at SMC University, Switzerland

Introduction

The issue of defining and understanding the nature of crime is one of the most fundamental topics in criminology, historically attracting the attention of theorists and legal scholars alike. Among these thinkers, Raffaele Garofalo, a pioneer of natural crime theory, proposed a distinctive and influential perspective, conceptualizing crime as behavior that contradicts fundamental human values. The significance of Garofalo’s theory lies in its shift away from a sole focus on positive laws and legal definitions, toward ethical concepts and social psychology as tools to analyze the true essence of crime (Garofalo, 1885).

Garofalo argued that crimes are acts that violate the “common moral sentiments” or the “natural sentiments” of society and, therefore, must be condemned and punished (Giddens, 1997). This viewpoint laid the groundwork for understanding crime as an inherent phenomenon, transcending mere legal conventions. His theory is founded on the principle that criminal laws should be based on these natural and moral values, rather than solely on the will of legislators or social contracts (Akers, 2017).

Although Garofalo’s theories have faced serious critiques over the decades, they continue to play a pivotal role in the historical development and transformation of criminological and penological thought. This article aims to critically and analytically explore the nature of crime from Garofalo’s perspective and assess the impact of his views in relation to modern criminological advancements.

Statement of the Problem and Significance

The precise and comprehensive definition of crime has always posed a significant challenge in the fields of law and criminology. Many theories consider crime merely as behavior that violates the law, but this approach has limitations, since laws are often temporary and influenced by political and social contexts (Black, 1976). Herein lies the importance of natural crime theories, such as Garofalo’s, which attempt to define crime based on more objective ethical values and standards.

The fundamental question is how to recognize criminal behaviors and distinguish them from non-criminal acts. By emphasizing “natural sentiments” and “common moral sentiments,” Garofalo sought to provide a definition that transcends legal and contractual frameworks. In other words, he regarded crime as a violation of natural moral laws essential for the survival and well-being of society (Garofalo, 1885).

This issue is important because the foundations of any legal and penal system must be built on a correct and reasoned understanding of crime; otherwise, criminal justice may deviate and result in injustice (Duff, 2007). Moreover, understanding the nature of crime assists policymakers in crafting laws that are not only deterrent but also consistent with fundamental social values.

The objective of this article is to examine Garofalo’s theory of crime and explore its implications for criminology and criminal law, thereby contributing to a deeper comprehension of contemporary challenges in criminal justice.

Life and Works of Raffaele Garofalo

Raffaele Garofalo (1851–1934) is considered a major founder of natural crime theory both in Italy and globally. A graduate in law and criminology, he significantly influenced the evolution of criminological theories in the late nineteenth century. In 1885, Garofalo published his seminal work, Criminology, wherein he endeavored to present crime as an inherent and natural phenomenon (Giddens, 1997).

Garofalo’s theory was heavily influenced by moral philosophy and the concept of “natural sentiments,” positing that all humans are innately bound to certain values, and violations of these values must be recognized as crimes. He thus spoke of “natural crimes,” contending that crimes opposing these natural values are condemnable and punishable in every society and era (Garofalo, 1885).

In his typology of offenders, Garofalo identified the “ruthless” and “insensitive” individuals as the most dangerous criminals, emphasizing the necessity of severe punishment for them. He considered such offenders to be in complete conflict with the natural laws of society (Akers, 2017).

From Garofalo’s perspective, criminology should be grounded in objective and scientific knowledge rather than transient political or social sentiments. Accordingly, he sought to develop a scientific methodology to identify and combat crime based on moral and natural criteria.

Although his theories have been subject to considerable criticism over time, they played a vital role in shaping the discipline of criminology, especially the naturalistic approach, whose influences remain evident across various criminological schools.

The Concept of Crime in Garofalo’s Theory

Garofalo conceived of crime as more than a conventional legal definition; he regarded it as a natural and intrinsic phenomenon grounded in the violation of a society’s “common moral sentiments” (Garofalo, 1885). He believed that every society possesses natural sentiments serving as fundamental moral and human standards, and any behavior contravening these standards constitutes a crime.

He distinguished between two types of crime: natural crime and legal crime. Natural crime refers to acts that conflict with natural moral laws and are universally unacceptable to all humans regardless of time and place, whereas legal crime merely denotes conduct declared criminal by legislators, which may not necessarily align with societal moral values (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2018).

Garofalo maintained that legislation based solely on social contracts cannot guarantee criminal justice; laws must be founded upon natural values and moral sentiments to preserve societal order and well-being (Garofalo, 1885). Hence, natural crime, in Garofalo’s view, represents a fundamental breach of human and social principles deserving of severe punishment.

This perspective has roots in moral philosophy and theology and reflects a tension between legal contracts and intrinsic human values. By emphasizing natural crime, Garofalo aimed to provide a definition capable of ensuring continuity and stability in criminal law, independent of transient political and social changes.

Critique and Review of Garofalo’s Natural Crime Theory

Despite its historical importance and influence, Garofalo’s natural crime theory has faced numerous critiques since its inception. A primary criticism concerns the philosophical and ethical foundation of his theory; Garofalo’s reliance on “natural sentiments” and inherent moral values has been deemed subjective and immeasurable (Durkheim, 1895).

From a sociological standpoint, Émile Durkheim argued that crime is a social phenomenon that must be analyzed within its social context and historical and cultural shifts rather than based on fixed, natural values (Durkheim, 1895). This view suggests that crime cannot be entirely innate or transcendent of time and place; rather, its nature depends on social context.

Moreover, comparisons between Garofalo’s theory and those of Lombroso and Ferri reveal that while all attempted to locate the causes of crime at biological, psychological, or moral levels, Garofalo’s model, due to its heavy emphasis on moral criteria, paid less attention to structural and social factors (Lombroso, 1876; Ferri, 1893).

Legally, critics argue that defining crime based on inherent moral standards risks infringing on individual freedoms and could justify violence and repression, as determining what constitutes “anti-natural values” might be broad and subject to personal biases (Kelsen, 1967).

Nevertheless, Garofalo’s emphasis on the moral aspects of crime helped establish criminology as a discipline with significant scientific and philosophical dimensions, drawing greater attention to the nature and philosophy of crime.

The Role of Garofalo’s Theory in the Development of Modern Criminology

Although subject to considerable criticism, Garofalo’s natural crime theory deeply influenced the development of criminology. The theory underscored the importance of moral and philosophical foundations in the study of crime, shifting criminology from a mere focus on laws and statistics to an exploration of the nature and philosophy of crime (Garland, 2001).

One of Garofalo’s key contributions was refocusing criminology on the “nature of crime.” Before him, dominant views often regarded crime merely as unlawful behavior; he demonstrated that underlying crime are moral values and natural standards that must be considered in analyses (Garofalo, 1885).

Furthermore, Garofalo’s theory helped inspire newer criminological trends such as critical criminology and natural law criminology. These perspectives strive to explain crime in terms of justice, ethics, and fundamental rights, displaying greater sensitivity to the moral dimensions of crime beyond legal aspects (Cullen & Agnew, 2011).

Additionally, Garofalo’s theory brought increased attention to preventive criminology and offender rehabilitation, as he identified “ruthless” and “insensitive” criminals as the greatest societal threats and advocated for stringent measures against them (Garofalo, 1885).

While contemporary criminological theories have grown more diverse and complex, the philosophical and ethical foundations laid by Garofalo remain evident in many criminal law and policy discussions.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Raffaele Garofalo’s natural crime theory, emphasizing the intrinsic and moral nature of crime, constitutes a foundational and historic pillar in criminology. Despite significant criticisms—particularly regarding the subjectivity of moral criteria and insufficient attention to social and historical factors its pivotal role in redefining crime and stressing ethical and natural values is undeniable (Garofalo, 1885; Durkheim, 1895).

Garofalo reminds us that crime is not merely a legal phenomenon but also a philosophical and ethical concept that warrants serious consideration in criminological analyses. This philosophical outlook helped elevate criminology from a purely practical and legal discipline to a deeper theoretical and scientific field.

It is recommended that future research and criminal policies integrate ethical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives to accurately analyze the nature of crime and develop effective, just strategies for crime prevention and control.

Moreover, future studies should revisit and potentially redefine the concept of natural crime in light of contemporary cultural and social changes, advancing comparative criminological discussions.

References:

Akers, R. (2017). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Oxford University Press.

Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Oxford University Press.

Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.

Ferri, E. (1893). Criminal Sociology. Little, Brown and Company.

Garofalo, R. (1885). Criminology. Loescher.

Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. University of Chicago Press.

Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. Polity Press.

Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure Theory of Law. University of California Press.

Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2018). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Sage Publications.

Lombroso, C. (1876). Criminal Man. Holt.

* All rights to this note belong to the author, and the Institute for Social Studies and Research (ISSR), the University of Tehran solely acts as a publisher of submitted scholarly notes and does not claim any responsibility for their academic validity or content.