Criminology vs Neocriminology: On the Essence of the Issue from the Position of the Humanistic Methodology of Jurisprudence

The article is written as part of the ongoing discussion in the Russian criminological research community between the supporters and the opponents of the complex of ideas constituting the criminology of the postmodern, post-industrial society, “neocriminology”. The significance of the discussion is primarily connected with its contents, i.e. the range of debatable issues regarding which the esteemed colleagues participating in this discussion have different positions. It is beyond doubt that differences in understanding crime and criminality, their nature, social functions, causes and so on predetermine both the methods of researching these topics and the expected results. Such categories as the public danger of a crime and criminality in general, punishment and its goals are also significant for the prospects of criminology’s development. Particularly noteworthy is the problem of choosing the criteria of socially beneficial and socially harmful behavior, the criteria of criminalizing actions, the presence or absence of objective grounds of this process. The author presents his opinion on a number of issues debated by the esteemed colleagues from the standpoint of the humanistic methodology of jurisprudence on which the author has been working for over twenty years. The emphasis is placed on the methodological problems of modern criminology lying in the domain of the world-view of a person. Ultimately, the perception of the world predetermines the position of the researcher not only in terms of the choice of means and methods of cognition, as well as the interpretation of obtained results, but also in terms of defining the contents of scientific knowledge and the prospects of its development. It is in this light that the author assesses the discussions of the supporters of classic and postmodern criminology.