I would like to compare the differences and the opposite natures of criminology theories to better understand criminal activity. The first theory is the Sociological theory, which claims that a criminal is not born as a criminal, but created by the environment in which they were raise. In other words, a person's family, neighborhood and the people that they have contact with the most, determines how they would become involved in criminal behavior. According to this theory a person's everyday life and human behavior as well as beliefs that is instilled in them from the society in which they spend the most of their time determines whether they will commit crime. A good example of the Sociological Theory is a person with a strong religious back ground has a less likely chance of becoming a criminal than a person who has never gone to church. A person that has good and positive people in their lives, have a better chance of a good life themselves.
The Classical approach is explaining crime as a behavior that can be controlled by human will, because humans are for all intents and purposes, rational beings. This theory also claims that an individual who breaks the law also understands the effects of their actions. And as a response to those actions, the criminal justice system should enforce a punishment that fits the crime committed.
The Classical theory came into emergence to challenge spiritualist, who believed that people of faith had a natural tendency to do good rather than evil. The spiritualistic approach dominated European thought about law for over a thousand years. An example would be that after a person becomes an adult, and have been exposed to go and bad in life, they should be able to make up their minds on which path they choose to take and so the consequences are theirs.