Conclusions

Abstract

Dorado Montero was not an eclectic of any sort. Even if labelling him as a ‘correctionalist’ is definitely more accurate than considering him as a plain eclectic author, it is still incorrect. His ius-philosophical and criminal thought lays undeniably closer to positivism than to neoclassical postulates. However, his thought is not an orthodox positivist one, but rather a very personal positivist thought: a Doradian positivism. The strength behind his reasoning was the consistency: he pursued coherence to its last consequences, and no contradictions can be appreciated on his legal philosophy. His independent thought led him to be very critical with the great schools of his time: he exposed all the incoherences found in the neoclassical thought, those even greater inconsistencies in the eclectics and the exaggerations and recurring mistakes of positivists themselves.

Regarding the recognition this author is still owed nowadays, it can be maintained that he was partially responsible for the introduction of positivism in Spain, but since the triumph of positivism as such did not take place, the figure of Dorado Montero has been traditionally underestimated. Undeniably, his Protective Law of the Criminals was describing the criminal law of the future: yet nor the future of Dorado Montero’s society, neither the one of his disciple Jiménez de Asúa, but the criminal law of the future of our society. The future of both criminal law and criminology is currently taking the path described by him.