Do you agree with Beccaria's assessment of the death penalty? Explain. What portions of his reasoning do you most agree or disagree with? Review file before answering.

The primary types of “theories” of why individuals committed violent and other deviant acts during most of the history of human civilization were those of supernatural, religious, and metaphysical nature. The key propositions of these theories were the belief that crime is caused by Satan (i.e., the devil made them do it) or exceptional phenomenon (e.g., full moon, thunderstorms). The Age of Enlightenment drastically altered the theories about how and why individuals commit crimes. During this time, Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan (1651), proposed a rational theory of why people are motivated to form democratic states of governance. Specifically, Hobbes explicitly declared that human beings were rational beings, who chose their destiny by creating a society. Hobbes further proposed that individuals in such societies democratically create rules of conduct that all members of that society must follow. These rules that all citizens decide upon become laws, and the result of not following them are punishment determined by the democratically instituted government. It is clear from Hobbes’ statements that the government, as instructed by the citizens, not only has the authority to punish individuals who violate the rules of the society, but more importantly, it has the duty to punish such individuals. When such an authority fails to fulfill this duty, it can quickly result in a breakdown in the social order. This arrangement of citizens promising to abide by the rules or laws set forth by a given society is commonly referred to as the Social Contract. Although all of the Enlightenment philosophers had significant differences in what they believed, the one thing they had in common was the belief in the Social Contract. Another shared belief among the Enlightenment philosophers was that of each individual having a say in the government, especially that of the justice system. Virtually all of the Enlightenment philosophers also emphasized fairness in determining who was guilty, as well as the appropriate punishments or sentences for conduct. The philosophers of this age focused on the ability of individuals to consider the consequences of their actions, and they assumed that people freely choose their behavior (or lack thereof), especially in regards to criminal activity.

The foundation of the Classical School of criminological theorizing can be originally traced to the Enlightenment philosophers discussed above, but the more specific and well-known origin of the Classical School is considered to be the 1764 publication of On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria. Specifically, Beccaria places an emphasis on the idea of social contract, and incorporates the idea that citizens give up certain rights in order for protection from the state or government. He also claims that acts or punishments by the government that violate the overall sense of unity will not be accepted by the populace, largely due to the need for the social contract to be a fair deal. Additionally, he specifically notes his appeal to the ideal of the greatest happiness shared by the greatest number, which is otherwise known as utilitarianism. Finally, the emphasis of free will and individual choice by individuals is key to his propositions and theorizing. Beccaria proposed several reforms in his book. He argued that anyone at all who committed a given act against the society should face the same consequence regardless of the contextual circumstances. He also proposed to end common practices such as secret accusations and torture. In addition, he claimed that defendants should be tired by fellow citizens or peers, not by judges. Another important aspect in Beccaria’s reforms involves the emphasis on making the justice system, particularly the laws and decisions made in process, more public and understood. One of Beccaria’s most profound and important proposed reforms is one of the least noted. In fact, it is largely ignored by virtually every other review of his work. Specifically, Beccaria claimed to know the most certain way to reduce crime, which he claimed in his statement that “the surest but most difficult way to prevent crimes is by perfecting education” (p. 98). Another primary area of Beccaria’s reforms dealt with the use and in his day the abuse, of the death penalty. First, let it be said that Beccaria was against the use of capital punishment. First, Beccaria claimed that the use of capital punishment inherently violated the social contract. As Beccaria claimed, “[t]he death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men” (p. 50). Although some studies show some evidence that use of death penalty in the United States deters crime, most studies show no effect or even a positive effect on homicides. Researchers have called this increase of homicides after executions the brutalization effect. Another primary reason that Beccaria was against the use of capital punishment was that he believed it was a very ineffective deterrent. Specifically, he thought that a punishment that was quick, such as the death penalty, could not be an effective deterrent as compared to a drawn out penalty. In addition to these propositions, Beccaria presented three characteristics of punishment which made a significant difference in whether the individual would consider in making a decision to commit a criminal act, in other words to deter a crime. These vital deterrent characteristics of punishment included celerity (swiftness), certainty, and severity. Beyond the three characteristics of punishment that Beccaria emphasized for improving the deterrent effect of punishment, he also developed the concepts of two identifiable forms of deterrence: specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence focus primarily on the individual while general deterrence focuses on “other” potential criminals. Beyond his propositions designed to improve the justice system, Beccaria also influenced the work of other theorists. One of the more notable theorists inspired by Beccaria’s ideas was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) of England, who has become a well-known Classical theorist in his own right, perhaps because he helped spread the Enlightenment/Beccarian philosophy to Britain. Although he did not add a significant amount of theorizing beyond Beccaria’s propositions regarding reform and deterrence, Bentham did further refine the ideas presented by previous theorists, and his legacy is well known. One of the more important contributions of Bentham was the concept of the “hedonistic calculus,” which was essentially the weighing of pleasure versus pain. This, of course, is strongly based on the Enlightenment/Beccarian concept of rational choice and utility. Beyond the idea of the hedonistic calculus, Bentham’s contributions to the overall assumptions of Classical theorizing did not revise the theoretical model in a significant way. After the implementation of Beccaria’s concept regarding every individual who committed a certain act against the law should be punished the same, the French government as well as others realized quickly that not everyone should be punished equally given a certain act. It was this realization that lead to the creation of the Neoclassical School. The only significant difference between the Neoclassical School and the Classical School of Criminology is that the Neoclassical (“neo” means new) School takes into account contextual circumstances of the individual or situation that allows for increases or decreases in the punishment. This Neoclassical concept became the standard in all western societies’ justice systems.