ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Beccaria

245 Words1 Pages

Beccaria is credited with being a classicist. In criminological throry, the classsical position is that people have free will and are rational. Criminals commit crimes, classical criminologists say, because they make rational decisions based on the potential risks and rewards. In other words, offenders – like nonoffenders – exercise their free will. However, a careful reading of “On Crimes and Punishments” suggests that Beccaria was not proposing a theory of carte blanche volition. Instead his is a determined will rather than a free will. Thus, his proposals for punishment were predicated on a rational and calculating human being (Beirne, 1993). This calculating man will weigh the pros and cons of commiting a criminal act and, if the punishment is swift enough and severe enough, he will desist from offending. If the benefits, however, outweigh the potential risks, he will violate the law. …show more content…

But if punishment poses a considerable risk for them, they will be dissuaded from violating the law; at that point – when people are reacting to their calculations of risks and rewards – they are no longer operating based on free

Show More
Related
1000 Words | 4 Pages

The first theory I will be explaining is Rational Choice Theory. Cornish and Clarke argue that “offenders are rational people who seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain.” (Cullen, 2015 pg. 438)

Read More
1153 Words | 5 Pages

Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be

Read More
631 Words | 3 Pages

Like Beccaria, he proposed a new classification of crimes for Virginia and then that the punishments be suited to each of the three categories of crime. It was clear that he was influenced by Beccaria when he articulated three cardinal principles. First was that punishment is an evil in itself and is justified only in so far as it rehabilitates criminals and prevents future crimes. Also, that the death penalty should be the last resort. Second was that punishments more severe than necessary defeat their purpose.

Read More
582 Words | 3 Pages

The Author uses this line to convince the reader that by keeping the punishment the criminals will think twice

Read More
1982 Words | 8 Pages

37). Beccaria provided three characteristics that influence a person’s likelihood of committing a crime: swiftness, certainty, and severity. These were the qualities that a potential offender would deliberate on before carrying out their transgression. He believed that a punishment should come as soon as possible after the crime, should have a strong impression on potential offenders, and should be worse than the benefits from the crime (Tibbetts, p. 38). As long as a punishment had all three characteristics, a rational person should be deterred from that behavior.

Read More
624 Words | 3 Pages

He advocated that punishment needed to have a preventive deterrent, not a retributive, function. Based on that argument, the association between a crime and its punishment should be stronger. To achieve that, Beccaria proposed swift and prompt punishment. When a punishment quickly follows a crime, the link between the two grows stronger, which in turn should deter others from committing the same crime: Beccaria also argued against the severity of punishment, claiming that it is certainty, not severity,

Read More
1058 Words | 5 Pages

The classical theory of crime says that people make rational choices when they commit crimes. “Individuals have the will and rationality to act according to their own will and desires. Individuals will calculate the rationality of the crime based on the benefits of the crime versus the consequences of the crime” (Robinson, 2014). This theory discuses that how people think about the negative and positive outcomes before they commit crime. Even though they realize it is not right, they still continue to commit illegal offence because they believe that what they are doing is for the greater

Read More
1145 Words | 5 Pages

Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.

Read More
894 Words | 4 Pages

The other side of this trend is that many who make these choices are likely to become repeat offenders. Individuals also may escalate their negative behaviors to more violent or disturbing crimes. The punishment may not do enough to deter these actions in the future. Opinions on the best way to handle criminals are as vast as the varying crimes committed. Some say that these individuals

Read More
1782 Words | 8 Pages

The court system should acknowledge the offenders past and realize that the reasons they are committing crimes are not their free will, it is elements in their past that have caused them to act in a deviant manner. Furthermore, Cullen and Johnson (2017) agree by stating, “science has demonstrated that un-chosen individual traits (e.g., temperament, self-control, IQ) and un-chosen social circumstances (e.g., family, school, community) can be

Read More
735 Words | 3 Pages

Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead. I will argue that updating their current use is essential in order to make the current system of fines more effective and more restricted. I will continue to discuss why fines are not effective, from their rational, to their effect on the offender to the way that they are set in practice.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

It is argued that if the offenders pay their costs, there will be social benefits, such as the costs of the public reducing, and this could eventually lead to lower taxes or the use of funds for other projects. A policy as such could also raise the costs and make the offenders take full responsibility for their conduct. If not, sanctions would take place, such as reimbursing the public, and this would serve as a deterrent as well. Also, if offenders are forced to reimburse for the misconduct they create, then more than likely they will appreciate the costs of their actions and

Read More
1290 Words | 6 Pages

Specific deterrence discourages individuals from committing crimes because they have learned through personal experience (i.e., by being punished) that the cost for their criminal behaviors is too high (Akers & Sellers, 2009). General deterrence, on the other hand, discourages individuals from committing crimes because they have learned through observation (i.e., by observing the suffering of offenders who have been punished) that the cost of committing crime is too high. By using fear, the behaviors of would-be criminals can be modified. Labeling Theory The labeling theory indicates that once individuals are

Read More
823 Words | 4 Pages

He states in his essay, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that “a man in respect of willing, or the act of volition, when any action in his power is once proposed to his thoughts...cannot be free” (§23). That is, a man is not at liberty to decide whether or not to will. For instance, if he is presented with a thought, which leads to the willing of an action or nonaction (that is in his power) in accordance with that

Read More
1048 Words | 5 Pages

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Beccaria

Related Topics

Open Document