Ceasare Beccaraia's Theory Of Rationalism : The Classical School Of Utilitarianism

Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria is closely connected to rational classical criminology. Beccaria believed in fair and certain punishment to deter crime because he thought people were self-centered and egotistical. Fear of punishment would stop them from committing crimes. Beccaria thought that

Yet another criticism is their belief in deterrence. Research has shown that there is little correlation between punishment and crime, meaning that there is not a significant amount of information showing that deterrence actually works leading it into a controversial issue. People commit crimes for many different reasons that classicalists fail to acknowledge. Classical criminology was the first big step into what makes up the field of criminology today, dominating around the eighteenth century. A change in the way information was assembled with the emergence of the scientific method challenged the classical perspective and introduced the theory of Positivism.

Crime have existed over many centuries, different eras affect the flow of crime and within those eras. Furthermore amongst individuals, there was different way of thinking into how to reduce and eliminate occurred. The act of crime cannot be eliminated, as different individuals have different perspectives of crime and for theses reasons, have different methods of advocating and eliminating crime. This essay will firstly explore the views of Classical Theory, by looking at Cesane Beccaria, the father of Classical theory and Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarian and explore how there influences are incorporated into laws and regulations, around the world. Secondly, Positivism theory explores the biological, psychological and environment

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

Criminology is a field that has been researched prolong. Most of the information explaining crime and delinquency is based on facts about crime (Vold, Bernard, & Daly 2002, p.1). The aim of this paper is to describe the theories of crime and punishment according to the positivists Emile Durkheim and Cesare Lombroso, and the classical criminologist Marcese de Beccaria. The theories were developed as a response to the industrialisation and the modernisation of the societies in the 18th and 19th centuries and were aiming to create a rational society and re-establish social solidarity (Vold et al 2002, p.101). The criminological perspectives of crime and punishment will be discussed in a form of dialogue between the three theorists exploring

The way that we deal with criminals today is center and established based on how Cesare Beccaria defined and stated it. Who is Cesare Beccaria? Cesare Beccaria is an Italian scholar born in Milan, Lombardy, Italy on Saturday March 14, 1738. He died at the age of 56 in the same city on Friday, November 28, 1794. Cesare Beccaria was an Italian criminologist, a jurist, a philosopher, and a politician who is widely considered as the most talented jurist [3] and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. Recognized to be one of the fathers of classical criminal theory and modern penology, he is well remembered for his writings on “On Crimes and Punishments” written in 1764, which condemned torture and the death penalty, and was a founding work in the field of penology and the Classical school of criminology by promoting criminal justice. (citation)

Cesare Beccaria is the “Father of Classical Criminology” and justified punishment on the principle of utility. Beccaria focused on reforming the Criminal Justice System and believed that punishment should be for the better good for society, as well as the individual, and deter others from committing crime and prevent criminals from recommitting crime. He believes effective punishment must certain, swift, and severe to get the desired effect on society and the offender (Robert, Cullen, and Ball 2015). He is also the author of his book Of Crime and Punishment, which discussed his philosophy on the purposes

Philosophical utilitarianism is the view that people’s behaviour is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain (Newburn, 2017). In other words, crimes occur when an individual weigh the risks and benefits of an act, and realizes that the criminal act outweighs the consequences, hence the punishment (Law et al, 2009). This is also known as the pain-pleasure principle (Newburn, 2017), which simultaneously aids in explaining the need for a more just penal policy, where the idea of punishment is utilized in order to deter criminal behaviour (Law et al, 2009) as well as the overall existence of crime. Throughout his book, Rollins continuously attributes his “satisfaction from seeing destruction” (Rollins, 2011:24) to the maximization of pleasure through the “amazing adrenaline rush” (Rollins, 2011:38) going as far as to refer to himself as an “adrenaline junkie” (Rollins, 2011:25). Rollins breaks the law throughout the course of the book, some examples including his tendency to “set fires, smash windows and steal” (Rollins, 2011p:25) in order to gain excitement and stimulate “the adrenaline rush and feeling of power” (Rollins, 2011:38), hence ensuring the maximization of pleasure to the extent where the consequences, the pain, were forgotten. Therefore, as the pain-pleasure principle is purely based on self interest (Carrabine, 2014), Rollins arguably made his

Criminology and the criminal justice system have framed a “taken-for-granted, common-sense” understanding of ‘crime’ and the ‘criminal’ (Tierney, 2010). ‘Crime’ is commonly understood as a violation of the criminal law; originating from religion and the sin of God and then moving towards Classicalism. Classicalism rests on the assumption of free will and recognises rational choice of the individual. It influences much of our system of justice today; especially aspects of due process. It argues that criminality is therefore part of nature; and order is maintained through law and punishments. We can see this through Beccaria’s approach of certainty, celerity and severity (Beccaria, cited in Newburn, 2013, pp116). Positivism, associated with theorists such as Lombroso, offered more of a scientific approach in identifying the causes of crime and could recognise impaired ability such as mental illness. It argues that ‘crime’ is

In order to prevent crime, classicism has the idea of how to avert it before happening. As Beccaria believed, punishments should be equal to offences, to hold off offenders from committing crime. As Jeremy Bentham considered, society is based on the concept of pain and pleasure. By Bentham’s ‘moral formula’ to prevent crime punishment it has to be more painful than the crime itself. Jeremy Bentham believed that damnation of someone’s actions is more useful than physically harming

Classical and positivism criminology is an important theory of criminal behaviour. From the very beginning, theorists and scholars sought solutions to crimes and deviations. Over time, the entire social criminal activity escalated. The serial killer was an unknown term at one stage, but in the 20th century people began to murder others for different intention rather than self- defence. People did not used to discuss sensitive crime in public, like child molestation or rape until recently. As access to drugs and supplies of medicines increase, crime rates are on the rise, including drugs approved by the FDA and street drugs. In order to better understand the nature of the crime, why did people commit an act of crime and the reason behind it, and how to

In Criminology there are two main approaches when talking about why criminals commit crime: positivism and classical criminology. Throughout the decades there have been many criminologists that debate this subject like positivist Cesare Lombroso who believed that criminals were less evolved than non-criminals and believed they had a more primitive mind. Whereas Bentham viewed all people as rational decision makers and created the pain-pleasure theory. In the Sage Dictionary of Criminology the definition of Classical Criminology is “An approach to the study of crime and criminality which is underpinned by the notion of ration action and free will. It was developed in the late 18th century and 19th century by reformers who aimed to create a

“Classical Criminology was developed in the eighteenth century in opposition to the use of extreme and arbitrary punishments. Classical Criminology advocated a rational approach that punishment ought to be imposed only to the extent necessary to ensure a deterrent.” (Rowe, 2012: 191)

This essay will be comparing the competing ideologies of two key thinkers in criminology; Cesare

Classicism is associated with the works of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), the father of the classical school of criminology and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) (Walklate, 2007). Both reformers of the classical school were demanding for more effective, rational and fixed system of justice. Brown, Esbensen and Geis (2012) highlights that, as classicists intended to reform the system and administration of justice, one of the key concepts was Beccaria’s doctrine of Egalitarianism. This refers to equality before the law, where offenders must first be convicted by the court of law to be subjected to punishment (White and Haines, 2004). As all individuals are equal before the law, this led to the rejection of individualised punishment, in which to eliminate judicial discretion; there cannot be individualised punishments (Mantle, Fox and Dhami, 2005).