Book Report/Review
Outline of review:
A brief introduction to your review, telling the reader what the book is about and whether or not you would recommend it
What you liked about the book, using quotations to illustrate your point, if necessary
What you disliked about the book, using quotations to illustrate your point, if necessary
Additional thoughts or insights
A brief conclusion, summarizing your opinion of the book
10 Sep 2020 07:03
Book: Becaria, Cesare (1764). An Essay on Crimes and Punishments: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/beccaria-an-essay-on-crimes-and-punishments
Must cite at least five peer-reviewed articles, not books, in your review. Need to do more than merely provide a synopsis of the book.n:
Book Report/Review
Review Introduction
The book entails the incorporation of Enlightenment treaties in the legal reforms directed towards the replacement of torture and the death penalty with reasonable and positive punishments for different crimes under the penal law. The legal reforms need to be aligned to the enlightenment treaties with the interest of attaining high levels of justice, fairness, and equality in the course of sentencing guidelines or decision making in regard to different crimes (Baccaria, 1764). The death penalty and torture forms of punishment cause more harm than good in the course of attaining the criminal justice system objectives of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, restitution, and retribution. The reforms, in this case, need to ensure that rehabilitation, retribution, restitution, and deterrence as opposed to causing pain through punishments and incapacitation. The measures taken against criminals need to be reasonable to ensure that they are improved to avoid engaging in violation of the law in the future while ensuring that the victims of the crimes get justices through restitution or retribution.
The reforms on the penal code need to be implemented in the interest of the common good by ensuring that, “every system of legislation, and so great importance to the happiness, peace, and security of every member of society”. The use of the death penalty and torture as a form of punishment across the globe is considered to be cruel as it contravenes human rights thus inclining the nation to adopt the appropriate standards of reason in the punishments involved.
Good laws need to “confer on one part the height of power and happiness, and to reduce the other to the extreme of weakness and misery”. Good laws need to universally and equally influence power and happiness to the members of the society. The laws and punishment applied in society need to attain the highest levels of happiness to the greatest number of people.
The historical application of the law has negatively affected “the conventions between men in a state of freedom” with fortuitous consequences that only serve the short term purpose. The law needs to ensure that criminals are reformed and rehabilitated in the course of punishing them. Pure punishment of the criminals through torture or death does not serve the long term necessities. Prudent law needs to ensure the extremity of evil in society is transformed into goodness in the interest of all members of society (Becker et al., 2010). Additionally, the historical application of the law has been characterized by, “the cruelty of punishments, and the irregularity of proceeding in criminal cases” and “Errors, accumulated through many centuries” thus calling for reforms in legislation. The application of the law in regard to cruelty can be explained through, “the groans of the weak, sacrificed to the cruel ignorance and indolence of the powerful; the barbarous torments lavished and multiplied with useless severity, for crimes either not proved, or in their nature impossible; the filth and horrors of prison, increased by the cruelest tormentor of the miserable, uncertainty, ought to have roused the attention of those, whose business is to direct the opinions of mankind.” The book explains that in the age of enlightenment legal reforms need to be adopted to eliminate cruelty (death penalty and torture) in legal sentencing and ruling to attain reason and this process is marred with both likable and dislikable aspects that need to be noted to ensure that the process is attained successfully.
Things to like about the book
The book has numerous positive aspects in regard to reforming the penal laws to introduce a sense of reasons devoid of the cruelty against people found in violation of different laws in the interest of the common good. The book has chronologically explained the origins of punishments, its currents status, and its future in relation to the penal law reforms. The book argues that punishment was based on the agreement between the people with their administrators or the government (Baccaria, 1764). In this case, people surrendered their sovereignty to a single entity “government” to oversee that there is order in the society. The order would be attained through setting rules in form of the law. Persons that abide by the laws are rewarded while those that violate the laws are punished. The punishment was meant to cause a deterrent effect to the people such that they could abide by the law. This approach enables one to understand why cruelty was part of the law and persons found in violation of the law were subjected to torture or the death penalty. This fact enables people to establish other modes of punishment devoid of cruelty but those that can still achieve the original objectives of in criminal justice system.
The book has effectively established that reason and the rights to punishment thus drawing the line between punishable and non-punishable aspects of the law. In this regard, Montesquieu argued that “Every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical”. This means that every punishment must be backed by a reason that is attached to the violation of the law (Baccaria, 1764). The punishments are prescribed with the intention of “…necessity of defending the public liberty entrusted to his care, from the usurpation of individuals; and punishments are just in proportion as the liberty, preserved by the sovereign, and are sacred and valuable.” Therefore, the book justifies punishments and determines the parameters within which it should be applied.
The book emphasizes the ability of people understanding to law to know its operation and consequences of breaking the laws to ensure the greatest number of people in the society abide by the law. In this case, the book argues that “This evil will be still greater, if the laws are written in a language unknown to the people; who, being ignorant of the consequences of their actions, become necessarily dependent on a few, who are interpreters of the laws, which, instead of being public and general, are thus rendered private and particular.” The fact that people should be judged based on the law that they know and understand (Baccaria, 1764). The book suggests that public awareness needs to be enhanced among members of the society thus justifying punishments when they are found to violate different laws. Therefore, the creation of understanding and awareness of different laws will ensure that there is less violation of the law, and criminals are fairly punished.
The book has addressed the issue of division of crimes to ensure that they are handled separately from each other through prescribing punishments or adoption of an alternative solution to ensure that effective countermeasures are used in dealing with crimes and criminals. The book argues that” …crimes are to be estimated by the injury done to society.” Crimes division is based on its severity and the impacts it has on the victims or society. The classification of the crimes is divided into three classes, “Some crimes are immediately destructive of society, or its representative; others attack the private security of the life, property or honor of individuals; and a third class consists of such actions as are contrary to the laws which relate to the general good of the community.” (Beccaria, 1764).The classification ensures that different levels of punishments or alternatives solutions to crimes are applied procedurally to ensure that crimes are prevented or eliminated in society. Therefore, the book suggestion of division and classification of crimes ensures that effective and productive counter-solutions are prescribed for every crime in the interest of the common good.
The credibility of witnesses is an important aspect that has been addressed in the book to ensure that suspects are judged from a credible and objective point of view in regard to their crimes committed. The credibility of witnesses ensures that facts and the right position of legal matters before the court are decided with certainty. The book emphasizes the credibility of witnesses by arguing that, “The credibility of a witness, then, should only diminish in proportion to the hatred, friendship, or connexions subsisting between him and the delinquent. One witness is not sufficient; for whilst the accused denies what the other affirms, the truth remains suspended, and the right that everyone has to be believed innocent, turns the balance in his favor.” Additionally, the book argues that “…how puerile it is, not to admit the evidence of those who are under sentence of death because they are dead in law; and how irrational, to exclude persons branded with infamy: for in all these cases they ought to be credited when they have no interest in giving false testimony.” (Beccaria, 1764). The statements by the book indicate that the system thrives at getting the facts and truths on the different cases to enhance the decision making on the punishment to be prescribed to the cases when there is a violation of the law. Credible witnesses ensure that suspects are fairly judged and thus the criminal justice system is just to parties involved in court cases.
Things disliked about the book
There are instances I dislike the book based on the fact that the application of punishment does not meet the objectives of the criminal justice system of fairness, justice, and equality for the parties involved in different cases. In this regard, there is a limitation established for the judges in the interpretation of the law thus meaning that the law leading to punishment is compromised at the expense of the people. The book argues that “Judges, in criminal cases, have no right to interpret the penal laws, because they are not legislators. The duties of developing laws and their interpretation need to be divided between different parties or professionals. The book argues that laws get their force and authority from an oath of fidelity which living subjects have sworn to their sovereign in the representation of the society. (Beccaria, 1764)” In this regard, the legislators and the judges need to be to have separation of duties in regard to the operation of the law in prescribing punishment. The duty of making the laws, principles, and attaching punishments to them need to be attached should be left to the legislators while the duty of interpreting the law should be the duty of the judges. Therefore, the book does not effectively and distinctively define the roles of the legislators and the judges in the application of the law thus resulting in conflicts in the application of the law.
The book gives more concentration on the proportion of crimes and punishments as opposed to approaches and solutions that need to be adopted in reducing crimes in society. The emphasis on punishment has made the law to have a great sense of cruelty to ensure a deterrent effect is attained. In this case, the book argues that “…the means made use of by the legislature to prevent crimes, should be more powerful, in proportion as they are destructive of the public safety and happiness, and as the inducements to commit them are stronger.” (Beccaria, 1764). The attainment of proportion between crimes and punishments means that frequent and high impact crimes need to be prevented using intense punishment measures that amount to cruelty. On the contrary, the book needs to address the frequent and intense alternative solution on reducing and dealing with crimes such as community or prison-based programs to ensure that there are less frequent crimes.
The book presents a disturbing issue on the use of oaths on suspects or criminals to ensure that they give facts and truths in their cases does not guarantee the presentation of reality. The book notes that “here is a palpable contradiction between the laws and the natural sentiments of mankind, in the case of oaths which are administered to a criminal to make him speak the truth when the contrary is his greatest interest. As if a man could think himself obliged to contribute to his destruction…” The book understands that the use of oaths cannot be used entirely on criminals or even their witnesses to guarantees that factual and true evidence and information of the case is given at the expense of the criminal. However, the book insists on the use of oath as a formality, “…oaths become by degrees a mere formality, and all sentiments of religion, perhaps the only motive of honesty in the greatest part of mankind, are destroyed.” (Beccaria, 1764).The book instead needs to advise the courts or the related parties to eliminate the administration of oath as a means of retrieving the truth but instead, they need to adopt technological alternatives.
The book argues that immediate punishments need to be directed towards the criminal or the suspect but instead the due process of the law needs to be followed to ensure that justice, fairness, and equality are observed for all the parties involved in a court case. In this regard, the book states that “The more immediately, after the commission of a crime, a punishment is inflicted, the more just and useful it will be. It will be more just because it spares the criminal the cruel and superfluous torment of uncertainty, which increases in proportion to the strength of his imagination and the sense of his weakness; and because the privation of liberty, being a punishment, ought to be inflicted before condemnation, but for as short a time as possible.” (Beccaria, 1764). In this case, punishments need to be administered when the courts prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the suspects are guilty of different crimes. The fact that the book proposes immediate punishment is inappropriate since facts and truths of the case can be omitted or ignored thus judging the accused unfairly to the point of prescribing wrong punishments. Therefore, judicial proceedings or the due process need to be followed to ensure all facts of the case are effectively considered as opposed to taking immediate punishments at the expense of the accused.
Additional thoughts or insights
The criminal justice system needs to eliminate the aspect of cruelty in punishments prescribed to the guilty and instead, the criminal justice system needs to ensure that judgments made are directed towards improving law and order by using reasonable punishment models while improving the lives of criminals in the interest of rehabilitating them (Beckett, Reosti and Knaphus, 2016). The criminal justice system needs to lay grounds to ensure that reasonable punishments and rulings are prescribed to the guilty persons with the interest of the common good. In this case, alternative dispute resolution strategies such as mediation, negotiations, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation need to be adopted to ensure that punishments and recourse adopted have a diminished element of punishments to the guilty parties.
The punishments administered needs to be administered equally to people across the nation despite their societal or economic status. In this regard, the nobles and the commoners need to be subjected to equality before the eyes of the law (De Paoli and Kerr, 2012). The book states that very lawful distinction, either in honors or riches, supposes previous equality, founded on the laws, on which all the members of the society are considered as being equally dependent.” The equal administration of justice and punishment ensures that reason and standardization in the prescription of punishments are factored in in the interest of all members of the society.
The criminal justice system needs to have a sense of adaptability to ensure that changes or reforms can be incorporated in law and in decision making by judges to ensure that only reasonable and effective punishments are prescribed to the parties found guilty (Robinson, Jones and Kurzban, 2010). This approach ensures that there is a varied and wide range of decisions to choose from in the course of administering justice. The many choices in decisions making ensure that criminals will be prescribed based on the severity of crimes and their circumstances such that there are varied rulings to punish crimes and cover the victims. This approach ensures that the courts and judges can apply the mildness of punishments, flexible imprisonment terms, and death punishment as the last option.
Conclusion and opinion
The criminal justice system needs to eliminate cruelty in prescribing punishments by seeking alternative ways to the death penalty and torture thus ensuring that reason and standardization of punishments are achieved. Society is dynamic and since the age of enlightenment, there was a great need to incorporate reforms in federal laws to ensure that punishments are done in the interest of improving law and order. For instance, the punishments need to ensure that universal human rights are practices in the course of administering punishments to criminals. Therefore, the idea of reforms in the criminal justice system needs to be applied progressively to ensure that decisions, rulings, and punishments prescribed are in the interest of the common good.
References
Beccaria, C. (1764). On crimes and punishments. Criminology Theory: Selected Classic Readings, 367.
Becker, J., Dorius, S., Gobeil, J., James, S., Johnson, K., Koon-Magnin, S., … & Rosell, L. (2010). On crimes and punishments. Contemporary Sociology, 39(5), 623.
Beckett, K., Reosti, A., & Knaphus, E. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 238-259.
De Paoli, S., & Kerr, A. (2012). On crimes and punishments in virtual worlds: bots, the failure of punishment and players as moral entrepreneurs. Ethics and information technology, 14(2), 73-87.
Robinson, P. H., Jones, O. D., & Kurzban, R. (2010). Realism, Punishment, and Reform. U. Chi. L. Rev., 77, 1611.
