On Crimes and Punishment - A Critical Analysis of Cesare Beccaria's Philosophies

Running head: ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT
ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT
Name of the University:
Name of the Student:
Authors Note:

2ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT
Criminology is a branch of psychology and social behavior, which studies the nature,
causes, extent, consequences and prevention of the various criminal behaviors by individuals.
Scientist started delving deep in criminal behavior only recently. Cesare Beccaria was one of the
first known individuals who questioned the causes, constituents of crime and criminal behavior
from a philosophical perspective. His philosophies and ideologies were important contributions
in the field of criminology, which is the reason why he is known as the Father of Criminal
psychology (Monachesi, 1955). In 1764, Beccaria wrote an essay reflecting on the punitive
practices towards criminals and gave an insight about the changes that should be made to be able
to deter individuals from criminal behavior and bring about harmony in the general population.
He was one of the first individuals in history who tried to bring reformation in the extreme
criminal laws during his time.
He had put down certain key arguments in his essay in which he protested against death
penalty, torturing individuals for obtaining confessions, unequal and inconsistent punishments,
secret accusations, capital punishments were not effective methods to deter individual from
criminal behaviors. Throughout his work, Beccaria stresses on the two important philosophical
theories: Social Contract and Utility. He argued that any form of punishment could only be
justified if it would be able to shield the social contract by ensuring that every individual would
be motivated to stand by the laws and not conduct criminal activities. Beccaria stated that
“Punishments that exceed what is necessary for protection of the deposit of public security are by
their very nature unjust” (Beccaria, 1764). In terms of utility, he argued that the punishment
method, which would be able to serve the greater good for the public, should be adopted. He
stated in his essay, “ assuming that severity of punishments were not directly contrary to the
public good and to the very purpose of preventing crimes, if it were possible to prove merely that