Law Homework Help

Chapter 3 of Snipes: Vold’s Theoretical Criminology discusses the prominence and role of Cesare Bonesana, marchese de Beccaria (Beccaria). Discuss specific elements of our current American criminal justice system that are based on or hold-overs from Beccaria’s work.

Peer Response #1

In On Crimes and Punishments (1764/1986) Cesare Bonesana, marchese de Becarria mentioned many beliefs and theories that were far from how others within his society believed during his time on the consequences that offenders should be faced with if found having committed a crime. His ideas stood place in the form of classical criminology. Classical criminology focuses on the government playing a part in regulating and punishing people’s behaviors and them engaging in and committing crimes (Void et al. 2019. Classical criminology also focuses on people’s ability to be able to guide their own actions. Cesare Becarria believed that punishments for crimes should always be proportional to the seriousness of the offenses. He realized that the cost of the crime should exceed the reward, and that this will deter people from committing crimes in the future. Becarria believed that the state and the government creates the laws that people in society have to follow and that the judges are the ones that sentence consequences to individuals when they disobey the laws (Becarria, 1764/1986).

Cesare Becarria also had a theory that people had a natural tendency to do good and not engage in illegal activity or commit crimes. He stated that people who served God did not partake in crimes because they knew that it was a sin and that God would punish them harshly for being disobedient (Void et al. 2019). This notion aligns with King James Bible(1769/2017) in the book of Exodus chapter 21 verses 24–27 it states “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” meaning that every sin or crime will be met justly with an equal punishment that fits the crime. However, Becarria made known that laws should be created so that they create a safe environment, not to avenge crime. He wanted consequences for breaking laws to not be used as a way to punish the criminals, but as a way to deter them, and others, from committing crimes in the future. His book also mentions that there should be specific consequences for the laws that are broken to ensure a fair and just penal structure. Becarria believed that consequences for breaking the law, such as imprisonment, should have a form of reform and reintegration back into society so that the likelihood of the criminal going back into prison or jail is reduced.

In today’s society, and in the United States of America, a lot of Cesare Becarria’s beliefs have held over. The state and federal government create the laws for the citizens to be able to follow, in hopes that they will not break them and commit crimes. Depending on the state, or whether it is a federal offense, there are specific consequences, such as minimum and maximum imprisonment time, a certain amount of community service hours that need to be met, or a rehabilitation of some sort, that offenders who break law are faced with. Also, a lot of prison systems, mainly state and federal prisons, have reintegration programs put in place so that when individuals are released, they will not have such a hard time adjusting to the pace of a normal society. Rehabilitation, college courses and degrees, and trade classes for blue collar skills have been offered in prisons so that when people are released, they have the education, help, and skills needed to be able to obtain a job and provide for themselves and their family which greatly reduces recidivism (Hill, 2015). Recidivism is the likelihood that an offender will offend again, which can place them back into the prison system.

Peer #2

While the American criminal justice system is an amalgamation and hodge-podge of various political, philosophical, and criminological ideations, Cesare Beccaria’s work had and continues to have a significant impact on this system. Beccaria’s influence on the American criminal justice system can be categorized as philosophical, structural, and heuristic.

The first sphere in which Beccaria has influenced the American criminal justice system (ACJS) is philosophical. Snipes et al (2019) note that Beccaria held several philosophical notions of criminality—specifically, punishment—that undergird his beliefs about appropriate or good systems: that the purpose of crime is to deter; when severity exceeds deterrence the punishment is unjust; and that excess severity emboldens men to commit more crimes (p. 42).

Another philosophical framework for Beccaria also discussed by Snipes et al (2019) is the utilitarian structure that serves as a metric for the seriousness of a crime: extent of harm on society is what determines how wronga crime is, not intent (p.42). The parallels between Bentham consequentialism/utilitarianism is further acknowledged by John Bessler (2017), who notes that Beccaria’s opposition to the death penalty (discussed later) endorsed a Benthamite “’censorial’ approach to jurisprudence” (p.21).

The second area in which Beccaria’s influence can be seen is structural. Specifically, Beccaria’s position on legislatures and judges. Beccaria held, according to Snipes et al (2019), that the role of legislatures it purely to define crimes and define punishment for said crimes (p. 41). Further, Beccaria’s position of judges was solely of guilt evaluation: a judge should only determine if one had committed a crime, then with no discretion follow the legislation (Snipes et al, 2019, p. 41).

Finally, a heuristic sphere that modulates and exists parallel to philosophical and structural frameworks can be seen in Beccaria’s influence on the ACJS. Specifically, notions of prompt and certain punishments. For Beccaria, according to Snipes et al (2019), utility in punishment is accomplished and intrinsically related to a speed/time proximity to the original offense as well as certainty (pp. 42-43).

While it is a truism that the ACJS does not exist in a vacuum, and to speak of one ACJS mechanism in one state, county, or city may be radically different in even an adjacent ACJS, certain commonalities exist. In most jurisdictions, there are at least minimum sentencing guidelines if not requirements or mandatory sentencing for the judiciary—although there are counties, such as one in which this author is employed, wherein the judiciary and district attorneys simply ignore the law if it does not fit their political agenda.

Legislatively, much if not all of the ACJS system is still Beccarian save a few federal governmental agencies that are bona fide legislators with their ability to draft de facto “law” via the issuance of “white papers,” that make certain conduct or items illegal with simple opinion papers.

Diverging, much of the ACJS system is deontological rather than utilitarian: seriousness of a crime is not usually weighed by number of others harmed, but by the nature of the individual offense being evaluated as well as the citizen-duty to uphold the ideals and norms of the community—admittedly conflating Kant (deontology) and Hobbs (social contract).

Further, intention, background, character, and extenuating circumstances are nearly always taken into account: both in punishment and sentencing, as well as evaluating if charges will even be brought or upheld in the first place.

For the Christian, orthodoxy has always affirmed that not only is God the God of justice (cf. Micah 6:8, Isaiah 1:17, Isaiah 61:8, Romans 12:19), but God, by nature of divine simplicity, IS justice. It is for this reason that the Christian criminal justice practitioner should be especially attentive to the Lord’s words in Micah 6:8: “He had shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (New International Bible, 1978/2011).