Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 1

Historical

The 18th century became known as the age of enlightenment because it was both a culmination of

old ideas and the beginning of new ones. Cesare Beccaria was born in the middle of the age of

enlightenment in the year 1738 (Beccaria4, 2004). Beccaria was born into a wealthy aristocratic family

and began his education at a Jesuit school in Milan, Italy. Cesare Beccaria studied the early

philosophers during this period such as Hobbes, Hume, Diderot, Helvetius and Montesquieu and their

influence would be evident in his later works. In 1761 Beccaria founded “Societa dei Pugni” along with

Pietro and Alessandro Verri. This group, also known as the “Academy of Fists” were focused on

reforming the criminal justice system of the time.

During the age of enlightenment philosophers were presenting new ideas and wearing down the

walls of traditional thinking. This time period was an intellectual movement which had the goal of

establishing knowledge based on an “enlightened rationality”. This was clearly an era of reform in

virtually every facet of society including the criminal justice system. This time period has also been

coined as the era of philosophical revolution due to the amount of time spent on revisiting old ways of

thinking and projecting bold new ideas. Many of the philosophers during this period were displeased

with the tyrannical form of government and sought to change policy through enlightenment (Rempel,

2004).

Charles-Louis Montesquieu was a notable enlightenment thinker that believed all citizens

perspectives should be considered for the general good. This principle idea was not very popular with

the monarchy systems of the time. This type of thinking challenged the idea that decisions should be

made to benefit the government instead of the public (Marso, 1998). In one of his works “The Spirit of

Laws”, Montesquieu stated that when the nobility are numerous there must be a senate to regulate the

affairs which the body of nobles are incapable of deciding. He goes on to mention that it would be a

happy thing, in an aristocracy, if the people, in some measure, could be raised from their state of
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 2

annihilation. He believed that in societies where men were only deterred by cruel punishments, we can

be sure that this comes from the violence of the government themselves (Prichard, 1914).

Another philosopher who had obvious influences on Beccaria’s works was David Hume. Hume

maintained that reason can inform us of the tendencies of actions. It can recommend means for attaining

a given end. This idea is central to many enlightened philosophers of the time who looked at people as

rational human beings that were capable of making choices that could be predicted (Zalta, 2001). This

concept would be echoed by Beccaria in his Treatise “Of Crimes and Punishments”.

In 1763 Jean Jacques Rousseau expressed his version of the social contract theory of the time.

He believed that the social contract was between all members of society, and essentially replaced

“natural rights” as the basis for human claims. His work stated that each man’s power and freedom are

their main means of self-preservation. He elaborated on this position by stating that each individual may

have one particular will as a man that is different from to the general will which they possess as a

citizen. His work centered around the concept of “collective thought”. He believed that citizens should

participate in government in order to secure the social contract. His concepts would also be expanded

by Beccaria and his cohorts (Rousseau, 1800).

From 1764-1766 Beccaria and the “Academy of Fists” published the great enlightenment

journal, Il Caffe, where Beccaria published some of his most famous pieces of work. Pietro and

Alessandro Verri influenced Beccaria’s works as well. Pietro was in process of authoring a text on the

history of torture and Alessandro was an official at the prison in Milan. Beccaria was one of the main

developers of the Italian tradition in economics, which combined a utilitarian theory of statecraft and a

demand-and-supply theory of value (Fonesca, 2004). Beccaria envisioned that society was demanding a

new system and his works would usher in a new age. The writings of Beccaria and his colleagues were

indicative of the time period and in keeping with other enlightened philosophers of the time.

The movement toward a more civilized form of government in all areas was apparent in these

works. In a discourse on public economy and commerce Beccaria outlined that he had been appointed
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 3

to teach these principles which were the sciences that furnish the means or riches of the state and apply

them to the most useful purposes. This statement is gives us an idea that Beccaria was in favor of the

state providing the public with services from the proceeds of revenue (Beccaria3, 2004). Beccaria’s

work also echoed the mindset of Richard Cantillon, who was acknowledged by many historians as the

first great economic theorist. In Cantillon’s most remarkable treatise, Essai Sur la Nature du Commerce

en General he set the foundations for classical political economics. Like Beccaria’s work, Cantillon’s

was clear, simple and absolutely path-breaking (Cantillon, 1732). It is easy to see how Cantillon’s

careful description of a supply and demand mechanism can be associated with Beccaria’s clear and

simple approach to the criminal justice system in his works.

The philosophers during the age of enlightenment viewed themselves as a courageous body of

intellectuals and considered themselves to be reformers of their time. They identified flaws in old ways

of thinking and encouraged progress in their works. It is easy to see how Beccaria was influenced by

these individuals. The works that surfaced during this time period would eventually become the

framework for many forms of government and be a blueprint of how they should operate.

Original Theory

In 1764 Beccaria wrote what would become his most lasting piece of work, “Of Crimes and

Punishments”. His theory was that criminal acts were committed by rational individuals who were

acting under their own freewill, but were driven by hedonistic needs and desires. He believed that

human beings acted in terms of their own self-interests and sought personal fulfillment for their acts.

Beccaria saw laws as conditions in which men united themselves in society. His social contract theory

was in keeping with other reformers like Jean Rousseau. Beccaria’s works centered around the principle

of utility and the concept of society as a whole.

In his treatise “”Of Crimes and Punishments” Beccaria attacked virtually every contemporary

view of the criminal justice system. The treatise described the great need for reform in the system and

how there was very little research concerning the reform he outlined. Beccaria covered all aspects of the
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 4

criminal justice system from investigation of a crime to it’s punishment. He based his position by

appealing to two key philosophical theories, social contract and utility. He argued that punishment is

justified only to defend the social contract and to ensure that everyone will be motivated to abide by it.

He believed that the punishment selected should be one that serves the greatest public good (Beccaria1,

1819).

This work relentlessly protested against the use of torture to obtain confessions, secret

accusations, the power of judges, inequality of sentencing and the use of capital punishment. His

treatise illustrated that the best way to prevent crime was to enact clear and simple laws, reward virtue

and improve education. His view of capital punishment disagreed with some of his contemporaries.

Locke argued that people forfeit their right to life when they initiate a state of war with other people,

while Beccaria believed that in a social contract we negotiate away only the minimal number of rights

necessary to bring about the peace (Beccaria1, 1819).

Beccaria stated that human beings were rational decision makers who possessed freewill. He

described that humans were capable of acting under their own freewill, but they were driven by

hedonistic needs and desires. According to this principle, people made logical choices to commit

deviant acts through a process of weighing the hedonistic gains versus the risks and the possible

punishments. This behavioral model would allow governments to predict criminal behavior and create

laws with proportional punishments to deter it. In their search for fulfillment, people tended to act on

impulses to achieve their wants and desires. By doing this, they could avoid pain and increase pleasure.

Beccaria operated under the belief that it was possible to calculate the course of action that

people would take given a particular set of circumstances. This basic concept allows us to see that even

though humans have impulse type behavior, they still go through a thought process in order to arrive at a

decision (Beccaria1, 1819). Keeping this fact in mind, he believed that if society sets up a rational

structure of punishments they should be able to deter all acts but the irrational.

Operating under the concept that laws united men within society, Beccaria believed that although
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 5

each person functions in society on their own they are bonded together by common mores. Beccaria

followed the thinking of Montesquieu in the belief that any punishment that does not come from

absolute necessity is tyrannical. Beccaria argued that punishment should be swift and certain, but it

should also be proportional to the crime committed. He mentioned that the more immediate the

punishment was after the commission of the crime, the more just and useful it would be. Proportionality

was a very important part of his theory concerning punishment. He believed that the punishment should

slightly outweigh any gain from the act so that the person would not take steps toward it’s commission

(Beccaria2, 2004).

Rouseau’s social contract theory stated that men are originally born free and then they enter into

a symbolic social contract with other members of society as well as the state. Once this bond is formed,

any offense against one of the members of the body is considered an offense against the whole. We see

that people function within society individually, but each individual shares many of the collective

sentiments of the whole. These sentiments formed boundaries for members to operate within and failure

to stay within them violated the social contract (Hallsall, 1997). Beccaria’s social contract was based on

the concept that men needed laws or they would be in a constant state of war. He thought that men had

to be able to give up certain rights in order to establish the social contract. The laws that formed the

social contract needed to be in language known to the people and they would have to be made by

legislators who represented society in the united social compact (Beccaria1, 1819).

The concept of utility as described by Beccaria referred to “the greatest happiness principle”.

This idea refers to the belief that every individual was commonly interpreted as determined by his/her

own pleasure or pain. Keeping this in mind it is easy to see that Beccaria’s view that punishment in the

past reflected the beliefs of the few and privileged rather that the collective sentiment of the whole

(Cambridge, 1907). Beccaria stated, “the force which attracts us, like gravity, to our own good can be

controlled only by equal and opposite obstacles.” This statement is in keeping with his principle of

utility within the system and allows us to see that in order to maintain homeostasis in society there needs

to be appropriate sanctions for deviant acts (Beccaria2, 2004).

Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 6
Critique of the Model

Beccaria’s classical school of criminology has become the foundation from which many other

theories surfaced. Beccaria’s original work was published anonymously due to fear of reprisal and it was

only after it was embraced that he made his contribution known. The classical school theory as outlined

in Beccaria’s “Of Crimes and Punishments” does not account for some of the explanations of criminal

behavior that are widespread today. The original theory has been altered and modified taking the form

of a new and improved ways of thinking. While establishing itself as the dominant theory in

criminology, the classical model would see its scope expanded and its rationale tested. The Neo-

classical approach and the Rational Choice theories echo the writings of Beccaria while attempting to

establish themselves as independent theories.

The classical theory is based on the concept that we are all rational human beings and that even

with outside influences the individual still possesses the free will to commit deviant/criminal acts.

Punishment as outlined by Beccaria should be no greater severity, than to prevent the criminal from

doing further injury to society, and to prevent others from committing like offenses (Beccaria1, 1819).

Beccaria’s theory did not take into account biological and/or medical causes for criminal behavior. If a

person was considered medically insane or incompetent then he/she could not be considered a rational

person capable of free will decision making. Likewise, a drug impaired offender cannot be looked upon

as a rational human being.

One theory that rose from Beccaria’s original work was the Neo-classical approach to criminal

behavior. This school rejected fixed punishments and proposed that sentences vary with the particular

crime. Further distinction was made in relation to the age, intellectual level, and emotional state of the

offender (Encarta, 2004). These distinctions were areas that Beccaria’s original theory did not include.

The influence of this school led to the development of such concepts as indeterminate sentences and

limited responsibility of young or mentally deficient offenders. Proponents of the Neo-classical school

support efforts such as truth in sentencing of offenders.

James Q. Wilson further illustrates this model by suggesting that crime is correlated with factors
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 7

such as age, sex, race, education and IQ. His theory rests with Beccaria’s original belief that when faced

with a choice, people freely choose a preferred course of action. The distinction lies within the

reasoning behind the choice which Beccaria did not elaborate on. Keeping this in mind we see that an

adequate theory of criminal behavior should attempt to present a framework in which criminal types, as

well as factors contributing to these types are correlated and weighted. In stride with Beccaria’s belief

that punishment must be swift, Wilson states that penal consequences of an act lose their ability to

sanction behavior in proportion to how delayed or improbable they are. Essentially, punishments that

are not timely handed down or rarely used will lose their deterrence factor (Wilson, 1985).

Beccaria’s classical theory has been critiqued by those who believe that criminal behavior is not

solely based on an individual’s free will and altered by those who have expanded on its baseline

concepts. The original theory of Beccaria has been modified to meet the needs of contemporary

theorists, but the pillars of his treatise are still evident in our current criminal justice system. It appears

that contemporary theorists are not interested in totally disproving classical theory, but building from

and around it.

Theories Current Use and Popularity

Cesare Beccaria's work has been used as a framework for other theories that followed and it is

still referenced today. The popularity of the classical theory of criminal behavior is very evident among

many researchers today including those researching the rational choice theory. Countless authors

reference Beccaria's original work in their research. Research concerning the death penalty and the

torture of prisoners echo Beccaria's early theories on punishment. Beccaria's theory that humans are

rational people who can make choices has surfaced in the economic circle as well. Federal sentencing

guidelines and deterrence research often cite Beccaria in their attempt to research new methods and

practices. I believe that Beccaria's original work was very straightforward and simple, which accounts

for its continued popularity today.

The rational choice theory of criminal behavior is based on the classical philosophy that
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 8

individuals can make rational choices after weighing the risks and rewards. Deterrence is at the heart of

Beccaria's original works and it shares a place within the modern rational school of thought. The

concept of differential reinforcement surfaced as an important variation on Beccaria’s original concept

in the contemporary rational choice model. This theory refers to the overall balance of rewards and their

potential impact on behavior. This theory is further explained by Ronald Akers who mentions that

effective social control can easily be interpreted to mean that the social sanctions successfully reinforce

conventional behavior and extinguish deviant behavior by rewarding conformity and punishing

nonconformity. This theory clearly expands the deterrence doctrine found in the classical model (Akers,

1990). Aker’s theory is a clear example of how the deterrence doctrine from Beccaria’s model has

expanded.

In a 2002 article Mary Lindemann revisits Beccaria's idea that punishment should not be barbaric

when she emphasizes the fact that the use of torture persisted long after its legal utility disappeared. She

mentions that researchers such as Silverman are guided by the realization that today we are able to see

the difference between "truth seeking" and "pain inflicting" punishment. In Beccaria's time pain and

torture were considered meaningful regardless of the end result (Lindeman, 2002).

The argument against the death penalty and subsequent research can be traced back to a short

treatise by Beccaria "On Crimes and Punishments", which is usually credited with inspiring the abolition

movement itself. Research has revealed that Beccaria's attitudes towards the death penalty are

noticeable in Supreme Court decisions. In Furman v. Georgia Justice Brennan and Marshall mention

that the fundamental normative principle or purpose of punishment was that the government must use

the least restrictive means sufficient to achieve the desired goals (Bedau, 2002).

In 1993 research indicated that truth in sentencing could prevent more than 4 million of the 6

million violent crimes committed every year. Beccaria's early theory outlined how punishment needed

to be swift and certain to be effective. In 1987 federal sentencing guidelines went into effect requiring

offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Research on truth in sentencing is centered
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 9

around Beccaria's concepts and focuses on restoring the face value of a sentence which is in keeping

with the certainty aspect of his earlier work (Mauer, 1996).

Subsequent research on deterrence on police misconduct shows that many of Beccaria's thoughts

are still used today in order to question current policies and practices. Studies revealed that both legal

and extralegal sanction threats potentially deter police misconduct. Under Beccaria's model, an increase

in the certainty, severity or celerity of potential punishment for a contemplated offense increases its

perceived cost to the actor and can discourage it. The principles used to deter police misconduct in this

study clearly indicate Beccaria's influence today.

Gottfredson and Hirschi are two researchers that use Beccaria's classical model while reviving

and revising the arguments that human behavior is premised on individual calculations of the relative

costs and benefits of action. In their study the authors maintain that the classical emphasis on voluntary

human action better fits the data on offending than do positivistic accounts of external determinants of

behavior because such accounts over predict crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi state that they are not

merely resurrecting classical theory, but trying to correct its flaws and expand its scope. They felt that

early classical theorists overemphasized the role of political sanctions in curbing deviant behavior and

added family socialization into their account of crime (Reed & Yeager, 1996).
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 10

References

Akers, Ronald L. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology:
The Path not Taken. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 81(3), p. 653-676.

Baruchello, G. (2004). Cesare Beccaria and the Cruelty of Liberalism. Philosophy and Social
Criticism. 30(3), 303-313.

Beirne, Peirs. (1991). Inventing Criminology: The “Science of Man” in Cesare Beccaria’s Dei Delitti
E Delle Pene. Criminology. 29(4), 777.

Bellamy, Richard. (1997). Crime and Punishment. History Today Ltd. 28(2), p. 24.

Beccaria, Cesare1. (1819). Of Crimes and Punishments. Philadelphia: A. Nicklin.

Beccaria, Cesare2. (2004). Famous Quotes from Beccaria. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/fccc450cfa94667c85256b210010e215

Beccaria, Cesare3. (2004). A Discourse on Public Economy and Commerce. Retrieved September 1,
2004 from http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/beccaria/pubecon

Beccaria, Cesare4. (2004). Britanica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9356857&query=null&ct=null

Cambridge History of English and American Literature. (1907). Bentham and the Early Utilitarians.
(XI) p.1907-1921.

Cantillon, Richard. (1732). Essai Sur la Nature du Commerce en General. Retrieved September 1,
2004 from http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/cantillon.htm

Encarta. (2004). Criminology. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 1, 2004 from
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556342/Criminology.html#p10

Fonseca, Goncalo. (2004). The History of Economic Thought. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/

Hall, Joseph S. (1999). Guided to Injustice?: The Effect of Sentencing Guidelines on Indigent
Defendants and Public Defense. American Criminal Law Review. 36(1331) p.1.

Halsall, Paul. (1997). Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract, 1763. Modern History
Sourcebook. Retrieved September 14, 2004 from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Rousseau-
soccon.html

Hirst, Paul. (2000). Satism, Pluralism and Social Control. British Journal of Criminology. 40, p. 279-
295.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2004). Cesare Beccaria 1738-1794. Retrieved September 1,

2004 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/beccaria.htm#Life

Maestro, Marcello T. (1973). Cesare Beccaria and the Origins of Penal Reform. Temple University
Press.
Biletnikoff-Draft Cesare Beccaria 11

Marso, Lori J. (1998). The Stories of Citizens: Rouseau, Montesquieu, de Stael. Polity. 30(3) p.435.

Mauer, Marc. (1996). The Truth about Truth in Sentencing. Corrections Today. 58(1), p. S1(8).

Melossi, Dario. (2000). Changing Representations of the Criminal. British Journal of Criminology.
40, p. 296-320.

Nagin, Daniel S. (1998). Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the 21st Century. Crime and
Justice. 23. p.1.

Newman, Graeme, Marongiu, Pietro. Penological Reform and the Myth of Beccaria. Criminology.
28(2). p. 325.

Prichard, J.V. (1914). The Spirit of Laws. London: G. Bell & Sons, Ltd.

Reed, Gary E. & Yeager Peter C. (1996). Critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi. Criminology. 34(3).
p.357-383

Rempel, Gerhard. (2004). The Age of Enlightenment. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html

Rousseau, Jean J. (1800). Contrat social ou Principes du droit politique. Paris: Garnier Freres.

Sandoval, Joseph. (1996). Three Strikes is Good Criminal Justice Policy. Corrections Today. 58(4), p.
22(1).

Shanahan, Emily C. (1999). Stranger and Non-Stranger Rape: One Crime, One Penalty. American
Criminal Law Review.

Wilson, James Q. & Richard J. Herrnstein. (1985). Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon &
Schuster Publishing.

Young, David B. (1983). Cesare Beccaria: Utilitarian or Retributivist?. Journal of Criminal Justice.
11(4). p. 317.

Zalta, Edward N. (2001). David Hume. Retrieved October 03,2004 from

http://plato.standford.edu/archives/spr2001/entries/hume/

Brian Biletnikoff
Email bsb04e@fsu.edu