Introduction
Beccaria is the founder of classical criminology and has laid the basic principles of the modern age. Although considered radical at the time, his work influenced different studies to prove the importance of fair trial, proportionate punishment, and social impact. His principles and ideas are still influencing the modern legal system, as can be seen in the example of deterrence, the gravity of the offense, and the legal system’s role.
Discussion
As Beccaria’s guiding principle was that punishment’s purpose is to deter crime, it is also consistent with the modern penal code (Snipes, Bernard & Gerould, 2019). Beccaria claimed there should be more obstacles and downsides to committing a crime than benefits due to rational human choice. In the modern legal system, policymakers use the minimum sentencing length to provide deterrence and prevention degrees. California and its three-strike system set another example. According to this system, a crime offender’s sentencing will be doubled with every new conviction he makes (Bird et al., 2022). Although it can be controversial whether this type of trial and sentencing is proper in Beccaria’s view, it still fits the idea of deterrence as a measure of prevention.
The idea of Beccaria sets another example that the severity of punishment should be equal to the gravity of the offense. Modern penal code includes these concepts in sentencing schemes that every judge should follow. It eliminates free interpretations and allows a range penalty based on the nature of the crime, criminal history, and other circumstances, whether it was a violent crime or not. Beccaria also claimed that criminals’ intentions should be considered (Snipes et al., 2019). Judges use these criteria to ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the nature of the offense, fostering fairness and consistency in sentencing. As also shown by the book, the excessive amount of research proved Beccaria’s idea that excessive seriousness of punishment does not result in positive outcomes.
Lastly, Beccaria’s ideas are at the foundation of the legal system structure of the US and many other countries. As Beccaria claimed, the legal system should define crimes and specific circumstances; it should not pass general laws to leave interpretation for judges individually (Snipes et al., 2019). Here, the US legal system does not allow generalizing laws, and vice versa, which is intended to bring more details with each new case. Although judges have some room for interpretation, they still mostly follow guidelines and laws set by policymakers. If there are precedents in any case, this can work for detailed trials in the future. Although some precedents can be controversial, the modern legal system has no room for generalization and individual interpretation.
One of the changes that I would advocate for is reviewing the issue of repeating the crime. For example, in California, the offender can get a lower sentence length if considered to have a lower recidivism rate (Monahan, Metz & Garrett, 2018). However, the interpretation of the degree of recidivism is solely based on the judge’s viewpoint, which can be strongly influenced by bias. Here, I would propose changes in risk assessment for states at certain crime levels to have recidivism issues as objectively as possible. The assessment can include previous sentencing, individual characteristics, prior felony convictions, or adult incarcerations (Monahan et al., 2018).
At the same time, judges should explain why certain offenders are defined as low-risk or high-risk. Moreover, there is a possibility of implementing alternatives to incarceration that the author calls justice reinvestment. Here, there are mental health programs that are replaced by incarceration for specific individuals that were gone through risk assessment.
There has been a more significant movement for criminal justice reform in recent years, trying to address concerns such as racial inequities, jail overcrowding, and the high cost of incarceration. Some states’ sentencing rules have been amended to emphasize rehabilitation, early release programs, and community supervision as alternatives to extended prison sentences. These measures signal a shift from purely punitive approaches, echoing Beccaria’s emphasis on crime prevention through deterrence and rehabilitation.
Moreover, recognizing the unique nature of juvenile offenders and the potential for rehabilitation, numerous states have altered their juvenile justice systems to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and education over punitive measures. This move is consistent with Beccaria’s concepts of proportionality and possible rehabilitation to prevent future criminal behavior.
For nonviolent offenders, it is possible to implement minimum terms or punitive sentencing. There are many states in which the federal government ensures the reduce mandatory minimum sentences for these types of crimes and provides alternatives to incarceration, such as diversion programs and treatment possibilities. Here, it still aligns with Beccaria’s concept of fair trial and punishment on the seriousness of the crime. Beccaria did not describe incarceration as the only means of punishment.
Thus, it is possible to include other methods in the justice system. If I were a policymaker, I would propose such changes, although it is evident that many will oppose them. First, it is necessary to define alternatives and test their efficiency before implementation. Secondly, there should be substantial support from judges or other representatives to include this type of policy.
Conclusion
Although considered radical in his lifetime, Cesare Beccaria is an evident founder of criminology principles that we know today. Although more values and structures have been developed over time, the profound nature of the penal code is still grounded in the principles Beccaria shared in his works. His deterrence approach and the idea of fair trial and non-generalized laws align with modern punishments and what they represent. The role of judges and the legal system’s definitions also align in several aspects, as their responsibilities are still evolving.
References
Bird, M., Gill, O., Lacoe, J., Pickard, M., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2022). Three strikes in california. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code.
Monahan, J., Metz, A. L., & Garrett, B. L. (2018). Judicial appraisals of risk assessment in sentencing. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(5), 565–575. Web.
Snipes, J.B., Thomas, J.B. & Gerould A.L. (2019). Vold’stheoretical criminology. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.