Crime in mediaeval times was mostly viewed as an act that was influenced upon an individual by evil supernatural forces. (Cullen et al., 2018 p. 21). Cesare Beccaria's theory on criminology was the first significant response to challenge the dominant demonic perspective on crime. Beccaria's ideas were mainly inspired by the desire to cause reforms in the harsh nature of the existing justice system, made up of vague legal codes. Beccaria argued that fundamental law should not be based on religion, superstition, or reliance on judges' perception (Unger, Crete, & Pavlich, 2017). The theory, which is also commonly known as “classical theory” or "deterrence theory," essentially suggests that people are rational in their decision-making, mostly determined by their selfish interests. In the quest to seek these self-interests, individuals may commit a crime and cause harm unless they are prevented by the possibility of punishment for their actions. This theory's central tenant is that human beings being rational creatures, commit a crime based on their own rational choices guided by pleasures and are not influenced by supernatural forces.
The classical theory’s proposition to deter crime is to threaten them with punishments that offer pain that is greater than the pleasure they would attain from the crime (Paternoster & Fisher, 2017). According to Beccaria, the legal system is supported by laws that are clear and defined to guide the judges in proper interpretation. Classical theory bases it ideology on observable natural forces like the swiftness of punishments, it thus proves to be a pragmatic and testable theory (Cullen et al., 2018 p. 21) . Punishments must be administered without favor or discrimination and bias of the judge to determine what type of punishment should be nonexistent. The responsibility of judges in this proposition is only to decide whether the accused is guilty or not.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Beccaria's theory makes some assumptions on the behaviors of individuals when faced with the possibility of punishment. The first assumption of the theory is the self-interest drive of people to commit crime that is present in everyone (Cullen et al., 2018 p. 23). This Hobbesian assumption is still a significant part of contemporary theories in criminology. Secondly, the theory makes an assumption on the rationality of people in making choices (Cullen et al., 2018 p. 23). It is based on this assumption that the theory suggests people are likely to weigh and choose between pleasure and pain. Introducing the concept of punishment, which offers considerably greater pain than the pleasure from crime, individuals will rationally choose to avoid pain than attain pleasure. The certainty of being punished for a crime should be ever-present in the social justice system. The third assumption is that the swiftness in subjecting offenders to their appropriate punishment is an essential factor in deterring crime (Cullen et al., 2018 p. 23). The punishment that is delayed will not be effective in reducing criminal behavior in individuals.
Though the theory was relatively popular in the early 19 th century, there are a few limitations to its practicality that eventually led to its abandonment in criminology. One of the main impediments to the theory lies in its assumption of human beings' rational nature. The notion that individuals will always make sound decisions in determining the consequences of their actions is not practical. It is worth noting that many people commit crimes under the influence of drugs, which happens in the absence of rational thought. Such individuals cannot be subjected to the theory's deterrence nature, which suggests inevitable and severe consequences for their actions will make them choose not to engage in criminal activity.
Another limitation to this theory is that it relies on certainty of punishment for it to be effective. The impractical nature of the inevitability of punishment makes this theory fail in everyday social settings. Deterrence would be more effective in avoiding criminal behavior if the justice system was utterly efficient in ensuring all crimes are punished accordingly (Raskolnikov, 2019). There are many cases of serious crimes that have gone unpunished and many people commit crimes believing they will be able to avoid the consequences. Additionally, the aspect of many serious crimes being committed and remain undiscovered by society for an extended period contributed to this limitation of certainty of punishment. Beccaria’s deterrence theory works best when all crimes are investigated, uncovered, and actual culprits punished accordingly.
Another limitation in the theory's effectiveness is that it relies on the knowledge punishment in potential criminal culprits. To make a rational choice to deter from the pleasure of crime and pain of punishment, the individual must be aware of the consequences they will face. The person must also comprehend the severity and certainty of the particular consequences they will face. The complex nature of the legal system creates a situation of lack of awareness from members of society. This lack of understanding of the implications of their crimes reduces the outcome of deterrence among the public.
The challenges of deterrence theory can be handled using better approaches in ensuring better compliance with the law in society. The focus on the severity of punishment as a critical deterrence factor has proved ineffective over the years (Raskolnikov, 2019). Faced with the possibility of highly severe penalties after committing a crime tends to make offenders less deterred in engaging in other less harsh criminal activities. Also, criminals who have already committed crimes that the justice system has not detected cannot be easily deterred from committing more crimes. One modification of the theory would be to eliminate the focus on the severity of punishment as a component of the approach.
Alongside reducing the severity of punishment, more emphasis should be made on the certainty of punishment aspect of the theory. When potential offenders become aware that their criminal actions will undoubtedly lead to punishment, they will likely avoid committing offenses. Ensuring certainty of punishment is high, more effort and resources need to be made in detecting crimes. Systems and structures in society should be realigned to create awareness of the particular punishments involved with committing certain offenses. Making these efforts will establish a situation where the public is aware and more compliant in avoiding crimes.
References
Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2018). The Origins of Modern Criminology. In Criminological Theory: Past to Present (6th ed., pp. 21–32). essay, Oxford University Press.
Paternoster, R., & Fisher, D. (2017). The Foundation and Re-emergence of Classical Thought in Criminological Theory. The Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Criminology , 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011385.ch10
Raskolnikov, A. (2019). Deterrence Theory: Key Findings and Challenges. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3460204
Unger, M. P., Crete, J., & Pavlich, G. (2017). Criminal entryways in the writing of cesare beccaria. The Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Criminology, 13-31. doi:10.1002/9781119011385.ch1
