Beccaria’s Critique on Crime, Punishment, and Liberty

Posted on Mar 16, 2025 in Criminology

Beccaria on Arbitrary Infringement of Individual Liberties

Cesare Beccaria argues that individual liberties can be arbitrarily infringed upon by those acting on behalf of the law. He proposes that law should protect individual liberties by adhering to the following principles (Chapters II-V, XII, pp. 17-28, 46-47):

  • Proportionality of Punishment: Punishment should be proportional to the crime committed. Beccaria states, “all punishments, which exceed the necessity of preserving this bond, are in their nature unjust” (p. 19).
  • Legislative Authority: Laws should be governed by the legislator, who represents the entire society, to prevent arbitrary punishments.
  • Fixed Code of Conduct: A fixed code of conduct ensures that “no judge can determine whether an action be, or be not, conformable to the written law” (p. 24).
  • Sovereign’s Role: The sovereign “can only make general laws to bind the members; but it belongs not to him to judge whether any individual law has violated the social compact” (p. 20).
  • Clarity of Laws: Laws should be written in a language understood by all citizens to reduce crimes committed due to “ignorance and uncertainty of punishment” (p. 26).

Remedy: Individuals are bound by laws. The aim is to rehabilitate the person and deter others from committing the same crime.

The Judge:

  • Evidence and burden of proof on the accuser (prosecution); trial is used for deterrence.
  • A trial structure with two sides connected to syllogistic reasoning by the judge.

Problem: Despotism

  • The judge follows the “spirit of the law” as he/she sees it.
  • The goal of punishment is to change the heart and the person, and that change depends on how a judge sees things.
  • If your goal is to change the person, there are no limits.
  • Law gains liberty through laws: individual liberty, social contract.
  • A trial determines if an individual has violated the social contract.

Honor, Dueling, and the Protection of Liberty

Beccaria critiques the concern for “honor,” particularly in the context of dueling, as inconsistent with the protection of liberty as the motivation for crime and punishment (Chapters IX-X, pp. 39-43). Honor, similar to its role in Ancient Athens, prioritized reputation on hierarchical grounds over the physical protection of citizens. It encouraged extreme despotism, suppressing thoughts and ideas. Beccaria notes that honor focused on “necessity of the esteem of others” (p. 42) rather than protecting one’s body and freedom. Dueling, therefore, is misaligned with true liberty, as it prioritizes reputation over personal safety and freedom.

Evaluating Evidence and the Problem with Secret Accusations

Beccaria emphasizes evaluating evidence based on its truthfulness (Chapters XIII-XV, pp. 47-58). He advocates for independent proofs, stating that “the probability of the fact increases in proportion to the number of proofs” (p. 52), provided they are independent. Key considerations include:

  • Credibility of Witnesses: Assessing witness credibility and potential biases.
  • Multiple Witnesses: Requiring more than one witness.
  • Independent Proofs: Ensuring proofs do not depend on each other.

He distinguishes between “perfect and imperfect” proofs (p. 52). A perfect proof eliminates any chance of innocence, while an imperfect proof does not. Imperfect proofs can become perfect if they collectively establish guilt, known as the moral certainty of proofs.

Beccaria condemns secret accusations as a “manifest abuse” (p. 55) of the constitution (p. 57). He argues that they lead to unfairness and tyranny, asking, “who can defend himself from calumny, armed with that impenetrable shield of tyranny, secrecy?” (p. 56). He criticizes the sovereign’s justification of protecting informers from infamy (p. 57), highlighting that it creates a system where everyone is a suspect.

Beccaria’s Critique of Torture

Beccaria views torture as a cruel and ineffective method for obtaining confessions (Chapter XVI, pp. 58-67). He argues that it is used to “make him confess his crime, or explain some contradictions… discover his accomplices; or for some kind of metaphysical and incomprehensible purgation of infamy; or finally, in order to discover other crimes…” (p. 58). He firmly believes that punishment should only be inflicted after guilt is proven. Society cannot deprive someone of public protection until they are proven guilty. Torture violates this principle, as it inflicts suffering before guilt is established. He asserts that truth should not rely on “the muscles and fibers of a wretch in torture” (p. 59), emphasizing that physical force contradicts the law of human protection.

  • Torturing the innocent for the greater good infringes upon their individual liberties.
  • Infringing on people’s liberties for the greater good is not truly pursuing the greater good.
  • Torture is not effective as a deterrent.
  • Individuals are highly motivated to lie to end the pain.
  • Torture avoids the burden of proof.