Cruelty And Authentic Deterrence

566 Words3 Pages
How does classical criminology clash with modern day philosophies about punishment? Classical philosophers like Cesare Beccaria argue that cruelty is inextricably interwoven with the glowing side of liberalism. As a result, cruelty could survive and prosper within the reformed and liberalized states. These philosophers argued that cruelty persisted within the economic and judicial sphere. Beccaria was of the opinion that punishment had to be removed from the hands of the church completely, and left to the secular legislators. Moreover, Beccaria states that punishments are atrocious, and their public and solemn cruelty can only be reduced by enhancing their usefulness and consistency with the law (Baruchello, 2004). On the other hand, modern philosophers claim that cruelty can be opposed through conservatism, instead of liberalism. For instance, Kekes is convicted that liberalism can cause cruelty. Modern philosophers argue that punishment is essential to the flourishing of the society (Baruchello, 2004). Does deterrence work in modern American criminal justice?…show more content…
This fear is induced by the threat of legal punishment (Gibbs, 1979). There are two types of deterrence that include specific and general deterrence (Tibbetts, 2014). Deterrence works in the modern American criminal justice. For instance, Gibbs (1979) indicates that individuals are deterred by the knowledge of actual punishments that they will receive due to their crimes. Furthermore, Gibbs (2015) elaborates that some legislators were of the opinion that the reinstatement of the death penalty would reduce the rates of murder. This is because the offenders would perceive execution to be more severe that life imprisonment. This indicates that deterrence is effective in the modern American criminal justice

More about Cruelty And Authentic Deterrence

Open Document