Classicism: The Utilitarian Approach

CLASSICISM
Classicism surfaced in the late eighteenth century. This was basically in response to the capricious and brutal forms of punishment that ruled the pre-modern structure of crime control and justice. Social contract theories disputed the political influence declared by the nobility and projected that all humans were liberated to act in whatever way they choose. Human beings act as free agents to make contracts with other humans to fulfill their civic and social duties. The utilitarian approach asserts that humans are principally driven by the idea to maximize their pleasure and diminish pain. The basic principle of the classist school of thought claims that human beings are free in their will to take up criminal activities on the basis
of lucid choice and self-gratifying inclination (Newburn, 2013, p.115).This essay will focus on significantly comparing the classical perspective of early formations with modern day perspectives while addressing the applications of the classist theory. The comparison will be based on the basis of similarities and contrasts between the old and new developments of the classist theories of preventive justice with reference to the classical theory in relation to justice. In order to explain the contemporary perspective, Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner’s theories will be used. However, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham’s work will be considered for early formation theories.
The introduction of the essay presents a concise summary of the meaning of the term preventive justice. It moves on to investigate the similarities and differences between the early perspective of classicism and modern day perspective of preventive justice. The study carried out by Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner (2014) discussed the term ‘preventive justice’. It scrutinized the varying forcible preventive measures implemented by the state, chiefly on issues that may pose a threat to liberation. Investigated measures include:
(1) Preventive powers in policing and criminal procedure; (2) Civil preventive orders;
(3) Preventive criminal offences;
(4) Preventive sentences; (5) Preventive counterterrorism measures;
(6) Preventive aspects of public health law; and (7) Preventive aspects of immigration law.
The aim of the study is to consider preventive measures that are linked to intimidation rather than non-coercive ones which include situational and social crime prevention along with rehabilitation (Ashworth & Zedner, 2014, p. 1-7).
This essay will also take into account the coercive preventive steps while investigating preventive justice.
Beccaria was an enthusiast of the social contract theory which stressed on the concept that people can only be lawfully tied to the social order if they agree and give their approval for the societal arrangements.
He extended the idea that in order to break out of the brutality and social disorder due to no laws; every member of the society will have to forgo a part of their freedom to the supreme realm. Beccaria considered punishment to be vital to guard the independence of people from those that hampered with it (Hostettler, 2011, p.69-70). This notion of the affiliation between the state and its people can be verified with preventive justice. The citizens have an obligation to the state and towards one another to stand by the law and to embrace coercive steps taken by the state to ensure peace and order in the society. The state is considered responsible to protect the liberty of its people against individuals that plan to cause any
harm.
The punishment for people past misconduct and the prevention of prospective illegal activities are the fundamentals for criminal law, this is particularly true for serious offences like rape and murder. However, there are a number of crimes explicitly created with the prime reasoning of prevention. Conspiracy, possession of firearms, solicitation of crime, attempt, links to forbidden organizations and failure to report are all included in preventive offences (Ashworth & Zedner, 2014, p.96-102). The penalty for such crimes would seem to be clashing with Beccaria’s theory that the significance of the offence should be evaluated on the harm caused to the society and not on the basis of intentions. Furthermore, according to Beccaria punishments should be announced keeping in view the fraction of the crime committed. This should be administered by using a scale or fine to judge the severity of the offence. Penalties should be announced according to the seriousness of the crime and the damage done to the society (Burke, 2014, p.36).
The above mentioned study would then signify that preventive measures are conflicting to these theories.
This is because no harm has been caused to the society. Beccaria, however, to some extent tolerate the concept of punishment before any crime is committed. He acknowledged the need for punishment before crime but also stood fast in his belief that the penalty for the attempt should be considerably less than the punishment for the actual crime. According to Beccaria, this theory also stands true in case of accomplice in crime where the accomplice receives less punishment than the offender (Hostettler, 2011,
p.102).
In addition, the concept of preventive justice which follows the idea of prolonged sentence, in cases of dangerous or relentless offenders would also be in breach of the teachings of Beccaria. Jeremy Bentham, a devoted follower of Beccaria disputed those offenders were not hopeless cases but ‘forward children’, ‘persons of unsound mind’, which were unable to control and discipline them and their need for pleasure (Hayward et al, 2009, p.10). In regard to this cause, he proposed that the penalty should prevail over all monetary benefits, goods self pleasure, authority and excitement received from committing the crime. Subsequently, the stress of the theory was not based on the disruption caused to the society but the satisfaction and pleasure gained by the criminal from committing the crime (Burke, 2014, p. 37).