The Death Penalty and Criticisms of Beccarias On Crimes and Punishments

Criticism of the death penalty and sin and punishment of Beccarias Abstract The purpose of this article is to discuss Beccaria's "sin and punishment" while focusing on Beccaria's view on the death penalty and many criticisms surrounding his research. Beccaria has an extreme view of the death penalty, but he repeatedly opposes his view. This led to his many views on criticism and enlightenment of his work. Some people say that Beccaria does not write "crime and punishment", but I will explain about this along with other criticisms below.

Cesare Beccaria began a brief translation of crime and punishment in 1764. Beccaria opposes the death penalty for two current classical reasons: First, it is an insult to the conscience of human dignity and conscience. Any society that supports it; second, it is a real failure that it is more likely to promote crime than to oppress it. Beccaria did not emphasize the third common claim, but contemporary contemporary attempts such as Jeremy Bentham soon introduced this: if the victim turns out to be innocent, The only death that can not be returned to is death.

Through European colonization, the American colony was introduced into the practice of the death penalty. Crimes that may be sentenced to death in all colonies include theft or the denial of the existence of God. The article titled "Sin and Punishment" published by Ceasre Beccaria in 1776 is the main catalyst of abolition of the death penalty campaign. - Slavery has existed for centuries in places with the lowest social status such as Africa, the Roman Empire, the Middle East, but due to the increase in labor and relations, the importance in British colonial slavery It is increasing. Britain is the reason and result of colonial slavery, as a result of legalization by law.

More than two centuries ago Italian law journal Cesare Beccaria was suspended in his influential essay "Crime and Punishment" (1764). "The words of Beccaria are still true - even if the death penalty is a" useful "deterrent, it is still a" barbaric example ". No society can safely delegate the enforcement of that law due to torture, atrocities or murder. These methods are inherently cruel and always try bitches trying to hide them in justice. As the Supreme Court Judge Arthur J. Goldberg wrote, "Institutionalizing the intentional human life of the state is the greatest imaginary fall of human dignity" (Los Angeles Globe, 1976 8 Month 16)