Examples Of Beccaria's Arguments Against The Enlightenment

Every since the start of time there has been controversial arguments, debates and ideas about how we can live a life of freedom under a civil law, thus the social contract was constructed to live a life of security and tranquility. The following essay will discuss Beccaria’s arguments on torture and promptness in punishment in the work frame of The Enlightenment values. First by stating that judicial torture is not humane, fair nor useful, then how promptness of punishment does and does not go against The Enlightenment values because of necessity. And finally concluding Beccaria’s position still being quite relevant today. The first thing we need to do is have a clear understanding of The Enlightenment value. Beccaria adopted the 3 main

Beccaria tells us his arguments in torture and how he believes it to be going against his values. The purpose of torture was to find out the truth by making the accused confess the crime, torture by contradictions, know his accomplices, purge of infamy, and accuses of other crimes. To start, if the accused is still in trial the state does not have the right to punish whose guilt has not been proven. “The torture of the accused while his trial is still in progress is a cruel practice sanctioned by the usage of most nations” (Beccaria 29) By doing this it becomes unjust because the accused may be innocent. This becomes inhumane because the goal is not to inflict pain and not to torment. Punishment is to be used when the law is broken, and the state does have the right to punish depending on the crime only after the verdict is done. Going against this shows power and the right of force, which is tyrannical. The second thing Beccaria argues about is getting a person to confess a crime that they possibly did not commit. An innocent person may confess to doing a crime simply because of the unbearable agonies of torture. If an innocent is forced to confessing something he did not do, then torture is

Stating back to the beginning that it simply does not find the truth, how an accused person is tortured to discover his partners in crime when he might have fled the country already, torture the accused to find out if he is guilty of other crimes, when they may not even exist and lastly purge of infamy. Purge of infamy was the idea of purging yourself from sin. It was believed that torture would clean you from all your sins and bad reputation. Since god gets ride of blemishes with fire and pain, it is believed that torture would remove you from civil blemishes. This is incorrect because instead of removing blemishes, you permanently end up showing society and the victim that he was once guilty “ Torture itself causes infamy for its victim” (Beccaria 30) This just worseness what it is trying to be