Mario Cattaneo's Definition Of Punishment

2003 Words5 Pages

Hobbes concludes his definition of punishment by clearly delineating the end to which all penalties should be directed: “That the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience” (Hobbes, Leviathan, II.xxviii, 353). In his use of the phrase “better disposed to obedience,” Hobbes fashions punishment as a forward-looking practice, with the aim of shaping the criminal, and others by observation, into law-abiding subjects. In doing so, he simultaneously invalidates the legitimacy of “punishments” motivated by a desire for revenge or retribution. As a direct result of this conception of the purpose of punishment, Hobbes proceeds to claim that, “All evill which is inflicted without intention, or possibility of disposing the Delinquent, …show more content…

In short, Cattaneo contends that Hobbes’s notion of the end of punishment (“That the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience”) distills the fundamental principles of a utilitarian penal theory (a system which would not see its inception until the work of Becarria and Bentham years later). Furthermore, Cattaneo attempts to establish a direct connection between Hobbes’s enumeration of the characteristics of proper punishment (e.g., the evil inflicted must exceed the benefit gained, evils inflicted with no thought to future benefit cannot be labeled punishment, etc.) and the principles of his utilitarian successors. While Cattaneo is unwilling to assert that Hobbes’s punishment theory contains all the necessary elements of a utilitarian-deterrence model, he is the first thinker to suggest that Hobbes “Opened up the road to a liberal concept of criminal law” (Cattaneo 1965, …show more content…

The unjust are, by nature, inclined to disobey the law and Sovereign authority out of an overestimation of their natural abilities (or any other motive contrary to self-preservation). Therefore, the fear of impending punishment serves as an immediate and overwhelming deterrent force that compels the unjust individual to commit just actions. Because the unjust few fail to adhere to the fundamental command to “seek peace,” their potential criminal acts must be held in check by a fear of violent punishments and/or death. Thus, the orthodox interpretation of sovereign punishment as a fear induced “psychological” deterrent is accurate, but only applicable to a small subset of the

Open Document