1

2.2. The Classical School

The Classical School in criminology is usually a reference to the eighteenth-century

work during the Enlightenment by the utilitarian and social contract philosophers Jeremy

Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. Their interests lay in the system of criminal justice and

penology and, indirectly through the proposition that "man is a calculating animal", in the

causes of criminal behaviour. The Classical school of thought was premised on the idea

that people have free will in making decisions, and that punishment can be a deterrent for

crime, so long as the punishment is proportional, fits the crime, and is carried out

promptly.

Scoala clasica in criminologie este de obicei o referinta la munca din sec 18 a iluministilor

realizata de catre utilitaristi si filosofii contractului social Jeremy Bentham si Cesare Beccaria.

Interesul lor rezida in sistemul penal si penology si, indirect prin propozitia omul este un

animal calculate, in cauzele comportamentului criminal. Scoala clasicista a pornit de la ideea

ca oamenii au vointa libera in luarea deciziilor si ca pedeapsa poate fi un factor descurajant

pentru crima, atata timp cat pedeapsa este proportional, este pe masura crimei si este aplicata

rapid.

Beccaria, the pioneer of modern criminology expounded his naturalistic theory of

criminality by rejecting the omnipotence of evil spirit. He laid greater emphasis on mental

phenomenon of the individual and attributed crime to ‗free will‘ of the individual. Thus he

was much influenced by the utilitarian philosophy of his time which placed reliance on

hedonism, namely, the ―pain and pleasure theory‖. As Donald Taft rightly put it, this

doctrine implied the notion of causation in terms of free choice to commit crime by

rational man seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

Beccaria, pionierul criminologiei modern si-a expus teoria sa naturalista despre criminalitate prin

respingerea omnipotentei duhului rau. A pus un accent si mai mare pe fenomenul mental

individual si a atribuit crima liberei vointe a individului. De aceea el a fost influentat foarte mult

de filosofia utilitarista a timpului sau care punea accent pe hedonism, adica pe teoria durere si

placere. Dupa cum Donald Taft correct spunea, aceasta doctrina implica notiunea de cauzalitate

in termini ai vointei libere folosite pentru a comite o crima de catre omul rational care cauta

placerea si Evita durerea.

2

Main Reforms Advocated by the Classical School

The system of law, its mechanisms of enforcement and the forms of punishment used in

the eighteenth century were primitive and inconsistent. Judges were not professionally

trained so many of their decisions were unsatisfactory being the product of incompetence,

capriciousness, corruption or political manipulation. The use of torture to extract

confessions and a wide range of cruel punishments such as whipping, mutilation and

public executions were commonplace. A need for legal rationality and fairness was

identified and found an audience among the emerging middle classes whose economic

interests lay in providing better systems for supporting national and international trade.

sistemul legal, mecanismele sale de impunere si formele de pedeapsa folosite in sec 18 erau

primitive si neuniforme. Judecatorii nu erau formati professional asa ca multe din deciziile

lor erau nesatisfacatoare fiind produsul incompetentei, capriciilor, coruptiei si manipularii

politice. Folosirea torturii pentru obtinerea marturiilor si o mare varietate de pedepse crude ca

biciurea, mutilarea si executiile publice erau comune. O nevoie de rationalitate legala si

dreptate a fost identificata si si-a gasit publicul tinta in clasa mijlocie emergent ale caror

interese economice se gaseau in oferirea unui system mai bun pentru sustinere comertului

national si international.

John Locke

John Locke considered the mechanism that had allowed monarchies to become the primary

form of government. He concluded that monarchs had asserted the right to rule and

enforced it either through an exercise in raw power, or through a form of contract, e.g. the

feudal system had depended on the grants of estates in land as a return for services

provided to the sovereign. Locke proposed that all citizens are equal, and that there is an

unwritten but voluntary contract between the state and its citizens, giving power to those in

government and defining a framework of mutual rights and duties. In Leviathan, Thomas

Hobbes wrote, "the right of all sovereigns is derived from the consent of every one of

those who are to be governed." This is a shift from authoritarianism to an early model of

European and North American democracy where police powers and the system of

punishment are means to a more just end.

3

John Lock e a studiat mecanismul care a permis monarhiilor sa devina principal forma de guvernamant.

A concluzionat ca monarhii si-a impus dreptul de a guverna si l-au aplicat fie prin exercitarea cu duritate

a puterii, fie printr-o forma de contract, de exemplu sistemul feudal care se baz a pe acordarea de

proprietati in schimbul serviciilor prestate pentru coroana. Locke a propus ca toti cetatenii sunt egali si

ca exista un contract nescris, dar voluntary intre stat si cetatenii saii, danad puterea celor de la

guvernare si definind un cadru de drepturi si indatoriri mutual. In Leviatan, Hobbes a scris : dreptul

tuturor monarhiilor deriva din consimtirea fiecaruia dintre cei care sunt guvernati. Aceasta este o

deplasare de la authoritarianism spre un model nou de democratie europeana si nord Americana unde

puterile politienesti si sistemul pedepselor nu sunt doar mijloace pentru ca statul sa isi atinga

obiectivele.

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)

In 1764, Beccaria published Dei Deliti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments")

arguing for the need to reform the criminal justice system by referring not to the harm

caused to the victim, but to the harm caused to society. In this, he posited that the greatest

deterrent was the certainty of detection: the more swift and certain the punishment, the

more effective it would be. It would also allow a less serious punishment to be effective if

shame and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing was a guaranteed response to society's

judgment. Thus, the prevention of crime was achieved through a proportional system that

was clear and simple to understand, and if the entire nation united in their own defence.

His approach influenced the codification movement which set sentencing tariffs to ensure

equality of treatment among offenders. Later, it was acknowledged that not all offenders are

alike and greater sentencing discretion was allowed to judges. Thus, punishment works

at two levels. Because it punishes individuals, it operates as a specific deterrence to those

convicted not to reoffend. But the publicity surrounding the trial and the judgment of

society represented by the decision of a jury of peers, offers a general example to the

public of the consequences of committing a crime. If they are afraid of similarly swift

justice, they will not offend.

In 1764 Beccaria a publicat Despre crime si pedepse prezentand nevoia de a reforma sistemul

penal prin schimbarea interesului dinspre raul produs victimelor spre raul produs societatii. El

a propus ca cel mai mare factor de descurajare ar fi certitudinea detentiei: cu cat mai rapida si

sigura pedeapsa, cu atat ar fi mai eficienta. De asemenea ar permite ca o pedeapsa mai putin

serioasa sa fie eficienta daca rusinarea si recunoasterea vinovatiei ar fi raspunsul la judecata

4

sociala. Asadar, prevenirea crimei era realizata prin intermediul unui system proportional care

era clar si simplu de inteles. Abordarea sa a influentat miscarea codificarii care a reglementat

nivelurile pedepselor pentru a asigura tratament egal pentru infractori. Ulterior, a fost realizat

faptul ca nu toti infractorii sunt la fel si judecatorilor li s-a acordat o libertate mai mare.

Asadar, pedeapsa lucreaza pe doua nivele. Pentru ca pedepseste indivizi, opereaza ca

descurajant specific pentru ca cei condamnati sa nu recidiveze. Dar publicitatea din jurul

procesului si judecata societatii reprezentata prin decizia unui juriu ofera un exemplu general

societatii despre consecintele comiterii unei crime. Daca ei se vor teme de o judecata la fel de

eficienta, nu vor comite crime.

In his book "On Crimes and Punishments" Beccaria presented a coherent, comprehensive

design for an enlightened criminal justice system that was to serve the people rather than

the monarchy. According to Beccaria, the crime problem could be traced not to bad

people but to bad laws. A modern criminal justice system should guarantee all people

equal treatment before the law. Beccaria‘s book supplied the blue print. That blue print

was based on the assumption that people freely choose what they do and are responsible for

the consequences of their behavior.

In cartea sa DEspre crime sipedepse Beccaria a prezentat un proiect coherent si

comprehensive pentru un system penal iluminat care sa serveasca societatii mai

degraba decat monarhiei. Potrivit lui Beccaria, crima se datoreaza nu oamenilor

rai, ci legilor rele. Un system penal modern ar trebui sa garanteze tuturor

tratament egal in fata ;egii. Aceasta carte a fost o schita pentru systemul penal

bazata pe presupunerea ca oamenii aleg in mod liber ce fac si sunt responsabili

pentru consecintele comportamentului lor.

Beccaria proposed the following principles:

Laws Should Be Used To Maintain Social Contract: “Laws are the conditions

under which men, naturally independent, united themselves in society. Weary of

living in a continual state of war, and of enjoying a liberty, which became a little

value, from the uncertainty of its duration, they sacrificed one part of it, to enjoy the rest in

peace and security.‖

Legile ar trebui folosite pentru mentinerea contractului social: legile sunt conditiile sub care

oamenii, in mod natural independent, se unesc in societate. Obositi sa traiasca in stare

5

continua de razboi si sa se bucure de libertate, care nu mai are valoare din cauza nesigurantei

duratei sale, sacrifice o parte din aceasta, pentru a se bucura de restul in pace si Securitate.

Only Legislators Should Create Laws: “The authority of making penal laws can

only reside with the legislator, who represents the whole society united by the

social compact.‖

Doar legislatorii ar trebui sa creeze legi: autoritatea de a emite legi penale trebuie

sa o aiba doar legislatorul, care reprezinta intreaga societate unita de contractual

social.

Judges Should Impose Punishment only in Accordance with the Law: ―[N]o

magistrate then, (as he is one of the society), can, with justice inflict on any other

member of the same society punishment that is not ordained by the laws.‖

Judecatorii ar trebui sa impuna pedepse numai in concordanta cu lege : niciun

magistrate, ca unul care face parte din societate, nu poate sa impuna cu justete asupra

altui membru al aceleeasi societati o pedeapsa care nu este specificata in legi.

Judges Should not Interpret the Laws: ―Judges, in criminal cases, have no right to

interpret the penal laws, because they are not legislators….Everyman has his own

particular point of view and, at different times, sees the same objects in very different

lights. The spirit of the laws will then be the result of the good or bad logic of the

judge; and this will depend on his good or bad digestion.‖

Judecatorii nu ar trebui sa interpreteze legile: judecatorii, in cazurile penale, nu au

niciun drept sa interpreteze legile penale, pentru ca nu sunt legiuitori. Fiecare individ

are proriul punct de vedere si in momente diferite vad acelasi lucru in moduri foarte

diferite. Spiritual legii va fi rezultatul judecatii bune sau gresite a judecatorilor si asta va

depinde de modul bun sau rau in care are loc digestia sa.

Punishment Should be Based on the Pleasure/Pain Principle: ―Pleasure and

pain are the only springs of actions in beings endowed with sensibility….If an

equal punishment be ordained for two crimes that injure society in different

degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing the greater as often as it is

attended with greater advantage.‖

Pedeapsa trebuie sa se bazeze pe principiul placer/durere: placerea si durerea sunt

singurele resorturi care dirijeaza actiunile fiintelor daruite cu sensibilitate. Daca o

pedeapsa egala este impusa pentru doua crime care afecteaza societatea in moduri

diferite, nu mai exista nimic care sa determine oamenii sa nu comita o fapta mai

6

grava, cu avantaje mai grave.

Punishment Should be Based on the Act, not on the Actor: ―Crimes are only to be

measured by the injuries done to the society they err, therefore, who imagine that a

crime is greater or less according to the intention of the person by whom it is

committed.‖

Pedeapsa trebuie sa fie bazata pe fapta, nu pe faptuitor. Crimele pot fi masurate

numai prin daunele asupra societatii, nu prin imaginarea faptului ca o crima este

mai grava sau mai putin grava in functie de intentia persoanei care o comite.

The Punishment Should be Determined by the Crime: ―If mathematical

calculation could be applied to the obscure and infinite combinations of human

actions, there might be a corresponding scale of punishment descending from the

greatest to the least.‖

Pedeapsa ar trebui sa fie determinate de crima: daca calculele matematice ar

putea fi applicate asupra combinatiei actiunilor umane obscure si infinite, ar putea

exista o scala a pedepsei descrescatoare de la cele mai grave, la cele mai blande.

Punishment Should be Prompt and Effective: ―The more immediate after the

commission of a crime a punishment is inflicted the more just and useful it will

be….An immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the interval of

time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be

the association of the two ideas of crime and punishment.‖

Pedeapsa ar trebuie sa fie prompta si eficienta: cu cat mai repede dupa comiterea unei crime pedeapsa

este impusa cu atat va fi mai justa si folositoare. O pedeapsa imediata este mai folositoare ,pentru ca cu

cat este mai mic intervalul de timp dintre producerea crimei si pedepsirea acesteia, cu atat mai scump si

mai de durata va fi asocierea celor doua idei de crima si pedeapsa

All People Should be Treated Equally: ―I assert that the punishment of a noble man

should in no wise differ from that of the lowest member of the society.‖

Toti oamenii ar trebui tratati egal: sustin ca pedeapsa unui nobil nu ar trebui sa

difere in vreun fel de pedeapsa unui membru mai putin important al societatii

Capital Punishment Should be Abolished: ―The punishment of death is not

authorized by any right; for….no such right exists….The terrors of death make so

slight an impression, that it has not force enough to withstand forgetfulness natural to

7

mankind.‖

Pedeapsa capitala ar trebui eliminate: pedeapsa cu moartea nu este autorizata de

niciun drept, pentru ca un astfel de drept nu exista. Frica mortii face o senzatie

asa de mica, incat nu are suficienta putere sa reziste uitarii natural a omenirii.

The Use of Torture to Gain Confessions Should be Abolished: ―It is

confounding all relations to expect…that pain should be the test of truth, as if

truth resided in the muscles and fibers a wretch in torture. By this method the

robust will escape, and the feeble be condemned.‖

folosirea torturii pentru obtinerea marturisilor ar trebuie interzisa: cei puternici vor

scapa, iar cei slabi vor fi condamnati

It is Better to Prevent Crime than to Punish Them: ―Would you prevent

crimes? Let the laws be clear and simple, let the entire force of the nation be

united in their defence, let them be intended rather to favour every individual than any

particular classes…. Finally, the most certain method of preventing crimes to perfect

the system of education.‖

Este mai bine sa previi crimele decat sa le pedepsesti: legile sa fie clare si simple,

intreaga forta a natiunii sa ramana unita in apararea lor sa fie menite sa favorizeze

fiecare individ mai degraba decat o clasa anume. In final, cea mai sigura metoda de

prevenire a crimelor este de a perfection sistemul de educatie.

Perhaps no other book in the history in the history of criminology has had so great an

impact. After the French Revolution, Beccaria‘s basic tenets served as a guide for the

drafting of the French Penal Code, which was adopted in 1791.

Poate nicio alta carte din istoria criminologiei nu a avut un impact mai mare. Dupa

revolutia franceza, principiile de baza ale lui Beccaria auservit ca un ghid de redactare

a Codului penal francez, adopta in 1791.

Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832)

Legal scholars and reformers throughout Europe proclaimed their indebtedness to Beccaria,

but none owed more to him than the English legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Bentham

had long and productive career. He inspired many of his contemporaries, as well as

criminologists of future generations, with his approach to rational crime control.

8

Reformatorii sistemului penal din intreaga Europa isi proclama indatorarea fata de Beccaria,

dar niciunul nu ii datoreaza mai mult decat filosoful englez Jeremy Bentham, care a avut o

cariera lunga si productive. A inspirit numerosi dintre contemporanii sai, dar si criminology din

generatiile de dupa cu abordarea sa asupra controlului rational al criminalitatii.

Bentham devoted his life to developing a scientific approach to the making and breaking of

laws. Like Beccaria he was concerned with achieving ―the greatest happiness of the

greatest number.‖ His work was governed by utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism assumes

that all human actions are calculated in accordance with their likelihood of

bringing happiness (pleasure) or unhappiness (pain). People weigh the probabilities of

present future pleasures against those of present and future pain.

Bentham si-a devotat viata pentru a dezvolta o abordare stiintifica asupra procesului de elaborare si de incalcare a legilor. La fel ca Beccaria era preocupat de obtinerea celei mai mari fericiri pentru cei mai multi dintre oameni. Opera sa a fost condusa de principiile utilitariste. Utilitarianismul presupune ca toate actiunile umane cunst calculate in concordanta cu posibilitatea de a adduce fericire-placere sau nefericire-durere. Oamenii cantaresc probabilitatile placerii prezente si viitoare in opozitie cu durerea prezenta si viitoare.Bentham proposed a precise pseudo-mathematical formula for this process, which he

called ―felicific calculus.‖ According to his reasoning individuals are ―human

calculators‖ who out all the factors into an equation in order to decide whether or not a

particular crime is worth committing. This notion may seem rather whimsical today, but at a

time when there were over 200 capital offences, it provided a rationale for reform of the

legal system. Bentham reasoned that if prevention was the purpose of punishment, and if

punishment became too costly by creating more harm than good, then penalties need to be

set just a bit an excess of the pleasure one might derive from committing a crime, and no

higher. The law exists in order to create happiness for the community. Since punishment

creates unhappiness, it can be justified only if it prevents a greater evil than it produces.

Thus, Bentham suggested if a hanging a man‘s effigy produced the same preventive effect as

hanging the man himself there would be no reason to hang the man.

A propus o formula pseudomatematica precisa pentru acest process, pe care a numit-o calcul felicific. Potrivit gandirii sale, indivizii sunt calculatoare umane care iau in calcul toti factorii pentru a decide daca o infractiune specifica merita sa fie comisa. Aceasta notiune poate parea capricioasa,dar intr-o perioada cand existau 200 de infractiuni grave, a oferit o motivatie pentru reforma sistemului penal. Bentham a gandit ca daca preventia ar fi scopul pedepsei, si daca pedeapsa ar devein prea costisitoare prin crearea de mai mult rau decat bine, atunci pedepsele trebuies sa fie un pic mai mari decat placerea obtinuta din comiterea unei crime si nu mai mari de atat. Legeaexista pentru a adduce fericire comunitatii. Din moment ce pedeapsa creeaza nefericire, poate fi justificata doar daca previne un rau mai mare decat cel pe care il produce. Asadar, Bentahm sugereaza ca daca imaginea grafica a unui om spanzurat provoaca

9

acelasi efect preventi ca un om spanzurat real, atunci nu ar mai fi nevoie de spanzurare ca pedeapsa.In this context, the most relevant idea was known as the "felicitation principle", i.e. that

whatever is done should aim to give the greatest happiness to the largest possible number of

people in society. Bentham argued that there had been "punishment creep", i.e. that the

severity of punishments had slowly increased so that the death penalty was then imposed for

more than two hundred offences in England (Landau, Norma, 2002). For example, if rape

and homicide were both punished by death, then a rapist would be more likely to kill the

victim (as a witness) to reduce the risk of arrest.

In acest context, cea mai relevanta idee a fost cea a principiului felicitarii, adica orice este

facut trebuie intreprins pentru a obtine cea mai mare fericire pentru cel mai mare numar d

eindivizi din societate. Bentham a observant ca s-a inregistrat o crestere a pedepselor, adica

severitatea pedepselor a crescut lent astfel astfel ca pedepasa cu moartea er atunci impusa

pentru mai mult de doua sute de infractiuni din Anglia. De exemplu daca violul si omorul erau

ambele pedepsite cu moartea, atunci un violator ar fi tentat sa isi omoare victima – ca martor,

pentru a reduce riscul arestarii sale.

Bentham posited that man is a calculating animal who will weigh potential gains against the

pain likely to be imposed. If the pain outweighs the gains, he will be deterred and this

produces maximal social utility. Therefore, in a rational system, the punishment system

must be graduated so that the punishment more closely matches the crime. Punishment is not

retribution or revenge because that is morally deficient: the hangman is paying the murder

the compliment of imitation.

Bentham a postulat ca omul este un animal care calculeaza si va masura orice castig potential prin comparatia cu durerea care este posibil sa ii fie impusa. Daca durerea este mai mare decat castigul, va fi descurajat si astfel se produce cea mai mare utilitate sociala. De aceea, intr-un system rational, sistemul de pedeapsa trebuie proiectat astfel incat pedepasa sa fie cat mai pe masura crimei pedepsite. Pedeapsa nu este retributive sau razbunare deoarece aceasta este moral incorrect: calaul devine imitatorul criminalului.But the concept is problematic because it depends on two critical assumptions:

if deterrence is going to work, the potential offender must always act rationally

whereas much crime is a spontaneous reaction to a situation or opportunity; and

if the system graduates a scale of punishment according to the seriousness of the

offence, it is assuming that the more serious the harm likely to be caused, the

more the criminal has to gain.

10

In this context, note Bentham's proposal for a prison design called the "panopticon"

which, apart from its surveillance system included the right of the prison manager to use

the prisoners as contract labor.

Acest concept este problematic deoarece depinde de doua ipoteze critice:-daca descurajarea va functiona, posibilul criminal trebuie intotdeauna sa actionize rational, pe cand mare parte din drime sunt reactii spontane la o situatie sau oportunitate, si-daca sistemul stabileste o scala a pedepsei in conformitate cu seriozitatea infractiunii, se presupune ca cu cat este mai grav raul produs, cu atat criminalul are mai multe de castigat. In acest context, Bentham propune un proiect de inchisoare numit panopticon care, in afara de sistemul de supraveghere include si dreptul prizonierului de a folosi detinutii ca forta de munca.

Spiritualistic understandings of crime stem from an understanding of life in general, that

finds most things in life are destiny and cannot be controlled, we are born male or female,

good or bad and all our actions are decided by a higher being. People have held such

beliefs for all of recorded history, ―primitive people regarded natural disasters such as

famines, floods and plagues as punishments for wrongs they had done to the spiritual

powers‖ (Vold, G. Bernard, T. and Snipes, J. 1998). These spiritual powers gained

strength during the middle ages as they bonded with the feudal powers to create the

criminal justice systems. Under a spiritualistic criminal justice system, crime was a

private affair that was conducted between the offender and the victim‘s family. However

this method proved to be too revengeful, as the state took control of punishment. Spiritual

explanations provided an understanding of crime when there was no other way of

explaining crime. However, the problem with this understanding is it cannot be proven

true, and so it was never accepted.

Intelegerea spiritual a crimei porneste de la intelegerea vietii in general, care spune ca mai toate lucrurile din viata sunt predestinate si nu pot fi controlate, suntem nascuti barbate si fmei, buni sau rai si toate actiunile noastre sunt decise o fiinta superioare. Oamenii au avut astfel de credinte de-a lungul istoriei consemnate, primitivii priveau dezastrele natural ca foametele, inundatiile si epidemiile ca pedepse pentru relele facute lumii spiritual. Aceste puteri spirituale au crescut in putere in evul mediu cand s-au alaturat cu puterea feudala pentru a crea sistemul penal. Sub un system penal privat, crima era o chestiune private dintre un infractor si familia victimei. Totusi aceasta metoda s-a dovedit prea rabunatoare si statul a preluat controlul actului pedepsirii. Explicatiile spiritual au oferit o intelegere a crimei cand nu exista alt mod de a o explica. Totusi, problema cu aceasta explicatie este ca nu poate fi dovedita ca adevarata si deci nu a fost niciodata acceptata.

The main tenets of classical school of criminology why noted belowPrincipalele dogme ale scolii clasice de criminologie:

1. Man‘s emergence from the State‘s religious fanaticism involved the application of his

reason as a responsible individual.

11

Iesirea omului din fanatismul religios statal a implicat aplicarea rationalitatii sale de individ

responsabil.

2. It is the ‗act‘ of an individual and ‗not his intent‘ which forms the basis for determining

criminality within him. In other words, criminologists are concerned with the ‗act‘ of the

criminal rather than his ‗intent‘. Still, they could never think that there could be something

like crime causation.

Este un act al individului si nu intentia sa care formeaza baza pentru determinarea

criminalitatii din el. Cu alte cuvinte, criminologii sunt interesati de actul in sine si nu de

motivatia sa. Totusi, ei nu ar putea crede niciodata ca poate exista ceva ce cauzeaza o

crima.

3. The classical writers accepted punishment as a principal method of infliction of pain,

humiliation and disgrace to create ‗fear‘ in man to control his behavior.

Scriitorii clasici au acceptat pedeapsa ca principala forma de producere a durerii, umilintei si

degradarii si rusinarii pentru a crea frica in om pentru a-I controla comportamentul.

4. The propounders of this school, however, considered prevention of crime more important

than the punishment for it. They therefore, stressed on the need for a Criminal Code in

France, Germany and Italy to systematize punishment for forbidden acts. Thus the real

contribution of classical school of criminology lies in the fact that it underlined the need

for a well defined criminal justice system.

Exponentii acestei scoli considera totusi prevenirea crimei mai importanta decat pedepsirea

ei. De aceea ei au accentuat ideea nevoii unui cod penal pentru a sistematiza pedepsirea

actelor interzise. De aceaa adevarata contributie a scolii clasice de criminologie se afla in

faptul ca a subliniat nevoia pentru existenta unui bine definit system penal.

5. The advocates of classical school supported the right of the State to punish the offenders

in the interest of public security. Relying on the hedonistic principle of pain and pleasure,

they pointed out that individualization was to be awarded keeping in view the pleasure

derived by the criminal from the crime and the pain caused to the victim from it. They,

however, pleaded for equalization of justice which meant equal punishment for the same

offence.

Aparatorii scolii clasice au sprijinit dreptul statului de a pedepsi infractorii in interesul

securitatii publice. Bazandu-se pe principiul hedonist al durerii si placerii, au aratat ca

individualizarea trebuie realizata avand in vedere placerea obtinuta din savarsirea crimei si

12

durerea produsa victimei. Totusi ei au pledat pentru echivalarea justitiei care inseamna

pedepse egale pentru aceleasi crime.

6. The exponents of classical school further believed that the criminal law primarily rests on

positive sanctions. They were against the use of arbitrary powers of Judges. In their

opinion the Judges should limit their verdicts strictly within the confines of law. They also

abhorred torturous punishments.

Exponentii scolii clasice au crezut ca, in principal, legea penala se bazeaza in primul rand pe

sanctiuni positive. Erau impotriva folosirii puterii in mod arbitrar de catre judecatori. In

opinia lor, judecatorii ar trebui sa isi limiteze verdictele strict la prevederile legii. Ei au

detestat si pedepsele care constau in tortura.

Thus classical school propounded by Beccaria came into existence as a result of the

influence of writings of Montesquieu, Hume, Bacon and Rousseau. His famous work

„Essays on Crime and Punishment‟ received wide acclamation all over Europe and gave a

fillip to a new criminological thinking in the contemporary west. He sought to humanize

the criminal law by insisting on natural rights of human beings. He raised his voice against

severe punishment, torture and death penalty. Beccaria‘s views on crime and punishment

were also supported by Voltaire as a result of which a number of European countries

redrafted their penal codes mitigating the rigorous barbaric punishments and some of them

even went to the extent of abolishing capital punishment from their Penal Codes.

Asadar scoala classica propusa de Beccaria a luat fiinta ca urmare a scierilor lui

Montesquieu, Hume, Bacon si Rousseau. Lucrarea sa celebra Eseuri despre crima si

pedeapsa a primit aprecieri in intreaga Europa si a dat impulsul unei noi gandiri

criminologice in vestul contemporan. El a cautat sa umanizeze codul penal insistand asupra

drepturilor natural ale fiintelor umane. S-a declarant impotriva pedepselor severe, torturii si

pedepsei cu moartea. Opiniile lui Beccaria asupra crimei si pedepsei au fost de asemenea

sustinute de Voltaire ca urmare a acestui fapt o parte dintre tarile europene au rescris

codurile penale proprii eliminand pedepsele barbare si chiar mergand pana la eliminare de

catre unele dintre ele a pedepsei capitale din codurile lor penale.

Major Shortcomings of the Classical School Neajunsuri

The contribution of classical school to the development of rationalized criminological

thinking was by no means less important, but it had its own pitfalls.

1. The classical school proceeded on an abstract presumption of free will and relied solely on

13

the act (i.e., the crime) without devoting any attention to the state of mind of the criminal.

Scoala clasica a mers pe ipoteza abstracta a vointei libere si s-a bazat numai pe actul

criminal fara a lua in calcul starea mentala a criminalului.

2. It erred in prescribing equal punishment for same offence thus making no distinction

between first offenders and habitual criminals and varying degrees of gravity of the

offence.

A gresit in prescrierea pedepselor egale pentru unele infractiuni nefacand astfel distinctive

in criminalii primary si cei recidivisti si nediferentiind in functie de gravitatea faptelor.

However, the greatest achievement of this school of criminology lies in the fact that it

suggested a substantial criminal policy which was easy to administer without resort to the

imposition of arbitrary punishment. It goes to the credit of Beccaria who denounced the

earlier concepts of crime and criminals which were based on religious fallacies and myths

and shifted emphasis on the need for concentrating on the personality of an offender in

order to determine his guilt and punishment. Beccaria‘s views provided a background for

the subsequent criminologists to come out with a rationalized theory of crime causation

which eventually led the foundation of the modern criminology and penology.

Totusi, cea mai mare realizarea a aceste scoli de criminologie se regaseste in faptul ca sugereaza o politica penala substantiala care este usor de administrat fara a se face uz de impunerea unei pedepse arbitrare. Este spre meritul lui Beccaria ca a denuntat conceptele timpurii despre crime si criminali bazate pe erori religiose si mituri si a pus accentual pe nevoie de a ne concentra asupra personalitatii infractorului pentru a determina vina sa si pedeapsa necesara. Viziunea lui Beccaria a oferit cadrul pentru criminologii care au urmat sa formulize o teorie rationalizata a motivarii crimei care a dus in cele din urma la fondarea criminologiei si penologiei moderne.