Abstract
The Enlightenment introduced new philosophical approaches to law and punishment, and Cesare Beccaria was one of its most influential voices. In On Crimes and Punishments, Beccaria rejected cruel corporal punishments, torture, and the death penalty, arguing that they were ineffective in preventing crime. He believed that punishment should not be retributive but deterrent, proportionate to the offense, prompt, and certain. According to Beccaria, only mild but inevitable punishments could discourage criminal behavior, while violence and arbitrariness weakened the authority of the law. He also promoted public trials and the protection of the accused, breaking with religious and divine conceptions of punishment. Beccaria’s ideas were widely read in both Europe and America and significantly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States. Principles such as legality, due process, and the prohibition of cruel punishments reflect his legacy. However, this influence appears increasingly distant in contemporary American constitutional criminal law. The persistence of the death penalty, harsh sentencing policies, mass incarceration, and a system focused more on severity than certainty suggest a departure from Beccaria’s rational and preventive model of punishment. This summary highlights the contrast between Beccaria’s Enlightenment ideals and modern U.S. penal practices, questioning whether his teachings survive only in theory while being largely disregarded in practice.