J

Crime and Punishment 9/14/25

Public Spectacle, Deterrence, and the Purpose of Punishment

  • The transcript centers on how punishment has historically functioned as public spectacle and power assertion, and how that clashes with ideas of deterrence, fairness, and proportionality.
  • The public was not just a witness to punishment but was actively involved (jeering, volunteering to torture, bringing families). The aim was to create a shared norm about obedience and to demonstrate state power.
  • The discussion connects to broader questions about free speech, civil society, and the balance between individual rights and state authority.
  • The lecturer frames the exam topic as the relationship between crime and punishment, emphasizing that policy should rest on principled foundations rather than vengeance or spectacle.

Beccaria’s Classical Principles of Punishment (Cesare Beccaria)

  • Three major points:
    • 1) Punishment should never be cruel or excessive.
    • 2) Justice requires that punishment be proportionate to the crime.
    • 3) Laws exist to create order; punishment exists to prevent greater harm.
  • Beccaria’s rationalactor view: people are rational and respond to pain-and-pleasure; they will avoid crime if punishment outweighs the pleasure of the crime.
  • Deterrence conceptions:
    • General deterrence: punishments deter the public from committing crimes.
    • Specific deterrence: punishment deters the individual offender from reoffending.
  • The critique of excessive public torture: public displays do not reliably deter; they undermine legitimacy and can become entertainment rather than prevention.
  • Fairness and proportionality matter: equal application under the law, no cruelty, and laws publicly known.

Bentham and Utilitarianism: The Moral Foundation

  • Bentham’s moral philosophy: actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number; wrong if they produce more unhappiness or harm.
  • Punishment as a necessary evil in a system where the sovereign must balance pleasure and pain of citizens as rational actors.
  • The “greatest happiness” principle extends to laws and the justice system, not just individual actions.
  • The practical aim of punishment under utilitarianism: maximize overall social welfare by deterring crime and minimizing harm.
  • The War on Drugs case study (1990s): harsh criminalization failed to deter usage; mass incarceration did not substantially reduce drug harm; exemplifies a misalignment between policy and utilitarian goals.
  • A note on reform options: simplifying or legalizing certain activities (e.g., marijuana legalization) to shrink illegal markets and reduce harms; policy should consider social costs, not just punitive severity.
  • Bentham’s overall claim: justice is judged by outcomes (maximizing happiness, minimizing harm); laws and punishments must be evaluated on their effects on welfare, not on abstract moral ideals alone.

The Hedonistic Calculus: Seven Dimensions

  • Bentham proposed a calculative approach to determine appropriate punishment by weighing costs and benefits of crime and punishment. He identified seven dimensions:
    1) Intensity (how strong is the pleasure or pain produced by the act or its punishment)
    2) Duration (how long the pleasure or pain lasts)
    3) Certainty (how likely is the punishment to occur if the crime is committed)
    4) Propinquity (how near in time is the punishment to the act)
    5) Fecundity (the tendency of the act to be followed by more pleasures or pains)
    6) Purity (the extent to which the act’s pleasure is free from accompanying pains, or the punishment’s pain free from accompanying pleasures)
    7) Extent (how many people are affected by the act or its punishment)
  • The calculus is used to determine the appropriate level of punishment so that the expected pain of the punishment outweighs the expected gain from the crime, but not so much that it becomes unjust or excessively punitive.
  • Practical takeaway: the greater the intensity, duration, certainty, nearness (propinquity), fecundity, and extent of the crime’s perceived pleasure, the more punishment is warranted; the more the punishment is likely to produce pain (purity), and affect many people (extent), the greater the punitive response should be.
  • The calculus also emphasizes immediacy: immediate punishment increases deterrence; delay weakens deterrence because the emotional impact of the crime is more distant.

Proportionality and the Fairness Criterion

  • Proportionality: severity of punishment should match the seriousness of the crime and the harm caused.
  • Requirements for fairness:
    • Clear, publicly known laws (legal predictability)
    • Equality before the law: no special treatment for the wealthy or powerful
    • Limits on cruelty and arbitrariness
  • The critique of disproportionate punishment: public torture and escalated punishments that are not tied to the harm caused a) lacked legitimacy, b) failed to deter, and c) created broader social harm by normalizing violence.
  • The question of fairness: should the same punishment be applied to a minor theft (e.g., one loaf of bread) and a major theft (e.g., 500 loaves)? The logic of proportionality says no; the harm and value differ, so penalties should differ accordingly.
  • Equality and the broad social impact: punishment must be universal (applied to all regardless of status) to maintain social trust; extraordinary punishments for elites undermine legitimacy.

Proportionality in Practice: Cruelty, Legality, and Public Policy

  • The public spectacle is neither humane nor effective deterrence; it breeds vengeance and social stigma rather than preventing crime.
  • Legality requires that penalties be legible and predictable; arbitrary judgments erode trust in the system.
  • Proportionality is a balance: if the punishment is too light, crime is not deterred; if too harsh, punishment is unjust and undermines legitimacy.
  • The phrase “the punishment should be just enough to deter, but not more than necessary” captures the essence of the proportionality principle in both Beccaria and Bentham frameworks.

Applying the Theories to Real-World Scenarios

  • Examples of shoplifting vs embezzlement:
    • Shoplifting: low-value property crime; short duration; often single offender; immediate gain with potentially broad impact on business and customers.
    • Embezzlement: white-collar crime; abuse of trust; often larger-scale and longer duration; effects include broader financial damage and longer-term harm to institutions.
  • The seven-dimensional calculus can be used to assess appropriate penalties for these crimes by weighing their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.
  • Public safety vs individual rights in policing and punishment: debates about involuntary commitment, mental health, and whether punishment doubles as treatment.
  • Case study notes: Bernard Goetz subway case raises questions about self-defense, intent, and the acceptable boundaries of vigilantism; it shows how public opinion and legal standards can diverge on what constitutes justified punishment or force.
  • The discussion touches on the risk of instrumentalizing punishment as vengeance rather than justice, and the need to distinguish deterrence from gratuitous cruelty.

Free Speech, Civil Society, and the Campus Incident

  • The professor discusses free speech as a civil right and the role of campuses as sites for intellectual exchange and debate, even when controversial.
  • The question of how to respond to threats or acts of violence connected to political beliefs on campus raises debates about legal limits, safety, and the boundaries of permissible speech.
  • The conversation also notes broader concerns about access to guns, radicalization, and youth mental health as factors shaping crime and punishment.
  • Practical implication: policymaking must balance protecting free expression with safeguarding campus communities, while avoiding punitive overreach that undermines civil liberties.

Theoretical refinements and methodological notes

  • Beccaria vs. Bentham: Beccaria emphasizes moral reasoning, proportionality grounded in fairness, and the social purpose of punishment; Bentham emphasizes calculable outcomes and deterrence using the hedonic calculus.
  • The two views are not strictly opposed; they can be seen as complementary: proportional and fair punishment (Beccaria) should also maximize social welfare through effective deterrence (Bentham).
  • Foucault reference (briefly): a historical shift from overt physical punishment to more subtle forms of psychological control and reform of the mind; this shift is relevant to discussions of proportionality, legitimacy, and the modern justice system.
  • The lecture repeatedly invites critical thinking about the purpose of punishment: is it to deter, to reform, to signal state power, or to seek vengeance? The answer shapes policy choices about criminal justice reform, incarceration, and social welfare.

Key Questions for Reflection and Discussion

  • Should legislators balance crime and punishment by considering all seven dimensions of the hedonic calculus, or should they prioritize moral principles of proportionality and fairness? What are the trade-offs?
  • Is it possible for a punishment to deter crime effectively while also feeling unjust or disproportionate to the public? Can deterrence justify unjust outcomes?
  • How should modern criminal justice address issues of race, wealth, and power in applying punishment fairly and equally?
  • When (if ever) is public spectacle appropriate or beneficial? Does televising punishments undermine or enhance deterrence?
  • How should the state respond to crimes that arise from mental illness or coercive social contexts (e.g., domestic violence, battered woman syndrome) in terms of punishment vs treatment?
  • In light of Beccaria and Bentham, how should contemporary policies (e.g., War on Drugs, criminalization of minor offenses, mass incarceration) be evaluated? Do they maximize happiness and minimize harm, or do they produce unintended, greater societal harms?

Summary of Core Concepts (LaTeX-ready)

  • Greatness principle (Bentham):
    • ext{Maximize } igg( ext{Total Happiness} igg) = ext{maximize }
      \sum{i=1}^{N} hi
    • Punishment should deter crime while minimizing overall harm.
  • Beccaria’s three core ideas:
    • Punishment must be non-cruel and non-excessive; proportional to the crime; laws to create order and prevent greater harm.
  • Proportionality definition:
    • Severity of punishment  harm caused by the crime; penalties must be clearly described and equally applied; no cruelty or arbitrariness.
  • Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus (seven dimensions):
    • Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Propinquity, Fecundity, Purity, Extent.
  • Universal application and equality under the law:
    • Punishments and legal consequences must apply to all people, regardless of status.
  • Public power and legitimacy:
    • Public punishment should reinforce social order without becoming entertainment or vengeance.
  • Real-world implications:
    • War on Drugs and mass incarceration as case studies of utilitarian calculus failing to achieve welfare goals; potential reforms include policy changes to reduce illegal markets and harms.

Notes on Notation and Formulas

  • Utilitarian maximization: ext{Maximize } ext{H} =

    \sum{i=1}^{N} hi where h_i is the happiness/welfare of individual i.

  • Hedonistic calculus dimensions: listed above (Intensitiy, Duration, Certainty, Propinquity, Fecundity, Purity, Extent).