From finishing this chapter, all of Beccaria concerns is what made me pay more close attention to what he was stating. I feel like I could understand where he was coming from and I was not even there. I just felt the sense like I knew how his reactions were emotionally and his reactions on handling the situation. Not everyone would go the same route and do the same as Beccaria did. That is where I see the difference: There are some people in life who wants change, but there are others who do not have a care in the world. There was something that I found to be similar while reading the section, “Influences on Beccaria and his Writings.” Many philosophers, such as Hobbs, Montesquieu, and Mill, had the same mindset. The Enlightenment is what
…show more content…
Honestly, I could not agree with him more. He felt as if everyone was being treated wrong for being tortured. Beccaria was the type of person who did not agree with some form of cruel punishment. A statement he made was, “It is not the intensity of the punishment that has the greatest effect on the human spirit, but its duration” (Beccaria). To me, repeating this statement over and over again; I was trying to make sense of what I thought he meant by it. I came up with this: People who has to risk their life of receiving a punishment would not be the issue, but how long they have to put themselves through it. For example, if a child gets into trouble and a beating follows after. A child can handle the beating, but it is how long they have to go through it until the parent decides to …show more content…
Reading from the book, it stated, “Although some countries, such as Israel and Mexico, currently allow the use of torture for eliciting information or confessions, most countries abstain from practice” (Tibbetts). For a situation such as this, I do not understand what makes it right for someone to be tortured in these countries and they could get away with it. On the other hand, the United States worked a little bit differently. I am not sure what will be the outcome of torturing someone. You may get the benefit of getting some information, but what if you torture that person so bad to the point where they die? Bits and pieces of information will be left out, due to the fact that you cannot be given any more
Honestly, I could not agree with him more. He felt as if everyone was being treated wrong for being tortured. Beccaria was the type of person who did not agree with some form of cruel punishment. A statement he made was, “It is not the intensity of the punishment that has the greatest effect on the human spirit, but its duration” (Beccaria). To me, repeating this statement over and over again; I was trying to make sense of what I thought he meant by it. I came up with this: People who has to risk their life of receiving a punishment would not be the issue, but how long they have to put themselves through it. For example, if a child gets into trouble and a beating follows after. A child can handle the beating, but it is how long they have to go through it until the parent decides to …show more content…
Reading from the book, it stated, “Although some countries, such as Israel and Mexico, currently allow the use of torture for eliciting information or confessions, most countries abstain from practice” (Tibbetts). For a situation such as this, I do not understand what makes it right for someone to be tortured in these countries and they could get away with it. On the other hand, the United States worked a little bit differently. I am not sure what will be the outcome of torturing someone. You may get the benefit of getting some information, but what if you torture that person so bad to the point where they die? Bits and pieces of information will be left out, due to the fact that you cannot be given any more