Beccaria's Second Trial Analysis

By Chapter VI, Beccaria has moved on from punishment to imprisonment. First, he rails at judges who imprison people at their own pleasure and for frivolous matters. And, he writes, men should be convicted only on the basis of evidence, and this evidence must be determined by law – not by judges. Next he asserts that men ought to be judged innocent or guilty by their peers. But in so judging the guilt of an accused man, the credibility of witnesses and the proofs of a crime need to be considered. He states that the credibility of a witness must be deduced through his or her association and closeness to the accused. But Chapter IX is a sort of aside in which Beccaria declares that accusations of wrongdoing should never be secret. Beccaria refers to Montesquieu and writes that “Montesquieu has said that public accusations are more suited to a republic, in which the principal passion of citizens ought to be for the public good, than to a monarchy, where that feeling is extremely weak owing to the very nature of the government…” (Beccaria, 1963, p. 27). He ends Chapter IX by suggesting that governments ought to punish people who bring false accusations against others with the very punishment that the accused would have received if found guilty. …show more content…
In succeeding chapters, he questions the helpfulness of witnesses, especially the accused, swearing an oath to tell the truth and provides arguments against the various justifications for the use of torture in criminal procedures. Then, Beccaria discusses the importance of swift punishment, but at the same time stating that there should be sufficient time allowed both for the prosecution and the defense to prepare their cases prior to trial. In Chapter IX he argues for immunity for accomplices in order to learn about other crimes that have been committed or are in the planning