Fresh Ideas Series
The Classical School of criminology argues that law must achieve balance between fairness and punishment — that the law should be only retaliatory enough to dissuade people from breaking it. Developed during the Enlightenment era, it was shaped by thinkers who witnessed firsthand the cruelty of arbitrary and disproportionate justice. Nearly three centuries later, minimum sentencing laws and three strikes statutes represent a direct inversion of everything the Classical School argued for.
Applying the Classical School in Sentencing Strategies
The Classical School of criminology argues law must achieve balance between fairness and punishment. This school of theories states the law should be only retaliatory enough to dissuade people from breaking the law.1
Cesare Beccaria
1738–1794 · Classical Criminological Theorist
Core Argument
Beccaria lived during a time when the French monarchy held people indefinitely on unspecified charges, forming his perspective on justice. His belief was that it was better to prevent crime than punish those who commit it — but that if another person’s individual rights had been infringed upon, retributive justice was still necessary and should be fitting of the crime. Punishment must be swift, certain, and proportional. Severity alone does not deter.
John Howard & the American Influence
18th Century · Prison Reformer / Constitutional Influence
Legacy
Through the work of John Howard, Beccaria’s concept grew further, eventually going on to inspire the United States Constitution. The founders drew directly on Classical School principles: that punishment must be proportional, that indefinite detention is tyranny, and that the purpose of law is social protection rather than vengeance. Those principles are embedded in the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
The Classical School could be applied in sentencing strategies by ensuring punishment be inflicted quickly. This ensures that people are not sitting for extended amounts of time awaiting trial and sentencing. It was also argued that it is better to prevent crimes rather than punish the individuals who commit them. I agree — the modern-day equivalent should not focus on punishment. Instead, the Classical School could be better utilized to implement treatment and prevention measures for drug offenders, preventing addiction rather than punishing them after the fact.
How Have These Sentencing Strategies Changed the Criminal Justice Response to Drug Offenders?
Two Ways Minimum Sentencing Contradicts Classical Theory
1
Minimum Sentencing Removes Judicial Proportionality
Minimum sentencing strategies remove power from the judges’ hands to hand down a punishment fitting of the crime. Instead, it requires a minimum to be issued to an offender — one in which the judge themselves may disagree with as overly harsh, unnecessary, or even outdated to begin with.2 This goes against Classical Theory, preventing punishment from being truly fitting of the crime.
2
Determinate Sentencing Created the Overpopulation Problem
Determinate sentencing has created the overpopulation problem in the American criminal justice system. Three strikes laws in particular states require decades-long sentences to be served by offenders and create a “sleeper effect” in which offenders stay and continue to accumulate in the prison system.3 Sadly, many of these inmates are serving time on drug offenses.
Sentencing Strategies Have Caused Disparity in the Offender Population
Two main issues exist in prison population: imprisonment of non-violent offenders and the numbers of people of color behind bars. Three strikes laws have a higher percentage of non-violent offenders than violent ones, meaning people who may not be a violent threat to society could be behind bars for life.
Non-Violent vs. Violent Strikers — California Data
One study found that increased prison stays for non-violent offenses, such as drug offenses, account for 56% of strike prison population while violent strike offenders comprise only 44%.4 The majority of people serving decades-long mandatory sentences under three strikes laws were not convicted of violent crimes. Classical theory’s principle that punishment must be proportional to the actual harm caused is not just being ignored — it is being systematically inverted.
Data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determines three strikes laws to excessively favor minority groups.5
45.7%
African Americans
of California third-strike prisoners, despite being only 6.6% of the California state population
35%
Hispanics
of second and third-strike prisoners, versus 38.2% of California’s general population
24.1%
Non-Hispanic Whites
are strikers, despite comprising 39.4% of the California prison population overall
“The modern-day equivalent should not focus on punishment. The Classical School could be better utilized to implement treatment and prevention measures for drug offenders — preventing addiction rather than punishing them after the fact.”
Additional Reading — Clutch Justice
References
- Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2019). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Mandatory minimums and sentencing reform. (n.d.). Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. https://www.cjpf.org/mandatory-minimums
- Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18613
- Brown, B., & Jolivette, G. (2005, October). A primer: Three strikes — The impact after more than a decade. lao.ca.gov ?
- Oleson, J. C. (2015). Habitual criminal legislation in New Zealand: Three years of three-strikes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 277–292.
How to cite: Williams, R. (2023, March 15). The Classical School of Criminological Theory. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2023/03/15/the-classical-school-of-criminological-theory/
