My overall opinion is that I agree with the opinion of the author and I would support the majority of his ideas. I think that he was right when he decided that we needed to have a set idea of what punishments should fit what crime and that there needed to be some form of order when assigning the punishment.
Beccaria's idea that the aim of punishment should be to prevent the person from committing new crimes against others is to me very obviously a logical idea. I believe that he makes a very good argument that the punishment should be fitting to the crime, not too overdone but enough so that it leaves a lasting impression on the one who committed the act. Not only is it important to leave a lasting impression on the person who committed the crime but I believe that it is also important that an impression is left on society as a whole. People need to see what happens to someone when they commit a crime so that they have that idea or fear that the same punishment would be given to them if they were to commit a crime that is similar or the same.
I think that it is important to punish a person in a way that it will show them what they did was wrong and that they will lose certain liberties that they enjoy due to the behavior that they have presented. Whether those liberties are in a financial means, such as a fine, their freedom, such as life in prison, or loss of the normal life they have become accustomed to, freedoms like the ability to go where they please when they please. I think that Beccaria says it perfectly in the line "the disadvantage of the punishment should exceed the advantage anticipated from the crime, in which excess should be calculated the certainty of punishment and the loss of the expected benefit". My opinion is that he was right on with this idea; I completely agree that the punishment shouldn't be overly severe if the crime was not that severe, but that the punishment definitely needs to …