Why did classical criminologists criticize excessive punishments?

Classical criminologists, such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, criticized excessive punishments because they viewed such practices as barbaric, corrupt, and inconsistent with the goal of maintaining social order. Writing during the 18th-century Enlightenment, these reformers argued that the primary purpose of the penal system should be the prevention of crime rather than mere retribution.12

Their opposition to severity was rooted in several key principles:

• Utilitarianism: They believed that governmental policy should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. Consequently, they argued that penalties should be no more severe than necessary to achieve security and order; anything beyond that was considered tyranny.1
• Certainty over Severity: Beccaria famously argued that the effectiveness of criminal justice depends more on the certainty of punishment than on its severity.1
• Proportionality: They advocated for scaling penalties to the gravity of the offense, ensuring that punishments were rational and predictable rather than arbitrary or capricious.13

By promoting these reforms, the classical school sought to humanize the justice system and establish due process of law.2