Why Beccaria is still relevant: A criminal justice student’s thought on mob justice
Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, a famous Italian criminologist and jurist, left behind a valuable catalogue of treatises on justice and fairness. At the heels of multiple incidents of mob justice and violence, we look at the assault of Khulna’s Utsav Mondal by a mob and look for lessons in Beccaria’s work
A few days ago, as I was coming home from class, I opened my Facebook and was utterly shocked by what I saw. Utsav Mondal, a 15-year-old from Kulna, was assaulted by a mob at a police station for commenting on the Prophet Muhammad on social media.
I was shocked because this wasn't another case of religious intolerance, it was an injustice. Worse still, the religious leaders appeared to endorse and even justify such poor treatment of the boy and cheered the people, considering Utsav's suffering as retribution for his wrongdoing.
Instantly, I was trying to remember the five principles of classical criminology which are: rationality, hedonism, punishment, human rights and due process that we discussed in class.
The legal system that Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, famous Italian criminologist and jurist, spoke about was entirely the opposite of the one in my country. According to Beccaria, punishment should be swift, definite and proper to the crime in question (Beccaria, 1764).
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
But the videos and photographs I saw showed a crowd that had not only acted outside the legal framework but had also punished a child far more severely than the law would have allowed.
The notion of 'Human Rights' kept coming to mind. Beccaria, for example, supported individual liberty even for the accused – and regardless of the crime they committed, all the characters deserved a good defence in the courtroom (Ferrajoli, 2014).
This was denied to Utsav Mondal who was caught by a mob and severely beaten near the police station where he should have been safe. And lastly, the point is about due process. According to Beccaria, the legal system should be equitable with well-defined rules and regulations and there should be a proper procedure for determining the guilt of an offender (Beccaria, 1764).
In Khulna, there was no trial, no investigation, just an accusation, and assault by the mob. The crowd had already convicted Utsav when the charges were laid against him and there was no way that any legal proceedings could alter their minds.
Based on the class discussion, I could not resist the temptation to link Utsav's case to Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake by the church in 1600 (Shackelford, 2019).
In contrast to Hobbes' social contract theory, justice was determined by religious and political authority without regard to individuals' rights. Both Bruno and Utsav were punished unfairly under this system and that of mob justice.
The social contract that Hobbes thought was an agreement between individuals and the state whereby some liberties are surrendered for protection and fairness (Ekpo, 2024) replaced the legal system headed by the Church.
Beccaria supported a justice system that was rational, just and respectful of the individual rights of the people (Ferrajoli, 2014). In the police station in Khulna, Bangladesh, the social contract had eroded.
At the heels of Utsav Mondol's assault, I realised that Beccaria's revolutionary concepts are still in use. In a world where common people can turn into a lynch mob so easily, all of our legal research should therefore focus on human rights, fair punishment and rational justice.
Nikhil Chandra Nath is a PhD Fellow in Criminal Justice and a teaching and research assistant at the University of New Haven in the United States.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
