How should punishments be proportioned to crimes?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to the severity of the crime, as illustrated by his comparison of desertion in times of war and peace. He argued that in times of peace, a lighter punishment is appropriate, and he criticized the Mutiny Act for not making such distinctions and for granting courts martial excessive and arbitrary power. "However expedient the most strict regulations may be in time of actual war, yet in times of profound peace a little relaxation of military rigour would not, one should hope, be productive of much inconvenience." [1]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to crimes, as he argues that murder, being a universally condemned crime, should be punished with death. He supports this by citing the Mosaic law and English law, which prohibit pardoning murderers and require the death penalty. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to crimes in a way that allows for the punishment of dangerous or offensive writings when adjudged to have a pernicious tendency, but that the will of individuals should remain free. He argued that the abuse of free will, not the will itself, should be the object of legal punishment. "But to punish ... is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus the will of individuals is still left free; the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment." [3]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to the particular purpose they are meant to serve and should not exceed it. He argued that the death penalty and perpetual disability should only be inflicted when the offender appears incorrigible, either due to a repetition of offenses or the commission of a crime of deep malignity. (key quote above) [4]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the case, such as the aggravations of the offence, the quality and condition of the parties, and other factors. He argued that the quantum of pecuniary fines cannot be ascertained by an invariable law because the value of money varies and what is ruinous to one person may be trivial to another. "The general nature of the punishment, viz., by fine or imprisonment, is in these cases fixed and determinate; though the duration and quantity of each must frequently vary, from the aggravations, or otherwise, of the offence, the quality and condition of the parties, and from innumerable other circumstances." [5]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should not be based on exact retribution or equivalence to the crime, but rather on principles that promote the security of mankind and deter others. He argued that punishment should exceed the injury to ensure justice and prevent evasion. [6]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to the severity of the crime, arguing that multiplying capital punishments lessens their effect on the most serious crimes. He also believed perjury, while detestable, should not be punished with death as it is not comparable to other offenses for which death is the only appropriate punishment. "For to multiply capital punishments lessens their effect when applied to crimes of the deepest dye; and, detestable as perjury is, it is not by any means to be compared with some other offences, for which only death can be inflicted;" [7]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the measure of human punishment must be determined by the nature and degree of the crime, and that the law of retaliation is not always an adequate or permanent rule for punishment. He argued that punishments should be proportioned to the offenses committed. (key quote above) [8]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to crimes based on general principles drawn from the nature and circumstances of the crime. He emphasized the importance of considering these principles to assign an adequate punishment. "21. What are some general principles drawn from the nature and circumstances of the crime that may be of some assistance in allotting it an adequate punishment?" [9]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that punishments should be proportioned to crimes, with principals facing harsher penalties than accessories before the fact, as this might prevent crimes by increasing the risk for the person executing the deed. He also believed that distinguishing between the nature of crimes helps the accused defend themselves. [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1], [2], [3].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. William Blackstone believed that the measure of punishment should be determined by the nature and degree of the crime. (key quote above) [8]

2. He argued that punishments should be proportioned to the particular purpose they are meant to serve and should not exceed it. (key quote above) [4]

3. Blackstone emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the nature and gradations of punishment to prevent the generality from concluding there is no distinction in guilt. "It is moreover absurd and impolitic to apply the same punishment to crimes of different malignity." [11]

4. He believed that the death penalty and perpetual disability should only be inflicted when the offender appears incorrigible, either due to a repetition of offenses or the commission of a crime of deep malignity. This is an inference from his belief in proportionality and the need to prevent future crimes.

5. Blackstone also believed that the certainty of punishment is more effective in preventing crimes than its severity. This is an inference from his argument that excessive severity hinders the execution of laws. "It is the sentiment of an ingenious writer, who seems to have well studied the springs of human action, that crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than by the severity of punishment." [12]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the exact modern application of punishments to crimes, but it provides principles that can be used to reason about the issue.

Extrapolation: William Blackstone would likely argue that punishments should be proportioned to the severity of the crime, with the death penalty reserved for the most heinous offenses. He would emphasize the importance of distinguishing between the nature and gradations of punishment to ensure justice and deterrence.

Competing readings: One reading is that Blackstone supported the death penalty for murder, as he cited the Mosaic law and English law. Another reading is that he was critical of excessive severity and believed that the certainty of punishment is more effective than its severity. The record itself states both positions, indicating a nuanced view.

Confidence: Moderate, as the record provides clear principles but does not address the specific modern context of the question.