During this period, views on man and the origins of evil began to evolve from the concept of original sin. During the Enlightenment, as philosophers spread rationalism around England, the concept of social optimism began to be accepted. Social optimism states that man is essentially good. This sentiment became the force behind a growing movement of humanitarianism spearheaded by Beccaria. Philosophers and activists begin to publish their views that man is not inherently sinful, but that man is influenced by the environment. They believed that societal pressures cause crime, not fate.
Additionally, in the 18th century English Enlightenment, attitudes towards the human body began to change rapidly as art, architecture, literature, music, and theatre all began to employ rationalist thought. The body was acknowledged more and more as a sacred, autonomous entity, deserving rights to life just by existing.
Rationalism was the main product of the Enlightenment. Philosophers used logic and reason to analyze and reconfigure the relationship between British citizens and the criminal system. Rationalists looked past the bloodthirsty voraciousness of the Code to the ineffectiveness of the Code itself, stating that the Code did fulfill its goal in deterring crime and was too inflexible in court. Using English philosopher and physician John Locke’s theory of tabula rasa, the theory that humans are born with some mental information but are largely a result of experiences and influences (nuture over nature), rationalists argued that criminals could change and be reintegrated into society through penal reforms. They believed that all criminals could be rehabilitated and thus improve society.
Two works published during the Enlightenment set theories of criminal justice into action:
Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des Lois 1748
"The severity of punishments is fitter for despotic governments, whose principle is terror, that for a monarchy or a republic....It would be an easy matter to prove that in all, or almost all the government of Europe, penalties have increased or diminished in proportion as those governments favoured or encouraged liberty...I was going to say that [torture] might suit despotic states...but nature cries out aloud and asserts her rights."
Beccaria’s Crime and Punishments 1764
"No man can be judged a criminal until he be found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection, until it have been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right, then, but that of power, can authorise the punishment of a citizen, so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt? The dilemma is frequent. Either he is guilty, or not guilty. If guilty, he should only suffer the punishment ordained by the laws, and torture becomes useless, as his confession is unnecessary. If he be not guilty, you torture the innocent; for, in the eye of the law, every man is innocent, whose crime has not been proved."