Skip to main content

Theories of Punishment

 Theories of Punishment:

Imposing punishment upon the wrong doer was recognized from the time of immemorial. In olden days, severe punishment was imposed for smaller offence. As the civilization developed, the attitude towards the imposing of the punishment has been changed. Gandhi said, “Hate the Sin, but not the Sinner” Like this, other philosophers showed mercy upon the criminals and started analyzing the Socio-economic circumstances behind the incident of the offence. Their views are classified into:

1) Deterrent Theory

2) Retributive Theory

3) Reformative Theory

4) Preventive Theory

5) Expiatory Theory



1. Deterrent Theory:

According to this theory, the punishment given to a wrong doer must be as hard as possible so that it may set an example who commits the same. That is, it not only punishes a particular person but it also directs punishment to the other possible criminals. The deterrent theory creates some kind of fear in the mind of other by providing an adequate penalty and an exemplary punishment to the offenders which keeps them away from the criminality. Thus the Rigorous punishment is a sufficient warning to the criminals. The deterrent theory is logical because more hardened the criminals get more severe punishments. The general deterrence principle in the economic terms is “Pay for the price of the Crime”.

2. Retributive theory:

According to this theory, a wrong doer must be punished because he has done wrong. It is based on the old saying, “An Eye for an Eye” and a “tooth for a tooth” So it shows the element of revenge. Retributive means, “To give back or to pay back” This theory treats the punishment as an end by itself. It is based on the retributive justice who suggests that an evil should be returned for an evil without any consequences. This theory believes in the principle “Pain for pain” and it is based on “tit for tat”. Punishment must always be imposed on the offender for the primary reason that he has committed a crime. The law of punishment is a Categorical imperative. This type of punishment is called as Qisas (Kisa) in the ancient Muslim law. Majority of criminologists, sociologist etc did not support this theory.

3. Reformative theory:

According to this theory, Criminal is like a patient and he needs a proper cure instead of killing a patient. Efforts should be made to cure the diseases. So the criminals should be punished in such a way that his character is reformed and he becomes a good member of the society. Gandhi said “Hate the Sin and not the Sinner” Reformative theory is based upon this principle. It aims to convert an offender into civilized man. The motives behind the offences and the backgrounds of the offenders should be clearly examined and these should be done in such a way that the offender’s mental environment may be changed. The object of the punishment is to reform the offender by the means of divine education. Criminologists believe that the crime is a disease, Judge is a Doctor and the punishment is a medicine. Thus, the punishment should cure the criminal and make him a healthy citizen.

4. Preventive Theory:

This theory is based on “Prevention better than Cure”. It suggests that Prison is the best mode of crime prevention as it seeks to eliminate the offenders from the society thus disabling them from repeating the crime. The object of this theory is to prevent the repetition of an offence by the offender.  The offences can be prevented when the offender’s notorious activities are checked. The check is possible by the Disablement. There is no broad difference between Deterrent theory and the Preventive theory. Both the theories are the 2 aspects of same coin.

5. Expiatory Theory:

This theory is based on morals. Hegel and Kohler are the main supporters of this theory. According to this theory, expiation by the offender itself is a punishment. If the offender expiates, he must be forgiven. This type of punishment was prevalent in the ancient Indian criminal law. Expiration was performed by the way of fasting, mantras, even by burning oneself to death. None of this theory was adopted as a sole standard of punishment.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOT, AFFRAY

Unlawful Assembly (Section 141): Unlawful assembly is an assembly of 5 or more persons with the common object: 1)  to over-throw by criminal force the Government or the legislature or 2)  To resist the execution of any legal process 3)  To commit mischief (Sec-425), criminal trespass (441) 4)  To obtain property or right by criminal force or 5)  To criminally force a person to do an act which he is not bound to do, or to force him not to do an act which he is bound to do. If a person is a member of an unlawful assembly then that person is punishable. An assembly which is not unlawful in the beginning may become unlawful subsequently. The purpose or common object decides the nature of the assembly. Essentials: 1)  The essentials are that there should be five or more persons and there should be the common object as specified in Sec-141. 2)  This is different from common intention in Sec-34. For unlawful assembly prior meeting of minds is not essential. 3...
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more