THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 874

This article is written by Nishtha Vallecha of 5^th semester of Amity University, Chhattisgarh

Abstract

Theories of punishment form a crucial framework within the realm of jurisprudence and criminology, offering distinct perspectives on the purpose and implementation of punitive measures. This abstract explores four prominent theories of punishment: Retributive, Deterrent, Reformative, and Utilitarian. The Retributive Theory advocates punishment as a means of retribution and moral balance, while the Deterrent Theory highlights its role in deterring potential offenders. The Reformative Theory emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society. In contrast, the Utilitarian Theory assesses 44considerations, shaping the foundations of the criminal justice system. A comprehensive understanding of these theories fosters an informed approach to punishment, striving to uphold justice and protect individual rights while maintaining social order.

Keyword:

Hedonistic Calculus, Restorative Justice, Proportional Punishment, retributive theory

Introduction

In the realm of jurisprudence and criminology, the concept of punishment has been a subject of profound inquiry, giving rise to various theories that attempt to justify its purpose, implementation, and ethical implications. The theories of punishment explore the fundamental question of why societies punish individuals who violate their laws and norms, and how these punitive actions serve the greater good.

One of the earliest and most influential theories is the Retributive Theory, which emphasizes that punishment is necessary to exact revenge or payback for the harm caused by an offender. Proponents of criminal actsue that punishment serves as a moral balancing mechanism, restoring the equilibrium disrupted by the criminal act and providing a sense of closure to the victims and society.

Another significant theory is the Deterrent Theory, which posits that punishment acts as a deterrent to potential offenders by instilling fear of consequences for their actions. By showcasing the repercussions of criminal behavior, society aims to discourage others from engaging in unlawful acts, thus maintaining order and reducing crime rates.

The concept of rehabilitation forms the basis of the Reformative Theory, wherein punishment is viewed as a means to reform offenders and reintegrate them into society as law-abiding citizens. This theory prioritizes education, therapy, and support to address the root causes of criminal behavior, promoting the idea of second chances and personal growth.

Additionally, the Utilitarian Theory weighs the costs and benefits of punishment, focusing on its overall utility to society. Utilitarian thinkers argue that the purpose of punishment is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, aiming to minimize suffering and maximize well-being through various punitive measures.

As we delve into these theories of punishment, it becomes evident that the subject is not without controversy. Each theory presents unique perspectives on justice, morality, and the proper role of the penal system. Understanding these theories is essential for shaping a fair and effective criminal justice system that balances the need for societal order with the principles of compassion and individual right

Retributive theory

The Retributive Theory of Punishment, often perceived as the ‘Theory of Vengeance,’ is a fundamental yet contentious approach to penalizing wrongdoers. It is based on the principle of Lex talionis, which advocates for retribution in the form of “an eye for an eye.” In cases of severe crimes like the Delhi gang rape, some argue that imposing retributive punishments can serve as a deterrent and prevent future occurrences of such offenses.

However, a purely retributive approach can lead to a primitive system of justice, elevating kings or judges to the status of supreme beings, akin to gods (as evident in the addressing of “My Lord”) and undermine the concept of representatives as public servants. Before delving deeper into the Retributive Theory, it is essential to grasp two crucial doctrines: the Doctrine of Societal Personification and the Doctrine of Correctional Vengeance.

Retributive theories with the Hindu scriptures

These principles emphasize the need for retributive justice. Retribution is most prevalent at the intersection of Criminal Law and Moral Law, where punishments are generated for various offenses.

Interestingly, while people may categorize punishments into seven different types, in reality, every punishment is inherently retributive in nature. Even damages claimed in torts or remedies sought for environmental violations, though labeled as compensatory, carry retributive aspects. They are not explicitly labeled as retributive because retributive punishments are often seen as vengeful (an eye for an eye). However, they can be considered morally vengeful, seeking to address the severity of the offense rather than replicating it literally.

Having discussed how retributive punishment works, it is worth exploring how the Retributive Theory is reflected in Hindu texts and scriptures.

The Retributive Theory of punishment is prominently reflected in Hindu scriptures, such as the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Durga Saptashati. These texts depict instances where retributive justice is sought, but they also emphasize the need for a balanced and thoughtful application of such punishment.

In the Ramayana, the story begins with an act of retribution when Lakshmana cuts off the nose of Raavan’s sister, resulting in Sita’s kidnapping. Ram seeks to rescue Sita and avenge the act, but a crucial difference is observed in their approaches. Raavan does not provide Ram a chance to repent for his brother’s actions, while Ram gives several opportunities to Raavan to rectify his actions.

Similarly, in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas initially pursue peaceful means, sending Lord Krishna as their messenger of peace to the Kauravas. However, the Kauravas refuse to yield, and the Mahabharata, especially the Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta, highlights the appropriate time for retributive action. Lord Krishna advises Arjun that war should only be resorted to when all other avenues for peace have been exhausted, as refusing to fight at that point would result in gross injustice to society at large.

In the Durga Saptashati, Goddess Durga warns the demons Mahishasur and Shumbh-Nishumbh multiple times before initiating a decisive confrontation with them.

Moving on to some relevant case laws

1. The Nirbhaya Judgment[1] is a crucial case illustrating retributive justice in India. The Supreme Court sentenced four out of six felons involved in the extremely heinous Delhi gang rape case to death, reflecting society’s demand for retribution due to the horrendous and morally unimaginable nature of the crime.

2. In the case of Anwar Ahmad v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr[2], the convicted individual had already served a six-month imprisonment term before official conviction. The Court held that imposing further retributive punishment would not be necessary as it would cause significant harm to the convict’s family.

3. In the case of Sri Ashim Dutta Alias Nilu vs State of West Bengal[3], it was noted that both deterrent and retributive punishments aim to prevent the recurrence of offenses through exemplary punishment. However, as societies progress and thinking evolves, the principle of “an eye for an eye” is no longer seen as the correct approach towards criminals, as it may perpetuate the rule of the jungle but not ensure the rule of law.

In conclusion, while the Retributive Theory of punishment finds its basis in Hindu scriptures, it is essential to apply it thoughtfully and judiciously, ensuring a balance between justice and the welfare of society.

Deterrent theory

The Deterrent Theory of punishment aims to prevent individuals from committing crimes by instilling fear through severe punishments. Its main objective is to set an example for both individuals and society as a whole, discouraging them from engaging in criminal activities. When a person is punished severely for a crime, it creates an awareness of the harsh consequences associated with certain offenses. As a result, people may be deterred from committing wrongful acts due to the fear of facing similar punishment.

However, it is important to note that this theory acknowledges the possibility that some individuals may still commit crimes despite the fear of punishment. While the goal is to reduce crime rates by making potential criminals realize that it is not beneficial to engage in illegal activities, there remains a probability that some individuals may still choose to commit crimes.

In essence, the deterrent theory of punishment is utilitarian in nature, focusing not only on punishing the wrongdoer but also on preventing future crimes from occurring. It is best captured in the statement by Burnett, J to a prisoner:

“You are to be hanged not only for having stolen a horse but to prevent others from stealing horses.”

By using this approach, the deterrent theory aims to control crime in society by dissuading individuals from engaging in criminal behavior through the fear of severe consequences.

Jurisprudential School of Thought

The Deterrent Theory of punishment can be associated with the sociological school of Jurisprudence, which emphasizes the connection between society and law. According to this theory, the primary goal is to establish fear of punishment as an example for individuals in society. The concept of deterrence can be traced back to influential philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Cesare Beccaria, and Jeremy Bentham, who laid the foundation for modern criminology.

In Hobbes’ view, people pursue their self-interests and may harm others in the process, leading to conflict and resistance in the absence of a governing authority. To avoid this, people agree to a “Social Contract,” where individuals are punished for violating it. Beccaria stressed the importance of proportionality between crimes and punishments for deterrence to be effective, while Bentham believed that swift and certain punishment could deter crime.

The three major components of the deterrent theory are severity, certainty, and celerity. Severity refers to the degree of punishment, which should neither be excessively severe nor too lenient. Certainty ensures that punishment follows any criminal act, creating a deterrent effect. Celebrity emphasizes the need for swift punishment to have a greater impact on deterring crime.

The philosopher Austin asserted that law is the command of the sovereign and believed that people follow laws out of fear of punishment. However, in contemporary times, it has become evident that the deterrent theory may not be entirely successful in preventing crimes. Examples like the Nirbhaya rape case show that even severe punishments like death sentences have not been sufficient to deter certain crimes.

In recent times, there has been a rise in rape cases despite the use of severe punishments. This challenges the efficacy of the deterrent theory in modern society. It suggests that the fear of punishment alone may not be enough to prevent crimes, and other approaches to crime prevention and justice are needed.

Although the deterrent theory of punishment was historically prevalent, its major implications in today’s generation have become questionable. Modern societies need to explore alternative strategies that go beyond fear-based approaches to effectively address and prevent criminal behavior.

Preventive theory

The preventive theory of punishment aims to prevent future crimes by incapacitating criminals either permanently or temporarily. Utilitarian philosophers like Bentham, Mill, and Austin support this theory due to its humanizing nature and its role as an effective deterrent. The main objective of preventive punishment is to transform criminals and check their notorious activities. Imprisonment is considered the best mode of crime prevention as it eliminates offenders from society, disabling them from repeating crimes. The death penalty is also justified under this theory, serving as another form of deterrence. The three key ways of preventive punishment are creating fear of punishment, disabling criminals from committing further crimes, and reforming them to become responsible members of society.

In the case of Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala[4], the Supreme Court emphasized that punishment should be deterrent, reformative, preventive, retributive, and compensatory. No single theory should be preferred over others, and each case should be considered independently. Society has a responsibility to reform and correct criminals, as they are still part of the community.

In the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab[5], the accused was held liable under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit rape and suggesting killing the victim. The death penalty or capital punishment is considered a temporary form of disablement.

To sum up, the preventive theory of punishment is founded on the idea of transforming criminals and preventing future crimes. It is supported by utilitarian philosophers and encompasses various methods, including imprisonment and the death penalty, to disable criminals from repeating offenses. The aim is to deter potential offenders and reform those who have committed crimes, thus making them responsible members of society.

The incapacitation theory of punishment aims to prevent future crimes by restricting the freedoms and liberties of individuals who have committed offenses. Incapacitation can be achieved by either removing the person from society temporarily or permanently, or through other means that physically restrict their abilities. The most common method of incapacitation is imprisonment, but in severe cases, capital punishment may be applied. The overall purpose of this theory is to prevent or restrain potential dangers in the future.

Incapacitation theory of punishment

The definition of incapacitation is the limitation of an individual’s usual freedoms and liberties within society. Its primary objective is to remove sufficiently dangerous individuals from society, and the risk posed by offenders is a matter of concern. Different countries may treat the same offense in varying ways, with some, like the United States, utilizing incarceration at a higher rate compared to others. Unlike other theories of punishment such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution, the incapacitation theory focuses on rearranging the distribution of offenders to reduce crime rates in society. The main aim is to discourage future generations from following the path of past offenders.

In practice, the incapacitation theory is typically applied to individuals sentenced to prison or life imprisonment. It may also involve community-based supervision through probation and parole.

The origin of the incapacitation theory can be traced back to 18th and 19th-century Britain, where convicted offenders were often transported to places like America and Australia. Over time, the theory evolved, and imprisonment became the primary method of incapacitation used in contemporary penal systems.

Studies, such as one conducted by The University of Chicago, have shown that incapacitation can reduce crime rates by up to 20%. When compared to other theories like the Retributive Theory or Compensatory Theory, incapacitation may involve longer prison sentences, potentially leading to increased prison populations. However, focusing on a small number of high-rate offenders who commit a significant portion of crimes could effectively control crime without an unreasonable increase in prison populations. The effectiveness of this policy depends on the severity of the crime committed and the criminal’s history.

Compensatory Theory of Punishment

The main focus of the law concerning crimes is to penalize the criminal and seek their reformation and rehabilitation with the help of the courts and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. It is crucial to ensure that criminals receive proper judgment for the harm caused to the victim, their family members, and property. Under the Compensatory Theory, victims of a crime can be compensated on two grounds:

1. The criminal who caused injury to the person or property of the victim must compensate for the losses incurred.

2. The state which has failed to provide safety to its citizens, should receive compensation for the losses caused.

Compensation is seen as the true essence of deterrence, reformation, and a necessary aspect of retribution.

Case Laws:

In the landmark case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal[6], the Apex Court ruled that a victim who suffers while in the custody of the state has every right to be compensated, as it violates their Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat[7], Justice Thomas emphasized the importance of reformative and reparative theories. He suggested that victims of a crime or their family members should receive compensation from the wages earned by the criminal during their time in prison. The court proposed the enactment of comprehensive legislation regarding the compensation payable to crime victims.

Reformative theory

The Reformative Theory of punishment is based on the belief that the primary objective of punishment should be the transformation of the offender through individualization. It is rooted in the humanistic principle that even if a wrongdoer commits a crime, they do not cease to be a person. Therefore, efforts should be made to reform them during their period of detention. For instance, the offender may have committed the crime under circumstances that may never recur, so there should be an attempt to reform them while they are in confinement. The main goal of punishment under this theory is to achieve moral transformation in the guilty party. They should be educated and provided opportunities to learn some skills or crafts during their imprisonment so that they may have a chance to start their life afresh after their release from jail.

Historically, the concept of punishment has evolved alongside the concept of supreme authority. In ancient times, punishment was based on retribution, and criminals were subjected to severe forms of punishment. Over time, with the rise of human rights and the notion of individual reform, the retributive theory has been replaced by reformative and rehabilitative theories. These theories focus on providing forms of punishment that aim to transform and rehabilitate offenders, rather than solely inflicting pain or retribution.

In India, the theory of punishment has shifted towards reformation rather than mere punishment. However, critics argue that the reformative theory may not be entirely effective in preventing crimes in India. For this theory to work, it requires better facilities and coordination within the prison system, which can be a significant financial burden for a developing country. Additionally, the theory’s emphasis on rehabilitation may incentivize some individuals to commit crimes, expecting better treatment within the prison system. Furthermore, the theory may not be suitable for hardcore criminals, highly educated and professional criminals, or those who are unwilling to change.

Critics also argue that the reformative theory overlooks the potential offenders and individuals who have been victimized by crimes. It also neglects the role of corrupt social and environmental factors in crime commission, attributing the sole responsibility to individuals. However, proponents of the reformative theory argue that it has shown positive results in cases of juvenile offenders, first-time criminals, women, and those with mental disabilities. They believe that rehabilitation can transform seemingly hopeless criminals into productive members of society.

The reformative theory of punishment focuses on the transformation and rehabilitation of offenders to prevent future crimes. It has both proponents and critics, with some emphasizing its positive impact on certain offenders and others highlighting its potential limitations and financial implications. The success of this theory may depend on the proper implementation of reformative measures and consideration of individual circumstances.

Utilitarian theory

The utilitarian theory of punishment aims to deter or “deter” future criminal behavior by punishing offenders. According to this theory, laws should be designed to maximize the happiness or pleasure of society. Since crime and punishment are contrary to happiness, punishment should be minimized. Utilitarians understand that a completely crime-free society may not be possible, but they strive to impose only as much punishment as necessary to prevent future crimes.

The utilitarian theory is “consequentialist” in nature, meaning it considers the consequences of punishment for both the wrongdoer and society. It holds that the overall good produced by the punishment should exceed the total evil. In other words, punishment should not be excessive. An example of consequentialism in punishment is the release of a terminally ill prison inmate. If the inmate is no longer capable of committing crimes due to imminent death, continuing their confinement does not serve society’s interests.

Under the utilitarian philosophy, laws specifying punishment for criminal behavior should be designed to deter future criminal conduct. Deterrence works on both a specific and a general level. General deterrence means that the punishment should discourage others from committing criminal acts. The punishment serves as an example to the rest of society, sending a message that criminal behavior will be punished. Specific deterrence means that the punishment should prevent the same individual from committing crimes. Specific deterrence works in two ways: first, the offender may be incarcerated to physically prevent them from committing another crime for a specified period, and second, this incapacitation should be so undesirable that it discourages the offender from repeating their criminal behavior.

Regarding the death penalty, there has been a highly polarized debate surrounding its use. Opponents argue that it is cruel and inhumane and, therefore, should be abolished. On the other hand, proponents maintain that the death penalty is a necessary form of punishment that should be applied to the most heinous offenders in society. The contentious debate on the death penalty has persisted for years, and ethical theories can be used to attempt to find a resolution to this controversial issue. One such ethical theory is utilitarianism, which asserts that actions that promote the happiness of the majority in society should be pursued, while those that hinder this happiness should be avoided. Applying utilitarianism to the issue of the death penalty reveals both positive and negative consequences.

One significant benefit of the death penalty, according to utilitarianism, is its role as a deterrent. The primary goal of the criminal justice system is to deter people from engaging in criminal activities. This is achieved by attaching punishments to crimes so that individuals perceive the benefits of engaging in illegal actions as outweighed by the consequences. In an ideal society, nobody would need to be punished because the threat of punishment deters everyone from engaging in criminal behavior. The death penalty serves as the most extreme punishment and is likely to deter individuals who might not be frightened by long prison sentences. From a utilitarian perspective, the deterrent role is moral since it contributes to the overall happiness of society. When criminals are deterred from committing crimes, society becomes safer, and people enjoy peace and security in their communities.

Another significant benefit of the death penalty, according to utilitarianism, is that it leads to the permanent incapacitation of the convicted individual. Unlike other forms of punishment that only restrict some of the offender’s liberties, the death penalty takes away their life. This ensures that the offender cannot repeat their crimes, making the community safer and providing closure to the victims and their families.

However, the utilitarian perspective on the death penalty also considers potential drawbacks. One concern is the possibility of executing innocent people. If an innocent person is wrongly convicted and executed, the irreversible nature of the death penalty leads to a significant harm to the individual and their loved ones. This potential for irreversible harm weighs against the utilitarian principle of maximizing overall happiness.

the utilitarian theory of punishment views the death penalty as potentially justified based on its deterrence role and the permanent incapacitation it provides. However, it also acknowledges the moral concern of potentially executing innocent individuals. As with any ethical debate, finding the most just and effective approach requires careful consideration of all the consequences and moral implications involved.

Conclusion

The primary objective of imposing punishment on an offender who is accused of a crime is to restore law and order in society. During this process of determining the appropriate punishment, both the rights of the victim and the accused should be considered. It is essential to remember that the severity of the punishment should correspond to the seriousness of the crime committed by the offender. It is necessary to impose penalties to prevent the widespread occurrence of crime in society. The theories discussed in this article play a crucial role as guiding principles for the criminal justice system to establish punishments in accordance with the committed crime. These theories have been instrumental in assisting legislators and the judiciary in formulating and interpreting punishment provisions for a better future.