INTRODUCTION

Who commits the crime, if convicted is punished by the State. Therefore, it is evident that the
object of criminal justice is to protect the society against the criminals by punishing them
according to existing penal law in the State. Thus, the punishment can be used as a method of
reducing the incidence of criminal behavior either by deterring the potential offenders by
incapacitating and preventing them from repeating the offence or by reforming them into law
abiding citizens. It is the principle, which underlies the doctrines concerning the desirability and
objectives of the punishment. Theories of punishment, therefore, contain general policies
regarding handling of crime and criminals. “State punish individuals to achieve revenge against
the wrongdoers and to prevent further crime.”

ORIGIN OF PENOLOGY

The term penology was coined in 1834, by Francis Lieber, a German American, to denote a
system of administrating punishment to the convicted offenders. But Cesare Beccaria’s “ Essay
on Crimes and Punishments”, published in 1764, marks the beginning of what came to be
known, a few years later, as a classical school of penology. Beccaria’s views on Crime and
Punishment shook to its very foundations the arbitrary, inhuman, oppressive, traditional penal
system, setting in motion radical penological concepts and doctrines which provided a
framework of more humanistic, more enlighted and rational penal system.1

As an organised branch of knowledge, penology is only two and half centuries old. The
lineaments of penology are clearly discernible in the pioneer work of prison reform by John
Howard (1726-1789), Elizabet Fry (1780-1845), and Mary Carpenter in England, Sir
William Crofton in Ireland, and Dr Enoch Cobb Wines (1806-1879) and Benjamin
Sanborn (1831-1917) in the United States. The principles of penology were, however, first
enunciated in the US in the Declaration of Principles, 1870 adopted by the National (American)
Prison Association (renamed in 1941 as the Annual Congress of Correction).2

1
Harry E Barnes and Negley K Teeters, New Horizons in Criminology, New York, 1949.
2
Ibid
 MEANING OF PENOLOGY

The word penology is derived from two Greek words: poine and logos. Poine means punishment
and the meaning of logos is discourse. Thus, penology means a discourse about punishment or a
science of punishment. In the modern parlance it means the study of punishment in relation to
crime and the derivative meaning is the management of prisons. Penology refers to the general
science of punishment. As a scientific discipline, a subject of study and a topic of education it
has evolved within the science of criminal law. Penology deals primarily with the criminal
punishment, i.e. the punishment inflicted for a culpable act defined as crime by legal provisions.
Penology is a section of penal sciences, together with the (dogmatic) science of substantive
criminal law, the science of law of criminal proceedings, the science of criminal executive law
and penitentiary law, the science of crime detection and criminology, and criminal and
penitentiary policy. Penology sees punishment as an institutionalized and complex process of
legal and social nature (i.e. legal and social institution) which may take various organizational
forms. In such context, criminal punishment means the process of intentional, legal and social
condemnation and of intentional causing of objectively measurable personal affliction, which has
been legally defined, decided by judgment of an independent court in the name of the legal and
social system (State), and which consists in official, organized deprivation of goods of a person
who, in the opinion of the court, would presumably cause illegal prejudice to such system, by
voluntary violation of sanctioned norms which provide for the existence of crime and which
correlate with a specific penalty. In penology, the fulfillment of criminal punishment
(actualization) starts with the announcement of the valid judgment and lasts until the end of its
execution process (full actualization). However, penology is equally interested in the stage of
criminal proceedings and its social repercussions to be called “the potentiality of punishment”,
i.e. in research on legal and social aspects of influencing social reality by official actions
intended to accomplish the administration of individually defined criminal punishment, i.e.
actions which have been taken since the opening of the proceedings ad personam. In penological
sense, the ultimate function of criminal punishment is to reintegrate a shaken legal and social
system. In this perspective, the influence of punishment ceases to exist only when legally
tangible and socially and individually vital effects of punishment process come to an end.
DEFINITION OF PENOLOGY

According to Encarta Reference Library 2005, “Penology is the study of prisons and
punishment management. It studies the theory, scientific study of, and practice of how criminals
are punished, how prisons are managed, and how rehabilitation is handled.”

According to F. Lieber, “Penology is that branch of criminal science which occupies itself, or
ought to do so with the punishment of the criminal.” This is rather a narrow technical definition
of the subject. It emphasizes only on the punishment of the criminal, while penology covers
many other aspects of punishment, crime etc. It studies for instance, not only what? and how? of
punishment but its why? as well, that is the principles behind punishment and the aim and object
of punishment.

According to Fairchild, “Penology is that field of applied sociology which deals with the theory
and methods of punishment of crime.”3

According to MS Sabnis, “Penology is sometimes described as a science of punishment,

although one may find therein more of humanism than of science. Penology is at best, a body of
systematized knowledge of management of penal measures and penal institutions so designed
that a minority among people who dare violates the established norms of individual and social
conduct and behavior codified as law by a given society at a given time and place are kept out of
circulation for the certain period of time in order to enable the rest of the society, which is
predominantly law-abiding, to constitute its socially useful activity without let or hindrance.”4

In view of all the above definitions penology is defined as the study of punishment. It is
concerned with the administration of penal measures and penal institutions, and starts
from the penal measure by the State authorized penal institutions, different for the
different kinds of offenders on conviction and extends to all aspects until such offenders
return to society or free from sentence imposed by the competent authority.”

3
Fairchild, H.P., Dictionary of Sociology, p. 217
4
MS Sabnis- Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Correction (1996)- Somaiya Publications Pvt. Ltd. Bombay pp-172-181.
SALIENT FEATURES OF PENOLOGY

In order to appreciate the full range of penology, it is necessary to understand the salient feature
of penology. The eminent criminologist “D.R Taft” has enumerated the following salient
features of penology:

 Penology is a technique of punishment and reform of criminals.

 It is the function of criminology to formulate effective and constructive techniques
to keep and maintain social peace and security. The aim and objective of this
technique is to suppress crime and criminals.
 Penology helps in establishing and managing the institutions of reform, probation
and correction.
 Besides helping the reforms of criminals, penology also helps in bringing about
social harmony and peace.
 Penology formulates and applies certain collective principles for the reform of
society in general and of the criminals in particular.

OBJECTS OF PENOLOGY

Penology is concerned with the administration of penal measures and penal institutions. The
prime concern of penology is the fact of adjudged social deviance. Its chief aim is protection of
society against the depredations of the deviant, which is also its social purpose. Within the
framework of concern and that purpose, penology has out of the crucible of organizational
experiences, devised various mechanisms composed of the rules and regulations, procedures and
activities which are opposed by the State, the mechanisms are essentially intended to serve the
ends of the prevailing criminal justice system as the more dominant section of the society sees
and dispenses it at a given time and place.

Its equally important concern is to deter those who might venture to defy the majesty of law from
acting or doing things detrimental to the larger interests of the society and thereby, to provide a
constant reminder to them of grave consequences which must follow their anti-social, or socially
or legally deviant acts.
The object of penology is to protect the society against the criminals by inflicting punishment
under the existing criminal law. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the social
defence is the criminological foundation of punishment. The Court should not confuse between
correctional approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment verging on decriminalisation
of serious social offences. That Court which ignores the grave injury to society implicit in
economic crimes by the upper birth “mafia” ill serves social justice. Soft sentencing justice is
gross injustice where many innocents are the potential victims.5

SCHOOLS OF PENOLOGY

Whenever there is sufficient development in science it is commonly observed, that various

fundamental viewpoints regarding the subject matter of science spring up. These view-points are
mutually incompatible in some important respect but each of these claim to account for the entire
range of science and rejects as inadequate the explanations offered by other points of view. It is
these view-points in a subject which come to be known as the schools of the subject. All of
these schools are generally sponsored and propagated by some eminent scholar. Penology is now
a fully developed science. There are difference of view-points among scholars regarding the
questions like aim and object of punishment and the most appropriate method and techniques of
punishment. On account of these differences, a couple of schools has sprung up in penology. The
main schools of penology are:

1. The Classical School.

2. The Positive School.

The Classical School

In the annals of penology, the classical school occupies a place of pride. This school was
founded in the 18th century and prior to it many barbarous methods of punishment were
prevalent. The criminals used to be confined to dark chambers or forced to live in snake pits or
were kept in complete isolation. Besides many mechanisms for exerting extreme pressure on
limbs and many processes for squeezing and strangulation were used. Far worse was the practice

5
MH Hoskot v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
of burning the criminal alive. The Classical School arose as a protest against these barbaric and
cruel techniques of punishment. In this period magistrates had the discretion to award any
penalty. The motive behind this was laudable but in actual practice it w as greatly abused. A
great deal of corruption in the magistracy crept in a consequence of the arbitrary use of the
magistrate powers. The chief proponents and supporters of classical school were Rousseau,
Bentham, Feurbach and Maudsley. The view of these thinkers are:

1) Rousseau:

Rousseau was a supporter of the classical school. His views on social, political and legal matters
were based upon the “social contract” theory. According to Rousseau the need for the
punishment arose in order to protect the interests of the collective body and its validity also lies
in the fact that without the provision of punishment the interests of the society are imperiled.
Rousseau put forward 3 main points to establish and indicate the views of the classical schools.
Firstly, he propounded a special philosophy of law.

Secondly, he propounded the theory of free-will. According to this the crime is a result of man’s
own thinking and action and that there are no social or political compulsions which may be said
to motivate him for crime. The criminal and non-criminal act both are alike products of free
choice the man.

The third principle propounded by Rousseau was that each person was mostly responsible for
his actions and that the punishment for wrong actions was morally justified. On the basis of these
three principles, Rousseau formulated his classical theory of punishment.

2) Beccaria:

Before putting forward his views on punishment, Beccaria considered it essential to make
explicit his views on the nature of crime. According to Beccaria the distinction between crime
and non-crime is drawn by the law in force. It is the law of the land, which declares certain acts
to be criminal. This law is established by the sovereign authority consisting of parliamentarians
of the elected political representatives of the people who in virtue of their legislative authority
establish and promulgate the law. The purpose and the goal of punishment is social security, the
protection and safeguard of the interests of the society. Therefore, Beccaria was of the view that
the provision punishment should be such as to produce quick results and be efficacious in
safeguarding social interests. Regarding the quantum and gravity of punishment Beccaria expre
ssed his views elaborately. According to him the quantum of punishment should be in direct
proportionate relation to the gravity of the crime, that is, for serious crimes, the quantum should
be high and for the lighter and venial crimes it should be low. The scale of punishment should
vary from mere reprimand to sentence of death. Basically, the justification of punishment,
according to Beccaria, is the welfare of society, which cannot be maintained in the absence of the
provision of punishment.

3) Jeremey Benthem:

Jeremey Bentham was also a supporter of the classical school. He subscribed to the theory of
utilitarianism and believed in philosophy of hedonism according to which every man pursued his
pleasure as is pleasant and to avoid the unpleasant and painful. In legal philosophy he subscribed
to the view that the end of legislation should be the production of maximum good of the
maximum number. The aim of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity for crime and
while awarding punishment; all the circumstances of crime should be taken into account.

4) Feurbach:

Feurbach was a German. According to him, punishment was nothing but a sequel to and
consequence of the violation of law. The aim and object of law is the maintenance of social order
and to inflict penalty on all those who break the law. The law-breaking is a threat to social order
and peace. According to Feurbach, criminology and penology were complementary of each
other. Accordi ng to him, law without punishment could not exist and the punishment without
law is arbitrary, meaningless and injurious.

5) Maudsley:

Maudsley had some original ideas about penology. He believed that the aim of punishment was
neither the feeling of revenge nor the reform of t he criminal. The real purpose of punishment is
to check the criminal intentions of man. The feat of punishment is to check the criminal
commission of wrong and injurious acts. The punishment metered out to a criminal is an
example for others and serves as a warning that similar actions on their part would be visited by
similar punishment. Maudsley believed in the exemplary theory of punishment; and, according to
him, the punishment should be quick and harsh. The use of ‘punishm ent’ is a means by which
fear of crime can be aroused in people. Maudsley believed that the true purpose of punishment is
the welfare of the society. Though the punishment is harsh, it serves as an example, excites fear
of crime in general public, and thus really minimizes the occurrence of crime and in this way
promotes the welfare of the society.

The Positive School

The second prominent school of penology is called the positive school. It arose as a reaction to
the views of the classical school. The uniqueness and special merit of this school lies in the fact
that its principles were based upon practical research. All proponents of this school were of the
view that any fruitful understanding of the problems of punishment is possible only by giving
emphasis to criminals than to crimes. The penal code should also be based upon the study of
criminals rather than crime. The chief proponents of this school were: (1) Caesare Lombroso; (2)
Garofalo; and (3) Enrico Ferrie.

1. Lombroso:

According to Lombroso, penal code is essential for the society ; without provision of punishment
for the law-breakers and an agency to enforce these provisions, no society can sustain itself even
for a day. The aim and purpose of punishment is the maintenance of social order and the check
and control o f antisocial activity. Of course, the punishment should be based upon the types of
criminal and not the types of crime. Lombroso suggested physical peculiarities as the basis for
the classification of criminals. Lombroso also recommended the nature of punishment for each
type. According to him the habitual murderer should be sentenced to death. The sex offenders
should not be treated harshly. A person committing incest, rape, homosexuality, exhibitionism or
voyeurism is usually considered very abominable. But sex criminals are not habitual; they
indulge in peculiar sex because of lack of normal avenues of sex expression. Therefore they
should be given an opportunity to reform themselves. The mad person should not be given any
punishment whatsoever. Lombroso was of the view that there should be no imprisonment. The
criminals should be exiled.
 2. Garofalo:

Garofalo, too, had the view very akin to that of Lombroso. He was of the opinion that a serious
criminal should be physically exterminated. The murderer should be sentenced to death and other
serious crimes should be punished either by life-term imprisonment or exile. The less serious
criminal may only be fined and spared imprisonment.

3. Ferrie:

Enrico Ferrie was a disciple of Lombroso. He considered punishment very essential to the
prevention of recurrence of crime. The punishment should be used to inspire fear of crime among
the general public. Ferrie also suggested making environmental changes to check the control the
crime. According to him crime and criminals is as a matter of fact product of the social
circumstances.
 NATURE AND SCOPE OF PENOLOGY

DEFINITION OF PUNISHMENT

The term punishment has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However Oxford
Dictionary defines “punishment means to make an offender suffer for an offence.” We can
say that Punishment is the penalties imposed by the States on individuals, who violates the
criminal law. People who commits crime may be punished in number of ways. Offenders may be
subject to fines or other monetary assessments, the infliction of physical pain that is corporeal
punishment or confinement in jail or prison for a period of time which is called incarceration, or
capital punishment.

According to DR Taft, “Punishment is defined as the conscious infliction upon a disturbing

individual of undesiring experiences solely in the interest of his welfare.”6

According to Ferri, “Punishment is a legal deterrent.”7

According to Dr. MJ Sethana, “ Punishment is some sort of social censure and not necessarily
the involving or infliction of physical pain. “8

COMPONENTS OF PUNISHMENT

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raghu9, explained the
components and ingredients of punishment and held the following ten most important
components of punishment. These are:

 Punishment is applied by employing coercion and can be enforced even against the will
of the punished.
 Punishment is a measure adopted and enforced by the State.
 Punishment very clearly embodies the principle of nulla poena sine lega.
 Punishment is applied by the competent organs of the State in a properly constituted legal
procedure.

6
DR Taft-Criminology, 3rd Ed., P-353
7
Ferri-“Criminal Sociology”, (1915) p. 487.
8
Dr. MJ Sethana, “Society and the Criminal”, (1964)., p 208.
9
2003, Cr. LR (GUJ) 393: 2003 (1) GLR 205.
  Punishment is generally believed to be directly enforced on each individual personally.
Any sort of “ collective punishment” is outside the scope of penological punishment.
 Punishment is the consequence of crime.
 Prevention of crime is the main reason for the existence of penal provisions in law books.

NECESSITY OF PUNISHMENT

It is agreed by almost all penologists that punishment is necessary in all the civilized countries
for the offenders. When any criminal commits the crime, he causes a loss to the society and the
State, so he has to pay back something in any form to the society or state. If criminal will not pay
anything to the society or the State then there is no possibility to maintain peace in the society
and it will be complete disorder as all the rich and brave persons will harass and crush the poor
persons in the society. Here the poor will not have any means to the rights given to them by the
law of land.

GOAL OF PUNISHMENT

The major driving force underlying all punishments is revenge, also referred to as retribution.
The word retribution derives from a latin word meaning “to pay back”. In retaliation for wrong-
doing, societies seek to punish individuals who violate the rules. Criminal punishment is also
intended as a deterrent to future criminality. Offenders who are punished may be deterred from
future wrong-doings because they fear additional punishment.

The various goals of criminal punishment may conflict with one another. For instance, the
goal of incapacitation may be achieved by confining offenders for long prison terms. However,
inmates who are warehoused in large prisons where they associate closely with other criminals
and lack of control over their life may develop additional antisocial behavior. Consequently,
punishment may perpetuate criminal dispositions and behaviours rather than eliminate them.
Thus, it can be said that there are four aims of punishment: (1) deterrent, (2) preventive, (3)
retributive, and (4) reformative.10

10
Modiram v. State, AIR 1972 SC 2438.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that sentence must bring home to the guilty person
consciousness that the offence committed by him was against his own interest as also against the
interest of the society of which he happens to be a member.

DEVELOPMENT IN THE ATTITUDE OF PUNISHMENT

During the 18th and 19th centuries, several French, English and Italian philosophers and social
reformers achieved prominence through their criticisms of corporal punishments. For example,
French political theorist Montesquieu criticized the French Penal Code and the inhuman
punishments suffered by the prisoners. He believed that the punishments should fit the crimes
committed and that more human conditions should be provided for incarcerated offenders.11
French Philosopher and social critic Voltaire also objected to injustice against criminals, such
as arbitrary sentencing practices and secret trials.

During the late 18th century, British philosopher and economist Jeremy Bentham, who
founded the doctrine of utilitarianism, became an outspoken critic of penal policy in England;
Bentham applied his philosophy of utilitarianism to crime and punishment. He believed that the
criminals engage in crime for pleasure and calculate the gain and losses ( or pleasures and pains)
associated with criminal conduct. He argued that a utilitarian philosophy of punishment would be
useful in deterring crimes by minimizing or eliminating the pleasures offenders obtain from
wrong doings.12

One of the most influential writers of this time, Italian Jurist and Economist Cesare
Beccaria, built on the work of Montesquieu and Voltaire. Many countries, including Canada,
England, France and Italy have incorporated Beccaria’s principles into their legal system and
jurisprudence. When Beccaria originally proposed his ideas, many considered them antithetical
to the existing legal system. His works influenced many of the authors of the U.S Constitution.
The language of many U.S criminal laws reflects Beccaria’s ideas.13

11
Des L’espirit des Lois 1748, (translated as The Spirit of the Laws, 1750).
12
An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation (1789).
13
Encarta Reference Library 2005 (Dean J. Champion)
ATTITUDE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY

It must be admitted that the provisions relating to punishment in the IPC have become somewhat
obsolescent and out of tune with the modern trends in the field of penology. The object of
punishment in the scheme of the modern social defence is correction of the wrongdoer and
wrecking gratuitous punitive sentence on the criminal whose so- called acts, in many cases may
be mere manifestation of a deep rooted psycho-social maladjustment for which society itself
shall be responsible in number of ways. Some attempts have been made recently to modernize
our penal system through piecemeal legislation at best for the first offenders, the children and the
juvenile in conflict with law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Lal v. Sttae of Punjab,14 that the criminal
jurisprudence dealing with the imposition of sentence has undergone a drastic change with the
enactment of Probation of Offenders Act which is a milestone in the progress in the modern
liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine
that the object of the criminal law is more to reform the individual than to punish him.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions in the case o1 Crf Inder Singh v. State,15 to the
State Government to see that the accused of the case are not given any degrading work and they
are given the benefit of liberal parole every year if their behavior shows responsibility and
trustworthiness. The Session Judge was directed to make jail visits to ensure compliance with
these directions.

The Calcutta High Court observed that the penology has now undergone revolutionary
changes with much greater accent on the reformation than on the corporeal punishment of the
offender. Law no longer runs after the blood of the offender with red teeth and claws. Thus in
case when accused was convicted under Section 307 of IPC, the Court reduced the sentence to
the period already undergone. The Court refused to permit it to be compounded, the offence
being not compoundable.16

14
AIR 1965 SC 444.
15
1978 Cr.LJ 766 (SC).
16
Dasbo v. State of West Bengal, (1992) 1 Crimes 325 (Cal).
DEFECT OF INDIAN PENAL SYSTEM

The Hon’ble Supreme Court points out the defects in penology, that is not of the helping nature
towards the victims. It is weakness of our jurisprudence that the victim of the crime and the
distress of the dependants of the prisoners do not attract the attention of the law, victim
reparation is still the vanishing point of our criminal law.17

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court observed that, it is a major deficiency in the Indian system
of criminal trial that the complex but important sentencing factors are not given sufficient
emphasis and materials are not presented before the court to help it for a correct judgement on
the proper personalized punitive treatment suitable to the offender.18

Again Hon’ble Kerala High Court observed that the criminal law in India being largely
offence oriented and very inadequately offender oriented there is really no statutory procedure
for the post conviction fact finding programme unlike in many other systems of law. Sentencing
is a means to an end, a psychological panacea to cure the culprit of socially dangerous behavior.
Penal strategy should strike a sober balance between sentimental softness towards the criminal,
masquerading as progressive sociology and the terror-cum- torment orient handling of the
criminals.19

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

The purpose of criminal justice is to punish the wrong doers. He is punished by the state. The
first question that arises about the administration of criminal justice is as to what the purpose of
punishment is or what is the end of criminal justice? From very ancient times, numbers of
theories have been given concerning the purpose of punishment. All punishments take place
within a society’s ordinary legal and penal systems. In the past, several reasons have often been
given for the justification of the punishment. One of these reasons is retribution. Another reason
historically associated with utilitarianism is that punishment serve to deter others from offending,
that is deterrence. The third reason is that partly that punishment or a practice of treatment,
secures the fewer offences will be committed in the future, but not through deterrence. It could

17
Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 84.
18
Shivprasad v. State of Kerala, 1970 Mad LJ (Cr) 48: 1969 Ker LT 862.
19
Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 1970 Kerala LT 34: Mad (Cr) 570.
be described as reformative aspect. These reason each with variants and complexities; have been
known as theories of the justification of punishment. The theories of punishment are:

A. RETRIBUTIVE THEORY:

Retribution means something done or given to somebody as punishment or vengeance for

something he or she has done. The origin of the word retribution is found in the 14th century,
from the latin stem retribution, ultimately from retribuere which means “to hand back, repay.

Retribute means to give in return. The objective of the theory is to make the offender realise the
suffering or the pain. In the Mohammedan Criminal Law, this type of punishment is called
'QISAS' or 'KISA'. Majority or Jurists, Criminologists, Penologists and Sociologists do not
support this theory as they feel it is brutal and barbaric.20

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON RETRIBUTIVE THEORY

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the whole goal of punishment is curative. Accent must be
more and more on rehabilitation rather than retributive punitivity inside the prison.21 The modern
trend places emphasis on the reformation of an offender and his rehabilitation.

B. DETERRENCE THEORY

This is also known as utilitarian preventive theory. 'Deter' means to abstain from doing at act.
The main objective of this theory is to deter (prevent) crimes. It serves a warning to the offender
not to repeat the crime in the future and also to other evil-minded persons in the society. This
theory is a workable one even though it has a few defects.

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON DETERRENT THEORY

Brutal punishment hardly corrects; rather it brutalizes both the criminal and the community and
hardens the attitude of the former towards the conventional society. In Sunil Batra’s case22 the
Hon’ble SC observed, “hard labour in Section 53 has to receive a human meaning. A girl student
or male weakling sentenced to rigorous imprisonment may not be forced to break stones for nine

20
http://www.lawnotes.in/Theories_of_Punishments.
21
Nadella Venketkrishna Rao v. State of AP, AIR 1978 SC 480.
22
Sunil Batra-II 1980 Cr. LJ 1099 SC.
hours a day. The prisoners cannot demand soft jobs but may be reasonably be assigned congenial
jobs. Sense and sympathy are not enemies of penal asylums.

Realizing that it is not the brutality of punishment but its surety that serves as a greater deterrent,
our Hon’ble SC held in the case of Lachmi Devi23 that a barbaric crime does not have to be
visited with a barbaric penalty such as public hanging which will be clearly violative of Article
21 of the Constitution.

C. PREVENTIVE THEORY

The idea behind this theory is to keep the offender away from the society. The offenders are
punished with death, imprisonment of life, transportation of life etc. Some Jurists criticize this
theory as it may be done by reforming the behavior of criminals.

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON PREVENTIVE THEORY

The Hon’ble SC in Saradhakar Sahu has held that sentencing the guilty person is most
important, albeit a difficult chapter in trial. Retributive and denunciatory theories have lost their
potency in the civilized nations. Deterrent and preventive sentence is sometimes necessary in the
interest of the society. The modern trend places emphasis on the reformation of an offender and
his rehabilitation.

D. REFORMATIVE THEORY

The objective is to reform the behavior of the criminals. The idea behind this theory is that no
one is born as a Criminal. The criminal is a product of the social, economic and environmental
conditions. It is believed that if the criminals are educated and trained, they can be made
competent to behave well in the society. The Reformative theory is proved to be successful in
cases of young offenders.

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON REFORMATIVE THEORY

Stressing upon the rehabilitatory aspect of penology the Hon’ble SC held in the case of Mohd.
Giasuddin24, that crime is pathological aberration, the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and

23
Attorney General Of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC 467.
24
Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926.
the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the
individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage
punishment is thus a relic of past regressive times.

E. EXPIATORY THEORY

Expiation means “the act of expiating, reparation, amends, compensation.” It means atoning or
suffering punishment for wrong-doing or making amends, or showing remorse, or suffering
punishment for wrong doing. Jurists who support this theory believes that if the offender expiates
or repents, he must be forgiven.

The Indian Penal Code is a combination or compromise between the underlying principles of all
these theories.

PENOLOGY: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Punishment is one of the oldest method of controlling crime and criminality. However, variations
in modalities of punishment, namely, severity, uniformity and certainty are noticeable because of
variations in general societal reaction to law breaking. In some societies punishments may be
comparatively severe, uniform, swift and definite while in others it may not be so.25 This
accounts for the variations in use of specific methods of punishment from time to time. The
primitive societies did not have well-developed agencies of criminal justice administration,
therefore, settlement of private wrongs was entirely a personal matter and aggrieved party could
settle the issue directly with the wrong-doer. Blood-feud was one of the common modes of
punishment in early societies which was regulated by customary rule of procedure. 26 sometimes
later on, restitution for injury through payment of money compensation was substituted for blood
feud. The quantum of compensation, however, varied depending on the nature of the offence and
the age, sex or status of the victim. With the state assuming charge of administration of criminal
justice, the process of public control of private wrongs started which eventually culminated into
modern penal systems of the world.

25
Sutherland and cressey: “ principles of criminology " (6th. Ed) p.255
26
Barnes and Teeters: "New Horizons in criminology"(3rd. Ed.)p.285 Ibid, p.288
FORMS OF PUNISHEMENT:
The history of early penal systems of most countries reveals that punishments were cruel and
barbaric in nature. It was towards the end of 18th century that humanitarianism began to assert its
influence on penology emphasizing that severity should be kept to a minimum in any penal
programme. The common modes of punishment prevalent in different parts of the world included
corporal punishments such as flogging, mutilation, branding, pillories, chaining prisoners
together, imprisonment, forfeiture of property and fine.
Public Executions in Saudi Arabia

In Saudi Arabia, as in many Islamic countries, crime and punishment is based on Sharia
Law (derived from the principles of the Qu’ran and hadith). Sharia Law dictates specific
punishments for different crimes. Some crimes that are punishable by death include:

 Murder
 Blasphemy
 Homosexuality
 Sedition
 Witchcraft and Sorcery
 Adultery

There is more than one way in which an execution may be carried out in Islam. The sentence for
Apostacy, or the repentance of one’s faith, is a public beheading, while the sentence for Adultery
is death by stoning. Executions may occur within prison boundaries or in a public square,
depending on court ruling. Of the 6,221 executions known to have taken place around the world
from 2007-2012 (excluding China), 423 (6.8%) were carried out in Saudi Arabia.

PUBLIC STONING

Iranian courts still order public stonings, and those sentenced are often severely whipped before
they are stoned. Women are buried up to their necks before a stoning. If convicted of adultery,
Iranian law requires the stones not be too big or too small so that the probable death is not
merciful or prolonged. If a woman miraculously survives a stoning, she must then serve a jail
sentence. For men, the stoning procedure is a bit different. Men are buried up to their waists
before a stoning. If they confess and manage to escape, they are free.

APPOINTMENT AT THE GALLOWS: HANGING

In most of the world, execution by hanging is used. Iran recently cut back on the number of
its judicial hangings, but in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Botswana, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan,
Singapore, St. Kitts & Nevis and Sudan hanging is extremely common.

THE ELECTRIC CHAIR

Since all methods of hanging are either cruel and inhumane or potentially so, the electric chair
was introduced in the U.S. in 1888. The electric chair was designed as a "more humane" method
of execution, although it does not cause instant death. Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse
were battling to dominate electrical utilities at the time, and Westinghouse's alternating current
powered the first electric chair. Edison was pleased that the electric chair required
Westinghouse's current, as he had always made the argument that the alternating current was
dangerous.

The electric chair has been used in 27 U.S. states and the Philippines. The first man to die in the
electric chair was William Kemmler, who was convicted of murdering his lover. Kemmler was
executed on August 6, 1890. He sat in the chair on his own and was strapped to the chair with
leather straps around his torso, arms and legs. Head and spinal electrodes with layers of sponge
soaked in brine were attached to Kemmler and a black cloth was put over his face.

When the switch was thrown, Kemmler went rigid for 17 seconds, then his body relaxed. He was
declared dead, but 30 seconds later his chest had a series of spasms. A second charge of
electricity was sent through his body for 70 seconds, until there was a smell of burning flesh and
vapor and smoke were seen rising from his body. Kemmler was then officially declared dead.

The electric chair is still a legal method of execution in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois,
Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Death row inmates are given the
choice of dying by lethal injection or the electric chair. Since 1993, at least five electric chair
executions have gone seriously wrong with prisoners being slowly tortured to death with blue
and orange flames shooting out of the helmet while he or she is still alive and in intense agony.

JUDICIAL CANING

In some countries, including Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, judicial caning is a common
punishment for male offenders. Thousands of men are sentenced to caning each year in these
countries and for some crimes it is a mandatory punishment. Judicial caning is done privately
inside prisons. Prisoners are stripped naked and shackled to an A-frame. They are then beaten
full-force with a four-foot rattan cane that has been soaked in water. The cane splits the skin and
rips at the bare flesh. There is usually severe physical damage and permanent scarring. In some
cases an attendant holds the prisoner's head and reminds him to breathe. After the caning, the
prisoners are given medical treatment to clean the wounds.

BEHEADING

In Saudi Arabia, public beheading is the punishment for murder, rape, drug trafficking, sodomy,
armed robbery, apostasy and other offenses. Men and women receive sentences of death by
beheading and are usually given sedatives beforehand. The condemned are taken by the police to
a public place and their eyes are covered. A sheet of plastic is spread out on the ground and the
prisoner is forced to kneel facing Mecca. The prisoner's name and crime is read out loud and the
executioner is given a traditional Arab scimitar. The executioner generally takes a few practice
swings in the air before poking the prisoner in the back of the neck with the tip of the sword.
This causes the prisoner to lift their head so that it can be removed with a single stroke. The head
often flies two to three feet away from the body and is picked up and given to a doctor who sews
it back on. The deceased's body is wrapped in the plastic sheet and taken away for burial in an
unmarked grave at the prison.

WHIPPING, FLOGGING AND LASHING

Whipping, flogging and lashing are judicial punishments in which the prisoner is beaten with a
whip, strap or flogger. While many countries have now outlawed judicial beatings, the practice is
still widespread in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Bahamas, Sudan, the United Arab
Emirates, Singapore, Libya, Yemen, Malaysia, Brunei, parts of Nigeria and Indonesia etc.
RELATION BETWEEN PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY

Indeed, penology is a branch of criminology. The science of criminology studies crime in

relation to society and person’s psychology. Penology is specifically concerned with the
punishment in relation to crime; it investigates into the raison d’etre of punishment and its use in
preventing and controlling of crime. Further, criminology tries to lay down and establish the
criterion whereby we can distinguish between crime and non-crime, that is, what type of activity
or behavior constitutes criminal behavior. Criminology also classifies various kinds of crimes
and criminals. After the determination of the types of crime, suitable punishment for each is
prescribed. The prescription of punishment is the task of criminology itself; but the application
of the punishment and the formulation of practical rules thereof is the task of penology. Penology
also studies the techniques of punishment. According to Dr. Sethna, “Penology deals with the
principles and methods of punishment.”Thus, it is plain, that there is an intimate mutual
relationship between penology and criminology. The science of criminology, in its theoretical
medications upon the nature and rationale of punishment, draws upon the practical experience
gained in Penology in regard to punishment. The study of penology tells us about the effects of
punishment upon the criminal and its effectiveness as an instrument of crime control. In view of
the consequences of punishment, criminologists modify their theories of punishment. The
theoretical perspective represented by criminology undergoes modification in response to the
practical perspective represented by penology. Penology, too, draws heavily upon criminology
for adoption of successful rational and humane methods of punishment. Therefore, as pointed out
by Dr. Sethna, “The study of criminology is a necessary complement of the study of penology”.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to “Prof. Anju Berwal” for her inspiration, expert guidance, moral
boosting, continuous encouragement and appreciation which are the vital factors in successful
completion of my project work.

I humbly acknowledge deep gratitude towards my teacher.

Thanking You.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Krishna Pal Malik, “Penology: Sentencing process & Treatment of offenders”, Allahabad
Law Agency, First Edition, 2006.
 Dr. Sharma K Rajendra, “ Criminology and Penology”, Atlantic Publishers and
Distributors, 1999.
 Ahmad Siddique’s, “Criminology and Penology”, Eastern Book Company, 6th Edition.
 Prof. Paranjape N.V, “Criminology and Penology with Victimology”, Central Law
Publications, 2015.
 Scott david, “ Penology”, Sage Publications, 2008.
 Korn R. Richard and Mccorkle W. Lloyd, “Criminology and Penology, 1st Edition 1967.
 Haikerwal B.S, “ A Comparitive Study Of Penology”, Allahabad Law Agency, 1st
Edition.
 Henry m. Boeis, “the Science of Penology”, G.P Putnams Son, 2003.
 Shlomo Giora Shoham, “International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice, CRC
Press.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 http://www.academia.edu/9212825/CRIMINOLOGY_AND_PENOLOGY.
 http://www.lawnn.com/penology-meaning-definition-characteristics/
 http://mayank-lawnotes.blogspot.in/2007/01/criminology.html
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penology
 https://www.scribd.com/doc/79568593/Penology.
 http://www.slideshare.net/malikjaved7509/penology-in-19th-century-india-4
 http://www.legalindia.com/case-analysis-subject-penology-victiomology-correctional-
administrational/
 https://archive.org/stream/penologyinunite00robigoog/penologyinunite00robigoog_djvu.t
xt
 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8499/9/09_chapter%201.pdf
 http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Gillin_Criminology_Penology_1926.pdf
 http://www.britannica.com/topic/penology.
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pun_theo.htm
 http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-penology.htm
 http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/5-penology.htm
 http://verdevalleyindependentdemocrats.org/category/penology/
 http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/217.full.pdf
 https://networks.h-net.org/node/10000/discussions/26218/cfp-history-penal-regimes.
 PROJECT REPORT ON

PENOLOGY: MEANING, NATURE

AND SCOPE

PENOLOGY: GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. Anju Berwal Ratika Attri
B.A.LL.B(Hons.)10th Sem
68/11
Section B
 CONTENTS

 PENOLOGY
 Acknowledgement
 Contents
 Introduction
 Origin of Penology
 Meaning of Penology
 Definition of Penology
 Salient features of Penology
 Objects of Penology
 Schools of Penology
 Nature and Scope of Penology
 Definition of Punishment
 Components of Punishment
 Necessity of the Punishment
 Development in the attitudes of Punishment
 Attitude of Indian Judiciary
 Defect of Indian Penal System
 Theories of Punishment
 Penology: Global Perspective
 Relation between Penology and Criminology
 Bibliography