Criminology Theories Of Punishment OR ‘The Purpose of Criminal Justice Punishment defined under Criminology. ‘The term Punishment is defined as pain, suffering, loss, confinement or other penalty inflicted on a person for an offence “by the authority to which the offender is subjected to” Punishment defined under IPC 1860. Under the law, punishment is provided to cease the wrongdoer from committing the crime again. Punishment is a consequence or result of wrong committed by a person Provisions for punishment is provided under section 53 and Chapter III of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ‘Theories ‘We have following four theories of punishment ~ IL. The Deterrent Theory TL The Preventive Theory IIL The Reformative Theory IV, The Compensatory Theory V. The Retributive Theory I. Deterrent Theory According, to this theory, offences are the result of conflict of interest, between that ofthe ‘wrong doer and the society. A wrong doer will certainly give precedence to his own interest «when he impinges upon the interest ofthe society. This conflict of interest will disappear if the misdeed of the wrong doer which is harmful 1o the social interest is made punishable. ‘Theory aims at he punishment of the offender with a view that other prospective criminals ‘may be deterred from comsnitting the crime for which he was convicted. To accomplice the ppxpose, the offender is punished so that ho willbe held up a3 gn example of what happens to ‘those who violate the lew. The world at large would learn that evime isa costly way of achieving an end. achieving an end. Bentham suggested that punishment might be useful in controlling crimes in the following manner : 1 By making it impossible or difficult for a criminal to commit the offence again at least in certain ways: By deterring both offenders and others By providing an opportunity for the reformation of aa offender.The theory explains the effects of punishment by highlighting the fact that if the offender is not punished, the crimes may multiply drastically, inciting a feeling of revenge among others who would not hesitate to commit 2 crime ‘The theory aims to generate a sense of fear in the minds of the citizens of a State, of being penalized or being imprisoned, for violation of laws. In the case, Ballo alias Balveer v. State of Rajasthan Through PP on § August,2013, High Court at Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.924/2010 observed that “a sentence or pattem of sentences which fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence ean seriously undermine respect for law. The sentence should neither be too lenient nor disproportionately severe. If the sentence is lenient, it will be a temptation for the criminals to commit more crimes, And ifthe punishment is too harsh it won, remam a deterring factor. Criticism, This theory has been criticized on the ground that, itis proved to be ineffective, because, despite all deterrent or severe types of punishments, the crimes are continued. Another ground of eriticism is that, the deterrent punishment makes the criminal a hardened criminal mstead of ereating a fear of law im his mind, and onee such a eriminal becomes the hardened criminal, he is not deterred or not afraid of any punishment I. The Preventive Theory IL The Preventive Theory As the saying goes that ‘prevention is better than cure” the theory aims to reflect the said ‘meaning. Theory aims at Physical restraint. Preventive theory tries to study as to how a Prospective criminal be stopped trom committing crimes. Gong by the example given by Fichte, “when a landowner puts up a notice that ‘that trespassers will be prosecuted”. he does ‘not want an actual trespasser and to have the trouble and expense of setting the law in motion against such trespasser ‘One rationale that can summarize the utility ofthis theory is like installing a First Aid Kit ‘which is not constantly in use and still, serves a life saving purpose whenever required. This theory was extensively discussed by Hegel that the community should express its condemnation directly through shaming rather then resorting to an indirect approach of sending the offender behind the bars. Itis also held that shaming in public can be even more effective a punishment then imprisoning the offender Preventative punishment can be inflicted in number of ways. The offender who has ‘committed a murder may be punished with death, thus removing all possibility of any further crime by him. At one time, when the punishment of maiming was quite common, offenders were disabled by removing of the offending limb. Thus, a thief could be made to lose his hhand, or sexual offender could be castrated. George Ives, has been of the opinion that, the incorrigible or hopeless criminal should be painlessly removed, rather than that the State should have to maintain him unnecessarily. Criticism:The preventive theory is also criticized on the ground thet, it has got undesirable effect of making first offenders or juvenile offenders as more hardened criminals in the event of imprisoning them for long or sufficient period of time. IIL The Reformative Theory Reformation is defined 2s “an effort to restore a man to society as a better and wiser man and a good citizen The aim of reformative theory is to reclaim the offender, to make him a useful member of society by bringing about change in his character. This theory treats crime as 2 disease but doe: not treat an offender as a criminal, treats the criminal as a patient and the punishment is like a medicine. Therefore, the punishment should be such as to cure that wrong doer the patient. It is possible that, the crime must have been committed by him under certain circumstances which were created not by him but by the society, for which he alone cannot be blamed. That is why, an opportunity must be given to him to improve himself, and we to reform him. There is a dilemma since the punishment should be just enough to reform the offender and not so harsh and disproportionate to his crime that he may become more devient and ruthless. This was very well enunciated in case of Meru Ram v. Union of India (ATR 1980, SC 2147) wherein it was argued that fixine the minimum period of 14 years under see. 433-2 is against reformatory theory. Here the more stress is given on the criminal, rather than the crime he has committed. Here, the treatment of the criminal should be humane, his ease history should be studied and appropriate measures taken to wean him away from the path of wrong doing. ‘Measure aim of reformative theory to adopt Peno-Correctional methods. Such as Houses of correction, places for Rehabilitation, for education and medical treatment, open air prisons, parole and probation. So that the individual person can become law-abiding person. Positive results can be obtained in case of young offenders, Victor Hugo once remarke “To open a school, 8 to close the prison”. Ancient Hindu Law givers also stressed the reformative system of punishment On conditions prevailing in jails in India, Justice, Krishna Iyer says, putting a poignant question: “Is a prison term in Tihar Jail a post graduate course in crime” This theory is most appropriate according to modem criminology Criticism: This theory is criticized on the eround that, it is impossible to reform the hardened criminals. But this criticism in not sustainable, social reformers will certainly disagree with this ground of criticism. IV. Compensatory Theory The object of this theory is to compensate the victim o the crime or his family or dependents.According to this theory, greed is the main spring of criminality, and because of this greed, ‘wrongs are committed. Therefore, ifthe robbers or thieves or cheaters are made to retum the ill-gotten benafits they have received, the spring of criminality would be dried up. If thieves, robbers, cheats and other wrongful acquirers or offenders are made to compensate the aggrieved party or to retum the benefit wrongfully obtained from the victim, the very springs of criminality would be dried up. By associating the factor of compensation with the instrumentality of punishment would be useful to victim or his family. V. The Retributive Theory The retributive theory of punishment is based on the fulfillment of moral justice. A good action deserves to be crowned with a good reward, and a bad action, on the other hand, meets its own fate, Retribution means basically that, the wrong doer pays for his wrong doing, This is the theory of revenge, theory of the private vengeance, supporting the brutal concept of ‘an eye of and eye, a tooth for a tooth’. In other words, if a person has caused an injury to another, then he must be dealt with in the same manner only. ‘The idea of this theory is that, the evil must be retumed for evil, and the way or manner a person deals with other, he must be dealt with in the same manner. Criticism Criticism: Dr. Sethna opines, “If the retributive theory means, merely the offender should be punish by revenge, then it has to be rejected.