2. 2
IS A PENALTY IMPOSED ON AN OFFENDOR FOR A CRIME OR
ANY WRONGDOING.
THE ENDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ARE FOUR IN NUMBER IN RESPECT OF
PURPOSES SERVED BY THEM. THEY ARE:
DETERRENT
THEORY
RETRIBUTIVE
THEORY
PREVENTIVE
THEORY
REFORMATIVE
THEORY
3. 3
“ TO DETER” IN LITERAL SENSE MEANS TO ABSTAIN FROM DOING AN ACT.
THE OBJECT IS NOT TO PREVENT THE WRONGDOER
FROM DOING THE WRONG ACT A SECOND TIME BUT
ALSO TO MAKE HIM AN EXAMPLE TO OTHERS.
FOR EXAMPLE –:
-DEATH PENALTY
- FORFEITURE OF WRONGDOER’S
PROPERTY
4. 4
“ RETRIBUTIVE ” IN LITERAL SENSE MEANS PUNITIVE, PAYBACK OR RETURN TO.
THE WRONGDOER SUFFERS THE SAME
QUALITY OF HARM AND INJURY WHICH
THE VICTIM SUFFERED. THUS, THE
WRONGDOER DOESN’T COMMITS THE
CRIME AGAIN WITH FEAR OF
RETRIBUTION.
FOR EXAMPLE:
RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE
5. 5
OFFENDERS ARE DISABLED FROM
REPEATING THE SAME CRIME BY
AWARDING PUNISHMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE-
- ALL PENAL LAWS
- IMPRISONMENT
- FINE
- CANCELLATION OF LICENSE ETC.
6. 6
THE MAIN PURPOSE IS REFORMATION OF THE
CRIMINAL. THUS, IT WORKS ON MENTAL CURE
OF THE OFFENDORS RATHER THAN AWARDING
PUNISHMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE-
- JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
- PROBATION OF OFFENDORS
- OPEN PRISONS
- LUNATIC OFFENDERS GIVEN TREATMENT
WITHOUT SENDING THEM TO PRISONS ETC.
7. 7
• JUSTIFICATION OF PUNISHMENT POSSESSES ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT JURISPRUDENTIAL
ISSUE.
• SEC 153 OF IPC NAMES DIFFERENT KINDS OF PUNISHMENT BUT DOESN’T MENTIONS THE
OBJECT OF SAME WHICH DEPENDS ON THEORY OF PUNISHMENT. ALSO, SEC 360 OF Cr.P.C
GIVES POWER TO COURT WHILE DECIDING PUNISHMENT TO YOUNG OFFENDORS.
• THERE IS NO UNIFORMITY AS THERE IS ONLY MENTION OF MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT IN
STATUTES, REST IS LEFT TO THE JUDGES DISCRETION.
• IN DR. JACOB GEORGE V. STATE OF KERALA , SC HELD THAT PREFERRING ONE THEORY
OVER ANOTHER IS NOT A SOUND POLICY OF PUNISHMENT. EACH THEORY SHOULD BE
USED INDEPENDENTLY OR EVEN COMBINED DEPENDING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
8. 8
ALL THE THEORIES EXPLAIN THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT IN THEIR OWN THINKING. EACH
THEORY HAVE ITS MERITS AND DEMERITS.
