Meaning of Penology  

Penology is the scientific study of the punishment and rehabilitation of criminals. It is a

multidisciplinary field that includes sociology, psychology, criminology, and law. Penologists
study the nature of the crime, the effects of punishment on offenders, and alternative forms
of punishment and rehabilitation. It is a branch of criminology that deals with the theories
of punishment and the effects that punishment has on both the individual and society.
Penologists are interested in finding ways to rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime rates.
The word “penology” is derived from the Latin words “Pena” meaning “punishment” and
“logos” meaning “study.” Therefore, penology is the study of punishment.

The discipline of penology was born in the late 19th century. In 1885, the
French criminologist Auguste Forel coined the word “penology” to refer to
the study of criminal justice systems and their effects on offenders. The
word “penology” was first used in 1885 by French criminologist Auguste
Forel in a book he wrote entitled “Penology: The Science of Crime and
Punishment”. Forel applied this term to the study of criminal justice
systems and their effects on offenders.

Types of Penology: -

a) Administrative Penology
It is essential that the administrative personnel involved with prisons’ custodial functions are
capable and conscientious of their social responsibilities. Before taking the job, they must
undergo entry-level training and be well-educated. The prison authorities should use the
services of psychologists, social workers, and media persons to carry out their correctional
programs. Jail supervisors and prison guards have a special duty to keep prisoners under
control and to keep an eye on non-loyal inmates.

 Within the criminal justice system, administrative penology deals with the
administration and management of punishment.
 As well as arrest, trial, sentencing, and incarceration, it discusses the processes
involved in punishing offenders.
 Aspects of administrative penology include rehabilitation and reintegration programs,
supervision of parolees and probationers, management of correctional facilities, and
corrections facilities management.
 As part of administrative penology, a key goal is to ensure detainees are punished
fairly, and effectively, and are rehabilitated and integrated into society.
 In administrative penology, overcrowding, security, rehabilitation, and prison
population management are also important aspects.
 The study of administrative penology encompasses the effects of fines, community
service, and imprisonment on offenders and the broader population as well.
 The program also covers the management of parole and probation, including assessing
offenders for release, establishing supervision conditions, and disciplining offenders
who violate their conditions.
 To manage and administer punishment, administrative penology draws on a variety of
disciplines, including criminology, sociology, psychology, and law.
b) Scientific Penology
Privatization should be aimed at individualizing prisoners, and rehabilitative techniques are
largely effective when disciplinary and custodial conditions are relaxed while keeping the
individual’s personality in mind. Prison inmates may receive scientific corrective treatment
from therapeutic specialists. Instead of punishing inmates, the prison environment should
correct them.

 The science of scientific penology pertains to the prevention and rehabilitation of

crime using scientific principles and methods.
 Developing criminal justice policies and practices involves using evidence-based
research.
 As a result of this approach, social factors, mental health issues, and poverty are
considered to be important factors in criminal behavior.
 In addition to rehabilitation programs, punishment, and community-based alternatives
to prison, scientific penology focuses on the effectiveness of different interventions.
 Measures the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs using data and
statistics.
 By addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and providing victims with
reintegration tools, this approach aims to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
 An expert in criminology, psychology, sociology and other related fields collaborates
in scientific penology.
 In order to reduce crime and promote public safety, it provides guidance and ensures
policies and practices are evidence-based and effective.
c) Academic Penology
The main purpose of academic penology is to disseminate penological knowledge. Penology
is limited to theoretical knowledge. Academic penology is the study of criminal justice in
relation to academic institutions. It encompasses a variety of topics, such as sentencing and
parole, higher education and professional licensure, and research misconduct.

Academic penology also seeks to develop best practices for mitigating and preventing crime
on campus. The MLA is the leading scholarly organization in the field of academic penology.
The MLA publishes the “Journal of Academic Penology”, and organizes annual meetings that
bring together academics, law enforcement officials, and policymakers.

 Academic Penology examines how students are disciplined and punished for
misbehaving, including suspension and expulsion, as well as alternative punishment
methods.
 The study of Academic Penology also explores the use of restorative justice
approaches to discipline, which focus on repairing the damage caused by misbehavior
and promoting reconciliation.
 In Academic Penology, we study how schools and other educational institutions can
assist reintegrated students who have been involved in the criminal justice system in
achieving their educational goals.
 Academic penology also examines ways to prevent misbehavior and promote positive
behavior in schools and other educational institutions. These interventions include
positive behavioral support, social-emotional learning, and character education.
 Identifying best practices for addressing student behavior is done through research
and evaluation methods in Academic Penology.
d) Analytical Penology
An objective assessment of existing penal policies and methods is undertaken, as well as
suggestions for improvement. As such, it provides solutions for the efficient administration of
penal justice based on a critical analysis of penal measures.Penological theory has undergone
a significant transformation in the past decade, with a renewed focus on offender
rehabilitation.

Analytical penology seeks to understand criminal behavior through the lens of psychology
and neuroscience, in an effort to develop more effective punishment strategies. This new
paradigm is based on the premise that remorse and reform are key factors in reducing crime
rates, and that rehabilitation programs are the most effective way to achieve these goals.

 The field of analytical penology focuses on studying punishment and the effects it has
on offenders.
 As opposed to tradition or personal preference, this approach emphasizes the
importance of evidence-based punishments.
 The goal of analytical criminology is to understand the causes of criminal behavior
and to reduce recidivism as effectively as possible.
 In order to inform policy decisions and criminal justice practices, this approach
emphasizes the use of scientific research and data analysis.
 The goal of analytical criminology is to find out what types of punishment are most
effective, including incarceration, community supervision, and rehabilitation
programs.
 The approach also considers the impacts of different punishments on communities and
victims, as well as the economic and social costs and benefits.
 The field of analytical penology is widely used in policy-making and criminal justice
reform to gain a deeper understanding of crime and punishment.
Scope of Penology
Penology is the study of punishment and corrections. It is a branch of sociology that
examines the effects of crime and justice systems on society. Penologists may work in
prisons, jails, court systems, and other law enforcement agencies.  Penology has many
different goals, including deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, and incapacitation. These
goals often conflict with one another, and penologists must make difficult decisions about the
best way to punish criminals.

The field of penology is constantly changing, as researchers learn more about crime and
justice systems. New technologies have led to new methods of punishment and rehabilitation,
and penologists must keep up with these changes in order to provide the best possible service
to society.

Types Of Penology
Penology is broadly classified into different categories: 
1. Retributive penology is based on the principle that offenders should be punished for their
crimes in a way that is proportional to the harm they have caused. This branch focuses on
punishment as a means of retribution and deterrence.
2. Rehabilitative penology is based on the principle that offenders can be rehabilitated and
reintegrated into society. This approach emphasizes treatment and education to help
offenders overcome the factors that contributed to their criminal behaviour.
3. Restorative penology is based on the principle that the criminal justice system should focus
on repairing the harm caused by crime and restoring relationships between offenders, victims,
and their communities. This approach emphasizes community involvement and mediation.
4. Critical penology is based on the principle that the criminal justice system is a product of
social, economic, and political forces that perpetuate inequality and oppression. This
approach emphasizes the need to challenge and reform the criminal justice system to
address underlying issues of power and social justice.
5. Comparative penology is the study of the differences and similarities in criminal justice
systems and correctional practices in different countries and cultures. This approach
emphasizes the need to understand and learn from other systems to develop more effective
and humane policies and practices.

Causes of crime

Poverty
Poverty is one of the main reasons for crime. Countries with high rates of economic
deprivation tend to witness higher crime rates than other countries. Since people do not have
the means to secure a living in the right ways, they invest their time in criminal activities
since they are not only an easy means to get what they want but also do not require any
other prerequisite talents. The ever-increasing divide we are witnessing between the rich and
the poor can also be attributed to more and more of the poor looking to crime as a means for
living. Not being able to earn and sustain themselves leaves people so frustrated that they
resort to illegal means to sustain themselves and their families. According to the data
collected by National Crime Records Bureau, theft is one of the most common crimes in India.
All in all, the wealth inequality and insufficient means to acquire a living in an honest way is
driving the poor in India towards a life of crime.

Peer Pressure
It is an established fact that peer pressure plays a significant role in the lives of all teenagers
and young adults. That is a phase of life where people tend to look up to their friends and
believe what they do is the right or rather ‘hip and happening’ thing to do. So, peer pressure
compels them to join the bandwagon. The lack of wisdom and experience these people have
just added fuel to the fire. As a result, many individuals in their youth subconsciously get
drawn to vices like alcohol consumption and smoking just by looking at their peers. The
problem goes out of hand when this peer pressure does not stay restricted to alcohol and
cigarettes but extends to other illegal activities involving drugs that have the potential to
become an addiction and subsequently ruin their lives.

Drugs
Crime and drug abuse are closely related. A person under the influence tends to indulge in
criminal activities that they may have not indulged in otherwise. The main problem arises
when they get addicted to the drugs and believe they require it to sustain themselves. In
such a situation, drug addicts are ready to go to any extent to procure these illegal
substances. According to the data collected by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is
a wing under the National Institute of Health in the United States of America, over 70,000
people succumbed to drug overdoses in America, in the year 2019 alone. These figures are
alarming. Under the influence of drugs, people feel the urge to do things that are not only
illegal but also have the potential to ruin and at times even end their lives. 

Politics
The interrelation between politics and crime is overlooked many times. This is problematic as
many people have engaged in criminal activities while dealing with political issues. There are
umpteen politicians with a criminal record. Additionally, there have been quite a few
politicians in developing countries who have also been associated with violent crimes and
murders. So many youth members of parties are often given weapons and instructed to
handle matters violently during conflicts. Any political dispute, however insignificant, usually
leads to rampant violence involving mobs. This not only exposes youth to criminal activities
but also puts the lives of various citizens at risk. So, an unstable political situation in a
country leads to an exponential increase in the crimes that take place there.

Religion
Even today, unfortunately, various divides and issues of society can be attributed to religion.
Despite it being a basic human right, many people are deprived of practising their own
religion. This leads to a feeling of resentment in the minds of believers. Moreover, there have
been an awful lot of cases involving crimes over different schools of thought too. Innocent
lives have been lost in this war over ideological concepts that have existed since time
immemorial. This is an extremely sad state of affairs considering that it is already the 21st
century and human beings have progressed so much in other areas. There are a huge
number of crimes committed by religious fanatics while they try to further their cause by
propagating their religion or at times try to establish their religious superiority over other
faiths by resorting to destruction and vandalism.  

Background
Oftentimes the background and family conditions of a criminal can be attributed to the reason
behind their crimes. When people believe that they are responsible to provide for their family
and they are unable to do so owing to lack of opportunities, lack of education or other such
issues that handicap them, they resort to crime. This is a sad state of affairs as in such
situations it is highly likely that the criminal would have refrained from engaging in criminal
activities had there been sufficient means for them to sustain themselves and provide for
their family. This issue does not lead to crimes such as theft alone but also motivates people
to commit gruesome acts that put their freedom and lives at risk just so they can make a
good amount of money through bribes or ransoms that can be used for their family’s
sustenance. 

Society
In today’s times, money is one of the most important aspects of everyone’s life. The meaning
of money is not restricted to the amount of wealth in a person’s bank account but is instead
also attributed to their societal status, worth, and even values. As a result of this, people
value money more than their relationships and happiness. What other people think of a
person is more important to them than how they feel. Even schools and universities do not
teach children how to be happy and satisfied in life but instead teach them how to make
more money, which indirectly attributes wealth to worth. A case in point would be people in
awe of students who study and take up professions in the fields of science as opposed to art
as conventionally, they have chances of earning more. As a result, people earning less feel
unworthy and are compelled to indulge in a life of crime so as to make more money and feel
more worthy.

Unemployment
The lack of employment opportunities is an issue faced by developing and developed
countries alike. A huge portion of the youth of today are unemployed and as per a report by
the Confederation of Indian Industry, the youth employment rate is ever-increasing.
According to the data recorded by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, the
unemployment rate in our country is ever increasing. Naturally, this leaves the youth
frustrated as despite spending a lot of time and money on their education they still find it
tough to get a good job. This leads to a feeling of resentment towards the system in the
minds of many youngsters who then rebel and resort to crimes early on in their lives. 

Unequal rights
Deprivation is another significant contributor to the increasing crime rates. People resort to
notorious activities when they are deprived of their basic rights since that impedes their
means to obtain a livelihood in a conventional and honest way. They have limited options and
are already at a disadvantaged position in society that they choose to make money and
sustain themselves through hook or crook. This usually involves them engaging in criminal
activities. 

Unfair justice system

The flawed justice system is another major contributor to crimes. When people believe that
they are not given their due and are unfairly treated by the system itself, they harbour
feelings of resentment towards it and start to rebel. This involves them engaging in criminal
activities and doing the opposite of what is expected of them. People try to get justice for
themselves when they feel like the state is not going to do the same and tend to commit
various acts of crime in their journey to avenge themselves and get what they believe they
deserve. Many innocent people resort to crimes when they are wrongly proven to be guilty in
the Courts owing to a lack of trust in the system.

Different types of crimes 

Any act that is in violation of the law is a crime. There are various types of crimes. Though
not exhaustive, criminologists group crimes into a few categories mentioned below. 

Personal crimes
Personal crimes or crimes against persons refer to those crimes that are perpetrated against
an individual. They include murder, homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and other
such violent acts. 
Property crimes
Property crimes refer to crimes that include theft but do not involve bodily harm. Some
examples include arson, larceny, burglary, theft, etc. Here, the victim is not physically
affected but is indirectly affected by harm or loss to their property. 

Hate crimes
These refer to crimes against an individual which are fuelled by prejudices against the said
individual’s race, gender, religion, caste, creed, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and
other such distinguishing factors usually associated with one’s heritage. 

Victimless crimes
Victimless crimes or crimes against morality refer to illegal acts which are not aimed at a
specific individual. Here, there are no complainants. Victimless crimes include gambling,
administering illegal drugs, prostitution, and the like which are immoral but do not harm any
individual per se. Such crimes are also known as consensual crimes as the violators here
willingly engage in illegal acts knowing it is against the law. The word consensual crime is
preferred by most over victimless crime as the offenders are said to be victims in these cases
as their acts harm themselves. 

White-collar crimes
Crimes committed by people who have a respectable position in society and are economically
and socially well placed in the course of their occupation are called white-collar crimes. Some
examples would be embezzling, tax evasion, insider trading, violating tax laws, and the like.
Such crimes, though not gruesome, are still extremely detrimental to society and have a
great potential to cause economic consequences like a recession in no time.  

Organized crimes
Organized crimes refer to crimes that involve the sale of goods and services which are
unlawful by a structured group like a mafia. This would include drug cartels, smuggling of
weapons, prostitution, and even money laundering. Needless to say, organized crime has
various negative impacts on both society and the economy. 

UNIT 2
Punishment. A term which is inherent to criminal justice. It is only because of the term
punishment, that certain acts are classified as ‘crimes’. Down the lane of the history of the
society, we have seen that without punishments, it would have sometimes been impossible to
tame the barbaric, as well as primitive tendencies of the public. It was the weapon named
‘punishment’, that the rulers used against their subjects in order to maintain a fear in the
minds of the public regarding the capacities and powers of their rulers. Punishments
sometimes were also given as an insult to someone else. However, the most common
punishment from which all of us are familiar is the scolding or mild beating that we get from
our parents. In that case, what are the theories of punishment actually in case of serious
crimes? How did they develop? What are the pros and cons of the various ways of punishing
people? Do the Hindu scriptures too depict any form of the punishments mentioned
hereinafter? Through this paper, we will try to answer all such questions and understand how
far are the various Theories of Punishment applicable in the present era. The theories of
punishment are as follows:

RETRIBUTIVE THEORY.
DETERRENT THEORY.
PREVENTIVE THEORY.
INCAPACITATION THEORY.
COMPENSATORY THEORY.
REFORMATIVE THEORY. 
UTILITIRIAN THEORY. 

Retributive Theory of punishment

The Retributive Theory of Punishment, or the ‘Theory of Vengeance’, as many people in the
society would perceive it as, is the most basic, yet inconsiderate theory of inflicting a penal
sentence over a perpetrator. It is based on a very small doctrine, namely the doctrine of Lex
talionis, which if translated, means ‘an eye for an eye’. Now, if looked at from the perspective
of very serious and heinous offences, like the Delhi gang rape case, people may feel that it is
better to inflict such retributive punishments, so as to ensure that a deterrent is set across
the society, in order to prevent such crimes in the near future.

However, we forget to understand sometimes that always having a retributive approach will
render the society one with a primitive system of justice, where the Kings or the Judges were
considered to be the supreme beings and were provided with the stature of God Himself
(hence the address My Lord) and thus, collapse the very concepts of the representatives
being ‘servants’. Before we move on to a deeper understanding of the Retributive Theory, we
need to understand two very important doctrines. Let us have a look at them both.

Doctrine of Societal Personification and the Doctrine of Correctional Vengeance:

Doctrine of Societal Personification can be stated as-

‘When a member of the society is subjected to a very heinous crime, as a result of which, the
whole society, as if it were a natural person, considers the offence to be inflicted upon itself,
comes to the defence of that person either by way of demanding justice or by conducting the
same on its own, the society is said to be personified.’

A very self-explanatory doctrine. To be put simply, it means that the society, whenever a
heinous crime of an extreme form is committed, assumes the form of a natural person and
behaves in a collective manner so as to get justice.

Eg: The country-wide protests for the Delhi gang rape case, the current Hathras rape case,
etc.

Doctrine of Correctional Vengeance maybe stated as-

‘When the society, in a fit to get justice, demands the concerned authorities to inflict vengeful
(as painful as the original act, or even more) punishments upon the victim for creating a
deterrent, it is said to exhibit correctional vengeance.’ 

The above definition, too, is quite self-explanatory in its nature. Now that we have
understood these two doctrines, we have a basic idea about what really is retributivism or
retributive justice. Let us now have a closer look upon the same.
Understanding Retributive Theory of Punishment:

‘The concept of retributive justice has been used in a variety of ways, but it is best
understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles:

1. that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious
crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment;
2. that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that
might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve;
and
3. that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict
disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.’
The above three principles clarify the needs for retributive justice even further. We may
understand retributive justice in this manner. The place where both Criminal Law as well as
Moral Law meet, is the place where mostly the retributive punishments are generated. 

In fact, although people may classify punishments into seven different types, but in reality,
every punishment, indeed, is retributive in nature. It is very interesting to see that the
damages claimed under Torts, or the remedies sort for environmental violations, maybe
compensatory, but at their hearts, are retributive in nature. Then why aren’t they labelled as
retributive, instead? Well, the answer to the question is simple. Retributive punishments are
somewhat vengeful in their nature (an eye for an eye). They may not be vengeful always, but
maybe merely morally vengeful. When we say this, it means that although the punishment is
not literally the thing that was originally done by the perpetrator, is still acts as a vengeance
by virtue of its seriousness.

E.g: If a person rapes someone, capital punishment maybe given as a retributive measure. If
we literally give the person back what he did, i.e., sex, then it would be pleasurable rather
than torturing for him. Now that we have understood briefly that how exactly the retributive
punishment works, let us now move on to understand the ways in which Retributive Theory is
displayed in the Hindu texts and scriptures.

Retributive Theory and the Hindu Scriptures:

The Hindu scriptures, particularly the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Durga Saptashati, are

primarily based on Retributive Theories but also, depict the ways in which one should proceed
while applying them.

Ramayana- In the Ramayana the whole story began from retribution itself. Lakshmana cut

the nose of Raavan’s sister, because of which he kidnapped Sita. In order to rescue her and
also to avenge her kidnapping, Ram went to kill Raavan. But, the major difference between
the application of the retributive punishment between the two was that Raavan did not even
give Ram a chance to repent for his younger brother’s act, but, Ram gave several chances
to Raavan to correct his act.

Mahabharata– Mahabharata, once again, is a very good example of how retributive

punishment should be inflicted. The Pandavas had not started-off with the war right away.
They had sent Shri Krishna as their messenger of peace a number of times to the Kauravas,
but, they did not give in. Mahabharata, especially Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta, talks about the
time when the retributive mode should be used. As we all know that Arjun was about to leave
the battlefield as he was too scared to go against his own relatives, it was Krishna who said
that ‘when all other paths close down, only then war is to be resorted to. Because if then the
person refuses to fight, then it will inflict gross injustice upon the society at-large.’
Durga Saptashati– In this too, Goddess Durga warns the various demons,
i.e. Mahishasur and Shumbh-Nishumbh, repeatedly, before starting a killer spree upon them.

Now, let us move on to see some important case laws regarding this theory of punishment.

Case Laws:

1. Nirbhaya Judgement– This case is indeed the first and foremost case to be
mentioned, while talking about retributive justice in India. In this Judgement, the
Supreme Court sentenced four out of six felons involved in the extremely heinous
Delhi gang rape case to death, much to the delight of the society, as they had
committed an extremely gruesome, as well as morally unimaginable crime.
2. Anwar Ahmad v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.– In this case, the convicted had
already undergone a six month imprisonment term, before being officially
convicted by the Court. The Court held that since the convict had been convicted
and also, the required ‘blemish’ had also been imposed upon him, it was not
necessary to sentence him again in the name of ‘retributive punishment’, as it
would inflict a very big loss upon the family as well.
3. Sri Ashim Dutta Alias Nilu vs State of West Bengal– In this case, it was observed
that both deterrent and retributive punishment aim at prevention of the
recurrences of the offences by others passing exemplary punishment for a
particular offence. But the civilization and the societies are progressing rapidly.
There is advancement of science and technology. The literate people and the
experts in different branches of knowledge started thinking in a different way. Eye
for an eye, and tooth for a tooth are no more considered as the correct approach
towards the criminals. Such principle may perpetuate the rule of the Jungle but
cannot ensure the rule of law.
Pros and Cons:

Pros-

1. Acts as a strong deterrent.

2. Helps in giving moral justice to the victim.
3. Instils the feeling of trust within the society, towards the judiciary.
Cons-

1. Sometimes, may become disproportionate with the seriousness of the crime.

2. Society develops feelings of vengeance and destructive tendencies follow.
3. The State may become autocratic in its functioning, using the punishment to
torment people. 

Deterrent Theory of punishment
In Deterrent theory of punishment, the term “DETER” means to abstain from doing any
wrongful act. The main aim of this theory is to “deter” (to prevent) the criminals from
attempting any crime or repeating the same crime in future. So, it states that deterring crime
by creating a fear is the objective; to set or establish an example for the individuals or the
whole society by punishing the criminal. That simply means, according to this theory if
someone commits any crime and he/she is punished by a severe punishment, then, it may
result maybe that the people of the society will be or may be aware of the severe
punishments for certain kinds of crimes and because of this fear in the minds of the people of
the society, the people may stop from committing any kind of crime or wrongful act. Here I
used the phrase “may stop” instead of “will stop”. That means, there is a probability of
committing any crime or repeating the same crime. 
The deterrent theory of punishment is utilitarian in nature. For a better understanding we can
say like, ‘The man is punished not only because he has done a wrongful act, but also in order
to ensure the crime may not be committed.’ It is best expressed in the word of Burnett, J
who said to a prisoner: 

“Thou art to be hanged not for having stolen a horse, but in order that other horses may not
be stolen”. 

Through making the potential criminals realize that it doesn’t pay to commit a crime, the
deterrent theory hopes to control the crime rate in the society.

Jurisprudential School of Thought:

The deterrent theory can be related to the sociological school of Jurisprudence. The
sociological school creates a relationship between the society and law. It indicates law to be a
social phenomenon, with a direct and/or indirect connection to society. One of the main aim
of the deterrence is to establish an example for the individuals in the society by creating a
fear of punishment.

Now most important question is arrived at; “Who established this deterrent theory of
punishment?”

The concept of deterrent theory can be simplifying to the research of philosophers such like
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1678), Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).
These social contract thinkers provided the foundation of modern deterrence in criminology.

In the Hobbesian view, people generally pursue their self-interests, such as material gain,

personal safety and social reputation and make enemies, not caring if they harm others in
the process. Since people are determined to achieve their self-interests, the result is often
conflict and resistance without a fitting Government to maintain safety. To avoid, people
agree to give up their egocentricity as long as everyone does the same thing, approximately.
This is termed as “Social Contract”. According to this social contract, he stated that
individuals are punished for violating the social contract and deterrence is the reason for it to
maintain the agreement between the State and the people, in the form of a social contract
workable.

According to Cesare Beccaria, while discussing about punishments, the proportion of the

crime and punishments should be equal for it to serve as a deterrence or have a deterring
value. 

According to J. Bentham, who is known as the founder of this theory, a hedonistic conception
of man and that man as such would be deterred from crime if punishment were applied
swiftly, certainly, and severely. But being aware that punishment is an evil, he says, if the
evil of punishment exceeds the evil of the offence, the punishment will be unprofitable; he
would have purchased exemption from one evil at the expense of another. 

From the deterrent theories of Thomas Hobbes, Cesare Beccaria and J. Bentham, we came to
know that the theory of deterrence consists of 3 major components. They are as follows:

Severity: It indicates the degree of punishment. To prevent crime, criminal law must
emphasize penalties to encourage citizen to obey the law. Excessively severe
punishments are unjust. If the punishment is too severe it may stop individuals
from committing any crime. And if the punishment is not severe enough, it will not
deter criminals from committing a crime.
Certainty: It means making sure that punishments must happen whenever a criminal
act is committed. Philosopher Beccaria believed that if individuals know that their
undesirable acts will be punished, then they will refrain from offending in the
future. 
Celerity: The punishment for any crime must be swift in order to deter crime. The
faster the punishment is awarded and imposed, it has more effect to deter crime.
Therefore, deterrence theorists believed that if punishment is severe, certain and swift, then
a rational person will measure the gain or loss before committing any crime and as a result
the person will be deterred or stopped from violating the law, if the loss is greater than the
gain.

According to Austin’s theory, “Law is the command of the Sovereign”. In his imperative
theory, he clearly declared three important things, which are as follows: 

1. Sovereign.
2. Command.
3. Sanction.
Austin’s question is that ‘Why do people follow the rule?’. He believes that people will follow
the law because people have a fear of punishments. On the basis of his beliefs, we can see a
small example over here: When people are biking, they wear a helmet as per biking rules.
Now, we can assume that some people wear helmets genuinely to save themselves from road
accidents but on the other hand, some people wear helmets because of escaping fines or in
fear of cancellation of their biking licence. So, in that case, they know that if they bike rashly
or disobey the biking rules they will be punished by giving huge a amount of fine or their
biking licence will be cancelled. So here we can say that the purpose of the deterrent theory
is successful and applied also.

Now, if we go back a little earlier in time, in our Hindu Scriptures we also see that there were
several punishments like public hanging, not only that but also people were immersed in hot
oil or water. Most penal systems made use of deterrent theory as the basis of sentencing
mechanism till early 19th century. 

In England, punishments were more severe and barbaric in nature to restrict same
crime in the future. At the time of ‘Queen Elizabeth I’, deterrent theory of
punishment was applied for restricting future crimes, even for too little crimes like
‘pickpocketing’.
In India also, inhuman punishments are granted.
But, if we discuss or follow this theory in today’s context, then, it will be very clear that
“deterrent theory” is not applicable at all or it may not be useful enough to prevent or to
deter crimes by creating a fear in the minds of people. We have a very recent example of
why deterrent theory is not successful in the case of “Nirbhaya Rape Case, 2012”. This case
is the foremost case to be mentioned while talking about deterrent theory of punishment. In
this judgement, the Supreme Court sentenced four out of six offenders involved in the
extremely heinous Delhi gang rape case to death. Now, the most important questions are-

Whether the death sentence to the culprits will act as a deterrent? 

Will the number of crimes against women in our society drop down permanently? 
Specifically, in Nirbhaya judgement, is the aim of deterrent theory fulfilled? 
The answers are ‘no’. According to deterrent theory, the main objective is ‘to deter crime, by
creating a fear or establishing an example to the society.’ Now, death penalty is a severe
punishment. In the Nirbhaya case, the Court gave death sentence to the four convicts for
committing gang rape. We can say that it is a great example for future offenders who will
think about committing a crime like rape in future. So, according to this theory, after
Nirbhaya judgment crimes like rape should not happen. But they are happening till now. Day-
by-day, rape cases are increasing in our society.

In Nirbhaya gang rape judgement, it’s being suggested that justice has finally been served to
“India’s Daughter” and though the decision came after a staggering seven years, it will help
to secure the safety of women and prevent rape cases in the future. But it seems to further,
as starting of the year 2020 has seen a slew of rape cases continue unabated. As an
example, we can see for a recent gang rape case which was happened at Hathras,
Balrampur, on 1st October 2020. So, simply we can see that there is no improvement
through severe punishments also. “Death penalty does not act as a deter to rape cases”- This
is the actual message we have understood. So that’s why we can say that in today’s
generation there is no major implication of ‘Deterrent Theory of Punishment’.

Preventive Theory of punishment
Preventive theory of punishment seeks to prevent prospective crimes by disabling the
criminals. Main object of the preventive theory is transforming the criminal, either
permanently or temporarily. Under this theory the criminals are punished by death sentence
or life imprisonment etc. 

Philosophical View of Preventive Theory:

Utilitarian’s such as Bentham, Mill and Austin of England supported the preventive theory of
punishment due to its humanizing nature. Philosophy of preventive theory affirms that the
preventive theory serves as an effective deterrent and also a successful preventive theory
depends on the factors of promptness. The profounder of this theory held that the aim of
punishment is to prevent the crimes. The crimes can be prevented when the criminal and his
notorious activities are checked. The check is possible by disablement. The disablement may
be of different types. Confining inside the prison is a limited form of disablement, that is
temporary and when it is an unlimited form of disablement, that is permanent. It suggests
that imprisonment is the best mode of crime prevention, as it seeks to eliminate offenders
from society, thus disabling them from repeating the crime. The death penalty is also based
on this theory. This theory is another form of deterrent theory. One is to deter the society
while another is to prevent the offender from committing the crime. From an overall study,
we came to know that there are three most important ways of preventive punishment, they
are as follows: 

By creating the fear of punishment.

By disabling the criminal permanently or temporarily from committing any other
crime.
By way of reformation or making them a sober citizen of the society. 
Case Laws:

1. Dr. Jacob George v state of Kerala: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the
aim of punishment should be deterrent, reformative, preventive, retributive &
compensatory. One theory preferred over the other is not a sound policy of
punishment. Each theory of punishment should be used independently or
incorporated on the basis of merit of the case. It is also stated that “every saint
has a past & every sinner has a fortune”. Criminals are very much a part of the
society so it is a responsibility of the society also to reform & correct them and
make them sober citizens of the society. Because the prevention of crime is the
major goal of the society and law, both of which cannot be ignored.
2. Surjit Singh v State of Punjab: In this case, one of the accused, a policeman
entered the house of the deceased with the intention to commit rape but failed to
do so as the as sons of the deceased shouted for help. Another accused suggested
the policeman to kill the deceased. The accused was held liable under section 450
of the Indian Penal Code. While on the contrary, the death penalty or capital
punishment is more of a temporary form of disablement.

Incapacitation Theory of punishment
Meaning: 

The word “incapacitation” means ‘to prevent the offence by punishing, so that the future
generation fears to commit the criminal act.’ Incapacitation happens either by removing the
person from the society, either temporarily, or permanently, or by some other method, which
restricts him due to physical inability. One of the most common way of incapacitation
is incarceration of the offenders, but in case of severe cases, capital punishments are also
applied. The overall aim of incapacitation is preventing or restraining the danger in the
future.

Definition: 

“Incapacitation refers to the restriction of an individual’s freedoms and liberties that they
would normally have in society.” 

Purpose of Incapacitation Theory: 

One of the primary purposes of this theory is removing the sufficiently dangerous persons
from the society. The risk that is found to be posed by the offenders are largely a matter of
inception. Therefore, if one country treats one offence in one way, another country will treat
the same offence in a different way. For example, in the U.S., they use incarceration to
incapacitate offenders at a much higher rate, than in other countries. It has been seen that
unlike the other theories of punishments like deterrence, rehabilitation and restitution, the
theory of incapacitation simply rearranges the distribution of offenders in the society so that
the rate of crime decreases in the society. The main aim of the theory of incapacitation is to
dissuade others from the offenders in the past, so that it is not followed by the future
generation. 

Application of the theory: 

The theory of incapacitation gets reserved only for those people who are either sentenced to
prison or to life imprisonment. Yet, it also includes things like being supervised by the
departments within the community, like probation and parole.

Origin: 

The theory of incapacitation was originated in Britain, during the 18th and the 19th centuries,
where the convicted offenders were often transported to places like America and Australia.
Later in the 21st century, the theory was changed to some extent, where the offenders were
to remain in the primary method of incapacitation which was found in most of the
contemporary penal systems. Therefore, the theory usually takes the form of imprisonment,
which is considered to be the best the form of incapacitation, rather than other methods of
incapacitation.

So, can incapacitation reduce crime?

According to a study conducted by The University of Chicago, it has been proven that the
crime rates can be prevented by 20 per cent. Also, it has been seen that if other theories are
applied like Retributive Theory, Compensatory Theory, etc., then they lay down a fairly
stringent application of putting the criminal behind the bars for at least 5 years. Also, it can
happen to increase the population of the prison if the rest of the theories are applied. If a
small number of high-rate offenders commit a disproportionately large amount of crime,
targeting limited prison resources on these offenders should achieve increased crime control
without increasing prison populations unreasonably. This policy will depend on the degree of
the crime committed and whether the criminal is early in his carrier. 

Compensatory Theory of punishment
Definition: 

The main look out in the law of crimes is to penalize the criminal, and/or to seek his
reformation and rehabilitation with all the resources and goodwill available through the
Courts and other Governmental and non-Governmental organizations. It must be seen that
the criminals should get proper judgement for their crimes so caused and the harassment
caused to the victim and towards their family members and property. The victims in a crime
can be compensated on mainly two grounds, namely-

1. A criminal who had inflicted an injury against the person (or group of persons), or
the property must be compensated for the loss caused that has caused to the
victim, and
2. The State that has failed to provide safety towards its citizens, must receive
compensation for the loss caused.
Compensation is the true essence of deterrent, reformative and a necessary contribution of
retribution.

Case Laws:

In the landmark case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal the Apex Court held that a
victim who is under the custodial right, has every right to get compensated as her
Right to Life, which is under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been breached by
the officer of the State. 
In State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, Justice Thomas had
held that, “The Reformative and reparative theories deserve serious consideration,
where the victim(s) of crime or his family members should get compensated from
the wages that is earned in prison by the criminal.” The Court suggested that the
particular State should enact a comprehensive legislation in respect of his
compensation payable to victim of a crime.

Reformative Theory of punishment
The idea of the Reformative Theory is hypothesis. As per this hypothesis, the object of
discipline ought to be the change of the crook, through the strategy for individualization. It
depends on the humanistic rule that regardless of whether a wrongdoer perpetrates a
wrongdoing, he doesn’t stop to be a person. In this way, an exertion ought to be made to
change him/her during the time of his/her detainment. For example, he may have executed
bad behaviour under conditions which may never happen again. Hence an effort should be
made to transform him during the hour of his confinement. The object of order should be to
accomplish the moral difference in the liable party. He ought to be told and perform some
craftsmanship or industry during the hour of his confinement with the objective that he may
have the alternative to start his life again after his conveyance from jail.

History of the Theory:

The human development has consistently been administered under the standard of an
incomparable force. The job and type of pre-eminent force has changed throughout a long
term. Beginning from the primitive type of Government to the present just, republican and
different types of Governments, the obligation of the incomparable authority has changed a
lot. The idea of discipline has additionally changed like the idea of State duty throughout the
long term. The idea of discipline relied upon the premise of religion and the organization of
the Kings. During old occasions, the idea of discipline was retributive premise, where the
hoodlums were given uncouth type of discipline. Afterward, over the entry of ages, the
significance of common liberties expanded which in essence cleared path for the replacement
of Retributive hypothesis by Reformatory and Rehabilitative hypotheses. Under the
Reformative and Rehabilitative hypotheses, the blamed are given such structures for
discipline which would change them and keep them from perpetrating such wrongdoings. 

The theory of punishment being followed in India with the goal to change the crooks as
opposed to rebuffing them isn’t that compelling in avoidance of the event of violations in
India. The essential idea of law isn’t to be static, but to be dynamic in nature. At exactly that
point the law will have the option to be successful in all fields of the general public.

The Main Purpose Reformative Theory:

The reason for this hypothesis of discipline is to make the criminal languish over his bad
behaviour. Here the motivation behind the discipline is profoundly customized and rotates
around the mental outlet of the person in question or his family. The primary reason might be
accomplished to parole and probation, which have been acknowledged as current procedures
of improving the guilty parties all around the globe. Consequently, the backers of this
hypothesis legitimize imprisonment not exclusively to separate hoodlums and kill them from
society. Not many of the advanced reformative procedures of discipline are essentially
concocted for the treatment of guilty parties as per their mental attributes, for example,
probation, parole, uncertain sentence, exhortation and pardon. The reformative techniques
have demonstrated to be valuable in the event of adolescent misconduct, first wrongdoers
and ladies. Sex cases additionally appear to react well to the reformative strategy for
discipline. All the more as of late, the reformative hypothesis is in effect widely utilized as a
technique for treatment of intellectually denied wrongdoers.

Criticism:

1. Reformative theory anticipates better framework and offices in jail, legitimate co-
appointment between various control and diligent exertion on their part to shape
criminals. It requires gigantic ventures which poor nation can’t bear the cost of.
2. A great many guiltless individuals who have high respects for law are finding hard
to get fundamental courtesies hypothesizes moral avocation for giving better
offices inside jail. 
3. Also, the soundness of the hypothesis is more towards motivators for the
commission of wrongdoing instead of counteraction. 
4. Transformation can work out on those individuals who can be improved, there are
individuals who can’t be changed like bad-to-the-bone lawbreaker, profoundly
instructed and proficient hoodlums. 
5. This theory disregards possible wrongdoers and people who have submitted
wrongdoing however not inside the arms of law. Further, it ignores the cases of
survivors of violations.
6. Degenerate social ecological is liable for wrongdoing yet not person duty, is the
way of thinking of reformative which is difficult to process. In any case, it is out of
line to excuse the honourable idea of reconstruction as a complete disappointment.
All know about the occasions where untalented, uninformed and evidently hopeless
lawbreakers have created aptitudes in jail, which have changed them into
profoundly valuable people.

Utilitarian Theory of punishment
The utilitarian hypothesis of discipline tries to rebuff guilty parties to debilitate, or “hinder,”
future bad behaviour. Under the utilitarian philosophy, laws ought to be utilized to amplify
the joy of society. Since wrongdoing and discipline are conflicting with bliss, they ought to be
kept to a base. Utilitarian’s comprehend that a wrongdoing-free society doesn’t exist, yet
they attempt to incur just as much discipline as is needed to forestall future violations. 

The utilitarian hypothesis is “consequentialist” in nature. It perceives that discipline has

ramifications for both the wrongdoer and society and holds that the all-out great created by
the discipline ought to surpass the absolute malevolence. At the end of the day, discipline
ought not be boundless. One delineation of consequentialism in discipline is the arrival of a
jail detainee experiencing an incapacitating sickness. In the event that the detainee’s demise
is fast approaching, society isn’t served by his proceeded with restriction since he is not, at
this point fit for carrying out wrongdoings. 

Under the utilitarian way of thinking, laws that indicate discipline for criminal leads ought to
be intended to dissuade future criminal direct. Discouragement works on a particular and an
overall level. General discouragement implies that the discipline ought to keep others from
carrying out criminal acts. The discipline fills in as an illustration to the remainder of society,
and it advises others that criminal conduct will be rebuffed. Explicit discouragement implies
that the discipline ought to keep similar individual from perpetrating violations. Explicit
prevention works in two different ways. Initially, a guilty party might be placed in prison or
jail to truly keep her from perpetrating another wrongdoing for a predefined period.
Secondly, this crippling is intended to be undesirable to such an extent that it will demoralize
the guilty party from rehashing her criminal conduct.

Does Utilitarian Theory Support Death Penalty:

The apparent seriousness of capital punishment, there has been an exceptional debate
encompassing the issue. Rivals of capital punishment pronounce that it is savage and harsh
thus the administration ought to get rid of it. Then again, its allies keep up that capital
punishment is a fundamental type of discipline that ought to be utilized on the most horrible
guilty parties in the public eye. The exceptionally captivated discussion on capital punishment
has kept on existing for quite a long time. Moral hypotheses can be utilized to concoct an
answer for this exceptionally dubious issue. Morals figure out what is the correct strategy in a
given circumstance. Various strong moral hypotheses have been proposed by researchers
and scholars throughout the long term. This paper will utilize one of the most broadly applied
moral hypotheses, which is utilitarianism, to exhibit that capital punishment is for sure
legitimized. 

Review of the Utilitarian Theory:

From a utilitarian viewpoint, activities that advance the satisfaction of the larger part in the
public arena ought to be sought after while those that prevent this bliss ought to be evaded.
The utilitarian hypothesis can be applied to the issue of the death penalty since this type of
discipline produces both positive and negative results. 

Net Benefits:

The principal significant advantage offered by capital punishment is that it assumes a huge
discouragement job. The most significant objective of the criminal equity framework is to
debilitate individuals from taking part in wrongdoing. 
This is accomplished by joining disciplines to violations with the goal that an individual sees
the benefits of taking part in unlawful activities as being exceeded by the results. In that
capacity, an ideal society would be one where nobody is rebuffed since the danger of
discipline shields everybody from taking part in wrongdoing. Capital punishment is the most
extreme discipline and its accessibility is probably going to dissuade individuals who probably
won’t be frightened by long jail sentences. 

From a utilitarian point of view, the prevention job is moral since it adds to the general
satisfaction of the general public. At the point when crooks are deflected from participating in
wrongdoing, the general public is more secure and individuals appreciate the harmony and
security in their networks. 

Another huge advantage offered by capital punishment to the general public is that it
prompts the perpetual debilitation of the indicted individual. Not at all like different types of
discipline which just confine a portion of the opportunities of the guilty party, capital
punishment removes his life.

Conclusion
Thus, we saw the different Theories of Punishments in detail. We understood what are the
guiding principles behind them, how are they different from one another and some very
important Case Laws pertaining to the same. However, we need to understand very clearly
that punishment is something which should be inflicted very carefully. As the famous saying
goes that ‘Let go of a hundred guilty, rather to punish an innocent’, we need to
understand that inflicting a punishment upon someone changes his mental, physical and
social status drastically. It has a very grave impact upon him and his being. Thus, while
administering criminal justice, utter carefulness has to be executed, or else the very
principles of justice would go for a toss.

UNIT 4
victimology, branch of criminology that scientifically studies the relationship
between an injured party and an offender by examining the causes and the nature of
the consequent suffering. Specifically, victimology focuses on whether the
perpetrators were complete strangers, mere acquaintances, friends, family members,
or even intimates and why a particular person or place was
targeted. Criminal victimization may inflict economic costs, physical injuries, and
psychological harm.

Victimology first emerged in the 1940s and ’50s, when several criminologists
(notably Hans von Hentig, Benjamin Mendelsohn, and Henri Ellenberger) examined
victim-offender interactions and stressed reciprocal influences and role reversals.
These pioneers raised the possibility that certain individuals who suffered wounds
and losses might share some degree of responsibility with the lawbreakers for their
own misfortunes. For example, the carelessness of some motorists made the tasks of
thieves easier; reckless behaviour on the part of intoxicated customers in a bar often
attracted the attention of robbers; and provocation by some brawlers caused
confrontations to escalate to the point that the instigator was injured or even killed.
More controversially, women were sometimes said to bear some responsibility for
misunderstandings that evolved into sexual assaults. By systematically investigating
the actions of victims, costly mistakes could be identified and risk-reduction
strategies could be discerned. Furthermore, those who stress the culpability of
injured parties for their victimization, such as defense attorneys, tended to argue in
favour of mitigating the punishment of offenders.

Although the field originally focused on the varying degrees of victim

blameworthiness, by the 1970s this preoccupation became overshadowed by studies
intended to prevent victimization, to improve the way complainants are handled by
the police and courts, and to speed recovery. Victimology is enriched by other fields
of study, particularly psychology, social work, sociology, economics, law, and political
science. Whereas lawyers, criminal justice officials, counselors, therapists, and
medical professionals provide the actual services, victimologists study the kinds of
help injured parties need and the effectiveness of efforts intended to make them
“whole again,” both financially and emotionally. Victims of murder, rape, spousal
abuse, elder abuse, child abuse, and kidnapping have received the most research
attention, but entire categories of victims that were formerly overlooked have been
rediscovered (e.g., people with disabilities that make them unusually vulnerable and
targets of workplace violence, hate crimes, and terrorist attacks). Other groups have
been discovered and protected, such as individuals who have fallen victim to identity
theft.

One focus of victimology has centred on identifying and measuring the frequency
(both annual incidence and lifetime prevalence rates) of various types of
victimizations, such as stalking, date rape, and carjacking. Some research has
focused on the related challenge of explaining why the risks of violent victimization
vary so dramatically from group to group, especially by age, gender, social class,
race, ethnicity, and area of residence (mostly as a result of exposure to dangerous
persons because of routine activities as well as lifestyle choices). Another area of
concern to victimologists is how the legal system (e.g., detectives in specialized
squads, victim-witness assistance programs administered by the offices of
prosecutors, and state-administered financial compensation programs) deals with
victims in their capacity as witnesses for the government. Victimologists have
documented how the interests and needs of injured parties have been routinely
overlooked historically but are now being addressed because the victims’ rights
movement has won concessions that empower victims within the justice system.

Victimologists have evaluated the numerous projects initiated since the early 1970s
by advocacy and self-help groups (e.g., battered women’s shelters and rape-crisis
centres) and the legislation that has enabled victims to have greater input into the
decision-making process that resolves their cases (e.g., over such matters as
sentencing and parole). The field also explores the social reaction to the plight of
victims by the media, by businesses marketing protective products and services, and
by political groups urging ostensibly “pro-victim” reforms and legislation. In
addition, victimologists study the impulse toward vigilantism in retaliation for past
wrongs as well as the opposite tendency—that is, a willingness to accept restitution as
a prerequisite for mutual reconciliation—which is the foundation of
the alternative paradigm of restorative justice. Restorative justice relies upon
mediation, negotiation, dialogue, and compromise to build a consensus within
a community that the wrongdoer must accept responsibility for actions taken and
make genuine efforts to assist injured parties and repair any damage to harmonious
relations.
Victimologists often collect their own data, but they also analyze the detailed
information provided by government agencies that collect official crime statistics
based either on incidents reported to police departments (such as the Federal Bureau
of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Reports) or on incidents disclosed to survey
interviewers by respondents who are part of a large representative sample of a cross-
section of the public (such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
Victimization Survey).