Theories of Punishments in PPC

 Introduction

Punishments are given as a response to criminal behavior. When someone commits a crime, violates  a law and become a  cause of  harm for  others or to society as a whole. The purpose of punishment is to hold the offender accountable for their actions and to discourage them and others from committing same crimes in the future.

Definition of punishments

According to Black’s Law Dictionary

           

            "The infliction of pain, suffering, or loss that serves as retribution, example, or dissuasion for an offense or crime."

 This definition draws attention to the three main purposes of punishment:

1.     Retribution (a response to the harm caused by the crime)
2.     Example (to deter others from committing similar crimes)
3.  Discouragement (to discourage the offender from committing future crimes)

Characteristics of Punishments:

Here are the characteristics of punishments in simple and easy points:

 

1)      Punishments must be authorized by law.
2)      The intensity of the punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
3)      Punishments should be consistent across different cases and offenders.
4)      Offenders should know what punishment to expect if they commit a particular crime.
5)      Punishments should be publicized to deter others from committing similar crimes.
6)      Punishments can be seen as a form of retribution or response to the harm caused by the crime.
7)      Punishments can be used to change future criminal behavior.
8)      Punishments can be used to rehabilitate offenders and help them become productive members of society.
9)      Punishments can include restitution to victims of the crime.
10)  Punishments can also focus on restoring relationships and promoting healing in the community.

Theories of Punishments

• v  Utilitarian Theory
• v  Retributive Theory
• v  Deterrent Theory
• v  Preventive Theory
• v  Reformative Theory
• v  Compensation theory

Utilitarian Theory

The Utilitarian Theory states that punishment should focus to deter criminals from committing crimes by making the punishment more unpleasant than the pleasure they might gain from committing the crime. This focuses on preventing future crimes and promoting overall happiness and well-being in society.

Deterrent Theory

Deterrent theory states that people are less likely to do something if they think they will get in trouble for it. This is often used to prevent crime by making potential criminals realize that the punishment for their crimes will be severe and certain. So, people are diverted from committing crimes because they are afraid of getting caught and punished.

Salmond’s View

Salmond believed punishment should deter future crime by being quick, fair, and consistent. Punishment can deter people in two ways:

1)      By setting an example for others (general deterrence)

2)    By changing the behavior of the person being punished (specific deterrence).

Criticism

 

1)    1)The fear of punishment may not be the main thing that diverts people from committing crimes.
 
2)      The intensity of punishment may not be as important as the certainty and swiftness of punishment.
 
3)      Deterrent theory assumes that punishment is always just and fair, but punishment can be unjust if it is applied unequally or unfairly.
 
4)      Deterrent theory can have unintended results, such as aggressive policing, over criminalization, and mass imprisonment.

Retributive Theory

Retributive theory states that punishment should be same to the crime, and the offender deserves to be punished for their wrongdoing to restore the moral balance of society. Critics argue that it can lead to overly harsh punishments and doesn't consider underlying factors of criminal behavior.

This view is based on the maxim that:

Guilt+ Punishment=innocence

Kant’s View

Kant promoted retributive theory, where punishment should be in accordance with crime and be solely based on retribution. He believed punishment should not be used for deterrence or rehabilitation and supported the principle of "an eye for an eye."

Bentham’s View

 

Bentham believed in utilitarianism, where actions should promote happiness for the most people. Punishment should be appropriate to the harm caused by the crime, and he was against harsh punishments.

Criticism

1)      Lack of effectiveness

Retributive punishment may not address the root causes of criminal behavior or offer opportunities for rehabilitation, making it ineffective in reducing crime.

2)      Unfairness

Retributive punishment can disproportionately affect marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as people of color and those from low-income backgrounds, leading to questions of fairness and justice.

3)      Revenge-based

Some argue that retributive theory is based on a desire for revenge, rather than a genuine concern for justice and the well-being of society.

4)      Expensive

Punishments based on retributive theory can be expensive and require significant resources, such as lengthy legal proceedings and imprisonment, which can be a burden on society as a whole.

5)      Moral and ethical concerns

Retributive punishment raises moral and ethical concerns about its inhumane or degrading nature and its potential violation of human rights.

Preventive Theory

The Preventive Theory tries to control crime by addressing the underlying reasons of criminal behavior in individuals before a crime is committed. It suggests providing support such as education, employment, or mental health treatment, to prevent criminal behavior. For example, requiring an offender to attend drug rehab to prevent future drug-related crimes.

Paton’s View

Paton states that punishment should prevent for future crimes, focus on rehabilitation, and address the main reasons of criminal mindset. Paton thought that preventive punishment is more effective than conventional penalties in decreasing crimes rates in social system.

Criticism

1)      This theory Punishes individuals for Possible future crimes

2)      Risk of punishing innocent people who fit a certain profile considered as risk

3)      Can lead to discrimination against certain groups

4)      Punishment may be excessive and not proportional to harm

5)      May have negative effects on individual, increasing risk of future criminal behavior

Reformative Theory

Reformative Theory is a way of punishing offenders by helping them change their behavior and reestablish into society. It aims on addressing the underlying issues that led them to commit a crime. This approach involves education, therapy, and other forms of support to help them become better citizens. The main object is to prevent future crimes and promote a safer society.

Criticism

1)      One of the main criticisms of reformative theory is that it is not always effective in rehabilitating offenders and reducing re-offense rates.

2)      Some argue that the Focus on rehabilitation can lead to a lack of accountability for the offender's actions and minimize the importance of punishment.

3)      Another criticism is that the resources required to implement rehabilitation programs can be costly and not always attainable in every criminal justice system.

4)      Lastly, some argue that the focus on individual rehabilitation ignores larger societal factors, such as poverty and systemic injustices that contribute to criminal behavior.

Compensation Theory

Compensation theory is a punishment Way that highlights compensating the victim for the harm caused by the offender. The offender must restore the damage done instead of just being punished or rehabilitated. Compensation can be in the form of money or other forms of restitution, such as community service.

Objects

1)      It focuses on paying the victim or their family for the harm caused by the offender's actions.

2)      It believes that the offender should be required to make up for the harm they have caused.

3)      This compensation can take the form of Cash payment or other forms of restitution, like community service or providing assistance to the victim.

Case Laws

Title: Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India (1995)

In India, the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India (1995) held that compensation must be paid to rape victims for physical, emotional and psychological harm suffered by them.

Title: State vs. Cauthron (2000)

In the United States, the case of State vs. Cauthron (2000) held that the offender must pay compensation to the victim for the harm caused by their actions.

Criticism

1)      Compensation theory is criticized for primarily giving benefit to the victim and neglecting the offender's rehabilitation and future behavior.

2)      Critics argue that the focus on compensating the victim may not be efficient in preventing future crimes or reducing re-offense rates.

3)      Another criticism is that the compensation system may create a financial burden on the offender, which could hinder their ability to reintegrate into society.

4)      Some critics argue that compensation may not always be possible, especially in cases where the harm caused by the offender is non-monetary or psychological in nature.

 

Thanks For Reading!