Skip to main content

Theories of Punishment

 Theories of Punishment

What is Punishment- 

Punishment can be defined as the pain inflicted on a person or seizure of his property who is found guilty of a crime under any established law.  According to Professor H.L.A Hart, the punishment must have the below elements-

  1. Punishment must involve some kind of pain or any other unpleasant consequences.

  2. Punishment must be inflicted on an actual offender found guilty for his offense.

  3. Punishment must be administered by any other person and not by the offender.

  4. Punishment must be given for an offense that goes against legal rules.

  5. Only an authority established or constituted by a legal system can impose and administer punishment. 

Various Theories of Punishment are-

1)  Retributive theory- This theory of punishment is influenced from olden times, where the injured person used to take revenge for the wrong deeds done to him by the offender. Retributive theory is based on the concept of revenge and the best way to explain it is “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. The retributive theory is an end in itself as the evil should be treated as evil and should be returned evil. But this theory is heavily criticized and is losing its significance in the modern world.

2) Preventive theory- As the name suggests preventive punishment is based on the concept of “not to avenge crime but to prevent it”. This theory aims to prevent the crime by anticipating the crime in advance and incapacitating the offenders. Some measures like preventive detention, security for keeping good behaviour, seizure of license, etc are the most popular practice preventing crime. This theory is also full of criticism as it does not work successfully every time in checking crime.

3) Deterrent theory- Deterrent theory aims to create deterrence in society or to deter the criminal from committing a crime in the future and to set an example for others that they will also be punished similarly for committing a crime. When the criminal is punished it creates an impression in the society that crimes are not going unnoticed and no wrong can be excused. This theory has been criticized for not setting up enough deterrence for a habitual offender.

4) Expiatory theory- This theory is popularly known as penance theory. This theory is influenced by Hindu Jurisprudence. According to this theory for purification of the offender punishment is necessary. Here the offender gives punishment to himself so that he can purify himself. This theory has been criticized because there cannot be any standardized punishment and the offender cannot himself decide the amount and type of punishment he wants to undergo.

5) Reformative theory- The reformative theory of punishment seeks to reform the offender by changing his attitude and restoring him back to society. Many countries have developed this theory and adopted this theory as a method of punishment in their country. This theory critically analyses the reason behind the commission of the crime and after analysing the reason, it suggests reformative measures by which the offender can reform himself.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more