1)CRIME IS THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF CRIME AND CRIMINALS?

DISCUSS

THE NATURE, SCOPE AND CONCEPT OF CRIMINOLOGY

INTRODUCTION:

The subject of criminology is practically useful as it promotes the welfare of the whole community.

The principles criminology is used in framing penal policies. The process of eliminating crimes from a

society relies on the efficiency of the criminal law of that country and the object of criminology is to reduce

the rate of crime incidence and administer it effectively by means of the court, police, prisons, etc.

Nowadays, there is growth of bank robberies, rape, illegal politics, white collared crimes,

etc. and so the criminologists are of the view that criminology and penology should work

together to reduce criminality and to protect the society from anti-social elements.

DEFINITION OF CRIME:

The legal meaning of crime is an act or omission punishable by law. Crime is an act which

is forbidden by law and revolting to moral sentiments of the society.

1.SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE:

Crime is a violation of the public right and duties due to the whole community, considered

as community.

2.STEPHEN:

A crime is an act or omission in respect of which legal punishment may be inflicted on the

person who is in default, either by acting or omitting to act.

3.AUSTIN:

A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives is a

civil injury. A wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinate is a crime.

4.KENNY:

Crimes are wrong whose sanction is punitive and is in no way remissible by any private

person, but is remissible by crown alone, if remissible at all.

Criminal law includes the definition, prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment

of crimes. It lays down the offence, proof, procedure and punishment.

DEFINITION OF CRIMINOLOGY:

Criminology is, in general, the scientific study of crime and its cure/treatment. The

scientific study of crime and its cure involves the study of nature of crime, criminal behaviour,

treatment of criminals by way of punishment etc., and prevention of crimes. The criminology

is the offshoot of the development in sociology, psychology and psychiatry.

Prof. Sutherland defines criminology as the body of knowledge regarding crime as asocial

phenomena.

Prof. Caldwell remarks, “criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime and

criminals and efforts of society to repress and prevent them.”

Thus, the study of criminology includes investigation of the nature of criminal law, its

administration and development and causation of crime and penalties of criminals. It also

includes the control of crimes and rehabilitation of offenders.

 According to Prof. Radzionowich, criminology is the study of causes of crimes, checking

and controlling crimes and also the study of criminal law.

Dr. Kenny says that ‘criminology is the branch of criminal science which deals with crime

causation, analysis and prevention of crimes.’

Criminology – whether a science?

Criminology is not a science at present. But it has great scope to become a science in future.

The essence of science is universal truth and stability, but crime is neither stable nor its

principles are universally applicable.

While scientific concepts remain throughout the world, crime changes from place to place

and time to time.

Further, crime changes with social phenomenon. The presence of crimes in society shows

the symptoms of social disorganisation, which should be corrected for its prevention.

However, criminologists are constantly trying to establish standards rules for prevention of

crimes and criminals. It is hoped that in the near future, such standards will form the

fundamental principles of criminology can definitely be classified as a science.

NATURE OF CRIMINOLOGY:

• Interdisciplinary: Criminology is inherently interdisciplinary, drawing on insights

from a wide range of social, behavioural and natural sciences. It integrates knowledge

from sociology, psychology, law, economics, anthropology, biology and more. This

interdisciplinary approach allows criminologists to gain a holistic understanding of

crime and its origins.

• Empirical: Criminology is rooted in empirical research. It places a strong emphasis on

collecting and analysing data to study criminal behaviour, crime patterns and the

effectiveness of various crime prevention and control strategies. By relying on real-

world evidence, criminologists can develop evidence-based policies and interventions.

• Theoretical: Criminology is heavily theoretical, with various criminological theories

attempting to explain the motivations and causes behind criminal behaviour. These

theories range from classical theories like deterrence to contemporary ones such as

strain theory, social learning theory and routine activities theory. These theoretical

frameworks help criminologists understand and predict criminal behaviour.

• Applied: Criminology is an applied field. It takes the insights generated through

research and theory and applies them to real-world problems. Criminologists work

collaboratively with law enforcement agencies, policymakers and other stakeholders to

develop practical strategies for crime prevention and criminal justice improvement.

• Employs a Scientific Method: Criminology relies on the scientific method, involving

the formulation of hypotheses, data collection, analysis and the testing of theories. This

empirical approach ensures that research in criminology is conducted rigorously and

systematically.

• Policy-Oriented: Criminology often has a policy-oriented focus. Research in this field

has a direct impact on the development and reform of criminal justice policies. It

informs lawmakers, judges, law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities in

making evidence-based decisions.

SCOPE OF CRIMINOLOGY:

The scope of criminology is expansive and includes various subfields and areas of focus:

• Crime Causation: One of the fundamental aspects of criminology is the study of

factors contributing to criminal behaviour. This includes examining the influence of

socioeconomic conditions, socialisation, mental health and even genetic and

neurological factors.

• Criminal Typologies: Criminologists analyse different types of criminals, their

characteristics and the patterns of crimes they commit. This knowledge aids in tailoring

prevention and intervention strategies to specific offender profiles.

• Victimology: Understanding the impact of crime on victims and their experiences is a

crucial component. This knowledge is used to design support systems and services that

cater to the needs of victims.

• Criminal Justice System: Criminology evaluates the functioning of the criminal

justice system, which encompasses the police, courts and correctional institutions. It

assesses the effectiveness and fairness of the system in dealing with crime and

criminals.

• Crime Prevention and Control: Criminologists are actively involved in developing,

implementing and assessing crime prevention strategies. This includes rehabilitation

programs, community policing and measures to reduce recidivism.

 • Comparative Criminology: This subfield involves comparing crime rates, criminal

justice policies and cultural differences across different countries and societies. The aim

is to identify effective approaches to crime control and to learn from international

practices.

• Specialised Areas: Criminology also encompasses specialised areas like white-collar

crime, which focuses on non-violent crimes committed by individuals in positions of

trust or authority and cybercrime, which investigates crimes committed in the digital

realm, including hacking, identity theft and online scams.

CONCEPT OF CRIMINOLOGY:

• The word Criminology was originally formed by joining two ancient Greek words

“krino” meaning accusation and “logos” meaning reason or study. Subsequently, on a

bare understanding of the root words, we may agree that the term implies the “study of

accusation.” Criminology is the scientific study of wrongdoing, including its causes,

reactions by law implementation, and techniques for avoidance.

• It is a sub-gathering of sociology, which is the logical investigation of social conduct.

• There are numerous fields of study that are utilized in the field of criminology,

including science, insights, brain research, psychiatry, financial matters, and human

sciences. In 1885, an Italian law educator, Raffaele Garofalo, came up with the term

criminology. However, during that time, it didn’t get the spotlight.

• During the underlying days of its initiation, it underlined the change of criminal law

and not on the reasons for criminal offences. The principal coursebook which explicitly

managed criminology was written in 1920 by the American humanist, Maurice

 Parmalee under the title “Criminology”, and with this, it advanced into the equity

conveyance framework.

Just as criminology is a subgroup of sociology, criminology itself has several sub-groups

which includes:

• Penology: the study of prisons and prison systems.

• Bio criminology: the study of the biological basis of criminal behaviour.

• Feminist criminology: the study of women and crime.

• Criminalistics: the study of crime detection

CONCLUSION:

The nature and scope of criminology encompass a wide range of topics related to the study

of crime, criminal behaviour and the criminal justice system. Criminology, by its very nature

and scope, is an interdisciplinary field that draws from sociology, psychology, law and other

disciplines to understand the causes of crime. Its empirical and theoretical approaches are used

to analyse crime patterns and develop effective prevention strategies.

The nature and scope of criminology also extend to the evaluation of the criminal justice

system, examining its functioning and effectiveness. This scope of criminology addresses

diverse areas, including crime causation, criminal typologies, victimology, comparative

criminology, white-collar crime and cybercrime, making it a valuable tool for understanding

and addressing issues related to crime and criminal justice

 2) EXPLAIN CLASSICAL SCHOOL AND POSITIVIST (ITALIAN) SCHOOL?

DISCUSS THE CONTRIBUTION OF BECCARIA AND LOMBROS TO THE

DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY?

INTRODUCTION:

Criminology is a science dealing with the particular conduct of individuals which are

prohibited by the society. It discovers the causes of criminality and suggests the remedies to

reduce crimes.

This science of criminology has been developed by different schools of criminology. The

development of criminology is called ‘Evolution of Criminology’ or ‘Criminological

Reminiscence’

Sir Beccaria, an Italian school teacher is the founder of the modern criminology.

Sutherland says that each school of criminology explains the causation of crime and

suggests methods of its elimination and punishments.

CLASSICAL SCHOOL:

Beccaria was the pioneer of this school. During the middle of the 18th century, the free will

of the individual was given more emphasis and the theory of omnipotence of spirits was

rejected.

One man getting pleasure in consequences of an act and another man suffering out such act

is the basic principles of this school. It is called it is called ‘pain and pleasure theory’.

I. The criminal act rather than the intention of the criminal formed the basis to determine

the criminality.
 II. The Sovereign has the absolute right to punish the offenders. The punishment must be

in proportion to the pleasure derived by the offenders as a consequence of committing

the crime and in proportion to the pain suffered by the victim.

III. Equal punishment must be sanctioned for the same offence irrespective of environment

and circumstances under which the crime was committed.

IV. Positive sanction must be supported and as such, the decision of the judges must be

strictly confined to the provisions of the statutory law.

V. The school laid more emphasis on the prevention of crime than the punishment for it.

It emphasized the requirement of a clear criminal justice system.

DEFECTS:

I. The school laid little stress on the state of mind of the criminals.

II. Equal punishments for first offenders and habitual criminals was an irrational approach.

However, the greatest advantage of this school is that is shifted the emphasis on the

personality of the offender to determine the guilt from the earlier concepts of mythys and

omnipotence of spirit.

POSITIVE SCHOOL:

The scientific researches of the 19th century established the fact that anthropological

features of the criminals were the real causes of criminality.

The criminality has a close relation with the structure and functioning of the brain. The

positive school is the outcome of the above co-relationships.

Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, Gabriel Trade, and Raffaele Garofalo are the main exponents of this

school.
CONTRIBUTION OF BECCARIA AND LOMBROSO TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF

CRIMINOLOGY:

• Cesare Lombroso is regarded as the father of modern criminology,

especially due to his theory of the ‘born criminal.’ Born Ezechia Marco

Lombroso on 6th November 1835, he was an Italian physician, phrenologist,

and criminologist credited with founding the Italian School of Positivist

Criminology (Rafter, 2018).

• Cesare Beccaria, born Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, Marquis of Gualdrasco

and Villareggio on 15th March 1738, he is remembered as an Italian

economist, philosopher, criminologist, politician and jurist (Ranasinghe,

2022). He is credited for the renowned treatise that condemned the death

penalty and torture, ‘On Crimes and Punishments,’ in 1764 (Ranasinghe,

2022). The treatise was fundamental in developing the Classical School of

criminology and penology; hence he is regarded as the father of criminal

justice.

• Lombroso and Becarria played a great role in establishing modern

criminology by rejecting the classical criminology school of thought.

Lombroso rejected the ideology that crime was a part of human nature. He

drew from the degeneration theory, social Darwinism, psychiatry, and

physiognomy to develop the theory of anthropological criminology.

• Lombroso’s theory stated that the criminal nature could be genetically

inherited, and a ‘born criminal’ could be identified by physical features

that define criminals at birth, such as an atavistic or savage face (Rafter,

2018).
• Beccaria’s book on crimes and punishments involved his reflection on the

death penalty. It advocated for related reforms in the criminal justice system,

suggesting that they should comprise principles that adhere to rationality as

per the vision that the enlightenment thinkers had for the system.

• Beccaria’s criminology works protested against secret accusations,

inequality, inconsistency of sentencing, obtaining confessions through

torture, the haphazard dissemination of power to judges, the use of the death

sentence for minor and serious offenses, and the corruption of lighter

sentences (Ranasinghe, 2022). He noted that there were fewer studies on the

pressing need for criminal justice reforms at his time.

• Appealing to the utility and social contract philosophical theories, Beccaria

argued that justice is preserved when it defends the social contract such that

the public is motivated to adhere to its principles. He also argued that all

select forms of punishment should serve the greatest good of the public

(Ranasinghe, 2022).

• Beccaria articulates two key principal theories that can be used to justify

criminal punishment; the utilitarian and retributive approaches. The

retributive approach argues for an eye for an eye perspective on punishment,

which is equal to any harm meted on the victim. On the other hand, the

utilitarian approach affirmed that the form of punishment should increase

the happiness present in the world.

• Lombroso’s theory believes that multiple physical abnormalities distinguish

criminals from non-criminals. According to his works, criminals had

subhuman and primitive physical features that gave them the visual appeal

of modern ‘savages.’ He noted that these features, reminiscent of lower

 primates, made their beholders susceptible to breaking the expectation,

rules, and regulations of modern civilized society (Rafter, 2018).

• Lombroso arrived at his theory through years of anthropometric studies and

postmortem examinations of criminals, normal individuals, and the insane.

He was convinced that born criminals could be identified anatomically

through their unusual ear size, prognathism, drooping forehead, and unusual

facial asymmetry (Rafter, 2018). He noted that they were less sensitive to

touch and pain, lacked moral sense and remorse, and had more

impulsiveness and cruelty.

• Beccaria and Lombroso developed criminology theories that were

foundational to modern criminology, hence their regard as the founding

fathers of modern criminology.

• Beccaria believes that punishment should deter further crimes from the

criminal or other people. Lombroso’s theory stated that the criminal nature

could be genetically inherited. A ‘born criminal’ could be identified by

physical features that define criminals at birth, such as an atavistic or savage

face.

CONCLUSION :

It may be concluded that schools of criminology are the principles or code of conduct for

Jurisprudence which deals with a socio-legal study which seeks to discover the causes of

criminality and recommends remedies to reduce crime. These schools of criminology are the

base for effective guidelines for the formation of criminal regulations and penal policy.
 3)SALIENT FEATURES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION ACT

2000 AND AMENDMENT 2013?

INTRODUCTION:

The juvenile justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2000 came into force on 1-4-2001

and it replaces the juvenile justice Act, 1986.

The aim of the new Act is to provide effective provisions to deal with cases of juveniles in

conflict with law, their rehabilitation and also their social reintegration.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT:

1) JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:

• This juvenile justice board is more powerful and it substitutes juvenile welfare

board as under the old Act. The juvenile justice boards are contemplated in the

new Act. They are constituted by state governments to deal with the cases

against ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ as under section 4 of the Act.

• The board is headed by a metropolitan magistrate or a judicial First class

magistrate. He is assisted by two social workers one is women. They from a

bench of magistrates having powers of metropolitan or judicial magistrate. The

magistrate is designated as the principal magistrate.

2) ENQUIRY BY BOARD:

• The board has the right to enquiry regarding juveniles in conflict with law.

• The enquiry must be completed within four months from date of

commencement and for special reasons, if the investigation cannot be

completed within four months, then extension may be obtained by recording

reasons in writing under section 14 of the Act.

3) SPECIAL HOMES:

• Special homes are established by the state government. They are run by the

government itself or through voluntary organizations. The homes are used for

receiving and Rehabilating juvenile in conflict with law.

4) SPECIAL JUVENILE POLICE UNIT/DESIGNATED POLICE OFFICER:

• Immediately after apprehension (arrest), the juvenile in conflict with law are

either placed under the charge of special Juvenile police unit or designated

police officer and they have to report about apprehension to board. After that,

the juveniles are also sent to observation homes.

5) CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE:

• The state government is empowered to constitute the child welfare committee

which is headed by chair person and four other members- one of the members

should be woman and other member must be expert in matters concerning

children.

• The committee has all the powers of metropolitan magistrate and it also

functions as bench of magistrate.

• It is final authority in deciding cases relating to care and protection of children

under section 31.

6) PROTECTION OF CHILD IN NEED OF CARE:

• The child in need of care and protection is produced before the child welfare

committee by the following persons as under section 32 of the Act –

i. Any police officer

ii. Official from special juvenile police unit

iii. Any public servant

iv. Any registered voluntary organization

 v. Any social worker

vi. Any public spirited citizen.

After protection of the child, the child welfare committee holds enquiry regarding the child

as per section 33 of the Act.

7) CHILDREN HOMES:

• The state government establishes children homes and maintains such homes

through voluntary organizations as under section 34 of the Act.

• The maintenance and functioning of the children homes are periodically

checked up by an inspection committee appointed by the state government as

under section 35 of the Act.

8) SHELTER HOMES:

• Shelter homes are established by the state government for the purpose of

restoration of protection of a child in need of care and protection as per section

37 of the Act.

9) REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION PROCESS:

• As per section 40 0f the act, juveniles in conflict with law, after the above

processes, are brought under rehabilitation and social integration processes.

This is carried out of four methods.

i. Adoption of the child

ii. Foster care

iii. Sponsorship

iv. Sending the child to after care organizations

10) ADOPTION OF THE CHILD:

• Adoption of the child is done by juvenile justice board as per the guidelines

issued by the state government from time to time as under section 41 of the Act.
 • Generally, orphans, abandoned and neglected children are given in adoption.

Foster care is a temporary measure before adoption. It is done by placing the

child temporarily under foster care units till adoption takes places.

AMENDMENTS TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT,2013:

➢ Firstly, the minor accused of age more than sixteen should present before the

Juvenile Justice Board and then the Board will decide whether to send the

Juvenile for trial as an adult or to send an accused to the rehabilitation center.

This method is judged on the mental and physical ability of the child.

➢ Secondly, the act of juvenile justice treats a minor of age sixteen-eighteen

years as an adult if he has committed any heinous crime in a conflict of the

law. Minor who have committed a serious offence may be tried as an adult

only if he is apprehended after the age of twenty-one years.

a) If a minor of age seventeen years or more committed a serious offence

and had been apprehended before twenty-one years of age, then the

prescribed punishment is maximum three years in a special home with

counselling.

b) If a minor who committed a serious crime who is apprehended after the

age of twenty-one years then the punishment will be tried as an adult

and the imprisonment of three to seven years have been prescribed.

c) If the minor of age seventeen have committed a heinous crime and has

been apprehended below the age of twenty-one year then the prescribed

punishment is based on evaluation of mental and physical capacity, etc.,

may be tried as a child (max. three years) or adult (more than seven

years)
 d) If the minor committed heinous offence and apprehended after the age

of twenty-one year, then the case will be tried as an adult and

imprisonment of 7 years and above is prescribed.

➢ Thirdly, “A new clause on fair trial is added, under which the assessment will look into

the special needs of the child, under the tenet of a fair trial under a child-friendly

atmosphere.”

➢ Fourthly, no life-imprisonment or death sentence to a juvenile.

➢ Fifthly, the inquiry of the case should be completed within four months of the first

production of the child in the Juvenile Justice Board. This can be extended for the

maximum of two more months by recording the reason in writing.

➢ Sixthly, the assessment of the heinous crime should be disposed of within 60 days from

the first production of the child before the juvenile justice board.

➢ Seventhly, ‘inter -country adoption legally free for adoption’ allowed if adoption cannot

take place within the country, within 30 days of the child being declared.

➢ Eighthly, if the biological parents want to give their child for adoption, then they have

given a chance to rethink about their decision for three months instead of one month.

➢ Ninthly, “any child who has been abandoned by biological parents due to unavoidable

circumstances will not be considered to be wilfully giving up the child.”

CONCLUSION:

The increasing rates of juvenile crime in India in very concerning issue and need to be

focused upon. Although government has laid various legislation and rules to stop the incidents

of juvenile crimes but the present laws on juveniles is not creating a deterrent effect on the

juveniles and thus the results are not fruitful and legislative intent is not accomplishing.
 4)SALIENT FEATURES OF PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1958?

INTRODUCTION:

The Latin words "PORBO," which means "I prove my merit," and "Probation," which

means "Approval test," are the roots of the English word "probation," which is used to

determine if a person can exist in society without breaking the law. As a result, probation

describes the process of proving one's worth and developing a character that enables one to be

released.

The primary objective of the criminal justice system is to reform the criminals rather than

punish them and to provide a socialized penal device for supporting this principle of

reformation. Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 stated that any convict not

under the age of 21 years punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less or, any convict under

the age of 21 years or any woman not punishable with life imprisonment or the death penalty,

can be released on probation of good conduct. This paved the way for the enactment of

the Probation of Offenders Act by the Parliament on 16 May 1958. Eventually, Section 562 of

Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 was repealed by Section 19 of the Act.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT:

1) The object of the probation of offenders Act, 1958 is to reform the first time offenders

and rehabilitate them back in the society. It also aims to prevent the young offenders

becoming hardended criminals due to the social and environmental influence, if they

are kept in jails along with the hardended criminals.

2) This Act extends to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Further,

the Act comes into force in a state on such date as the state government may, by

notification in the official gazette, appoint. It also provides freedom to state government

to bring the Act into force on different dates in different parts of the state.
3) It aims to release the first time offenders, after due admonition (warning) with the

advice that they should not again commit any offence in future. However, the offence

alleged to have been committed by them must be offences punishable under section

379, 380, 381, 404 or section 420 of the Indian penal code and/or offences punishable

with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both (section 3).

4) This Act empowers the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct,

if the offence alleged to have been committed by them are noy punishable with death

or life imprisonment. However, the released offenders should be kept under

observation, supervision and surveillance (section 4).

5) The act also directs that the court may order for payment of reasonable compensation

and reasonable cost of the proceedings by the offender to the victims/ legal heirs of

victims for loss pr injuries caused to the victim/s (section 5).

6) The Act provides special protection to persons under twenty-one years of age. They are

not sentenced to any imprisonment by the court. However, they should not have

committed offence punishable with life imprisonment. (section 6).

7) The Act provides freedom to court to vary the conditions of bond of the probationers

when they are released on probation of good conduct and also to extend the period of

the probation not exceeding three years from the date of original order of probation.

8) The Act also empowers the court to issue a warrant of arrest or summons to him and

his sureties requiring them to attend the court on the date and time specified in the

summons and regular proceedings start against him, in case the offender released on

probation of conduct fails to observe the conditions of bond or if there is an adverse

report from the probation officers.

9) The Act empowers the court to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment under the

provisions of this Act and so the power of the court is discretionary. such order may
 also be passed by the high court or any other court when the case comes before it on

appeal or revision.

10) The Act provides an important role to probation officers to help the court and to

supervise the probationers placed under him. They also advise and assist the

probationers to get suitable employments of their rehabilitation.

CASE LAW:

1) Basikesan v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1967 Ori 4 – In this case, a 20-year-

old was found guilty of an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal

Code,1860. It was held that the youth had committed the offence not

deliberately and so the case must be applied for Section 3 of the Probation

Act and be released after admonition.

2) Ahmed v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Raj 190 – In this case, the

court said that the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act does not

extend to anyone who has indulged in any activity that resulted in an

explosive situation leading to communal tension

CONCLUSION:

In short, the probation of offender Act, 1958 protects first offenders of less serious offences

by not punishing them, but releasing them after admonition or releasing them on probation of

good conduct.
 5)PRISON SYSTEM IN INDIA AND COMPARE IT WITH AMERICAN AND

ENGLAND PRISON SYSTEM? PRSION REFORMS IN INDIA?

INTRODUCTION:

The prison serves as a place to detain the criminals with an object of punishing them. In the

prison, life is solitary and miserable for the prisoners. It also keeps the criminals away from the

society so that they cannot commit further crimes. The prison reformative committee has

viewed that prison must be a place to correct, rehabilitate and reform the criminals.

PRISON SYSTEM IN INDIA:

• Abundant proofs are available to show that prisons existed in ancient India. Forts were

used as prison houses. During the Moghul period, prisoners were ill treated and the

prisoners were ill maintained.

• After the advent of the British rule in India, a well established prison system came to

existence. A separate department to look into the functioning of the prisons and their

maintenance was also established to improve the sanitary conditions of prisons and also

established to improve the sanitary conditions of prisons and also classify the prisons

as to the nature of the punishment (the prisoners Act 1895). Also the sentence of

whipping was abolished.

• Adequate medical treatment, separate rooms for juvenile offenders and cells for

hardened criminals was constituted in due course.

• Different committees like Indian jails committee 1919, 1929, 1930 and 1949 were

constituted to improve the living conditions of prisoners and also the functioning of

prison system. Woman jails were also established as a result of the jails committee 1919.

• After independence, the jail and the police and law and order were placed in the state

list of the seventh schedule by the constitution.

 • Various courses of handworks, crafts, occupational training etc., were introduced.

Criminals were also allowed to join educational institutions through correspondence

course, etc., and thus considerable liberal treatment substituted conservative methods

of prison system.

• Women police were being recently recruited to supervise the prisons especially in

tackling women and child offenders. Payment of wages to inmates for their work was

also introduced.

• After independence, the jail and police and law and order were placed in state list of

the seventh schedule by the constitution.

• In order to invite suggestions for the improvement of the condition of the jails in India.

Dr. W.C. Reckless, a technical expert of the United Nations on crime prevention and

treatment of offenders was called to make recommendation on prison reforms.

• Based on his suggestions, a committee was appointed to prepare an All India jail

manual, in 1957. Many policy guidelines were accepted in order to reform the prison

system. Yet, the general condition of prison in India is not satisfactory due to many

reasons.

PRISON SYSTEM IN AMERICA:

• When America was a colony under Britain, the criminals were punished severely. The

prison life was mostly painful for all the criminals.

• There were two prison systems in existence in America.

i. Pennsylvania system

ii. Auburn system

 I. PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM:

• Before this system was introduced, the prisoners were solitarily confined both during

day and night without any work and hence many of them under went mental breakdown.

• To avoid this, Pennsylvania system was introduced where in the system of labour and

work was introduced, but the prisoners must do specified work solitarily in isolated

condition in their cell itself without any communication or interaction with other

prisoners.

• Due to this, the evil effects of solitude without any work have come down.

• Occasionally, they were allowed to meet only the wardens and other representatives of

social welfare organisation, but not friends, relatives and other inmates.

• Since the above system contained a lot of defects, it was discontinued and was replaced

by auburn system.

II. AUBURN SYSTEM:

• In Auburn system, the prisoners were put behind isolated cells during night time, but

during day time, they were allowed to work along with other inmates in a common

place, but they should maintain total silence and were not allowed to talk to anybody.

• Only after passing of ‘Penn’s charter, 1862,’ the deterrent punishment system of

criminals was brought to an end. The prisoners were treated better and in deserving

minor offence, the bail system was introduced.

PRISON SYSTEM IN ENGLAND:

• John Howard is the first jurist to expose the poor conditions of the prisons in England.

He wrote a book called ‘The State of Prisons’.

 • In this book, he has elaborately explained the rotten conditions in which the British

prisons were functioning.

• He pointed out that corruption, poor hygienic conditions, sex offence were main reasons

for such pathetic conditions of the prisons in Britain.

• Taking into all the criticisms, the British parliament responded by enacting the prison

Act of 1778 which contains elaborate reformative provisions.

• Thus, the role of sir john Howard is significant in brining out prison reforms in Britain.

PRISON REFORMS IN INDIA:

CHALLENGES IN PRISON REFORMS:

• Prison is a State of subject.

• Prison Act 1894, which governs prisons with modifications is more than a

century old and focus more on keeping them alive (headcount) not reform and

rehabilitation.

• No separation between hard hand criminals and petty under trails.

COMMITTEES ON PRISON REFORMS:

➢ Justice Mulla Committee 1983:

• All India cadre for prison staff and Bringing prison under the concurrent list

• Government should form a National Policy on Prisons

• Government to use alternatives to imprisonment such as community service,

etc.

➢ Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer committee on women prisoners 1987:

• Separate institutions with women employees alone for women offenders.

• Necessary provisions to restore the dignity of women even if convicted.

 ➢ Committee under the chairmanship of Director General, Bureau of Police

Research and Development (BPR&D) 2005:

• used the reports of Justice Mulla Committee Report & Justice Krishna Iyer

Committee and made several additional and new recommendations. It

also drafted a National Policy on Prison Reforms and Correctional Administration,

2007.

Draft National Policy on Prison Reforms and Correctional Administration

• Amending the constitution to include principles of prison management and treatment

of undertrials under DPSP, and including prisons in the concurrent list.

• Enactment of uniform and comprehensive law on matters related to prisons.

• A department of Prisons and Correctional Services to be opened in each state and

UT.

➢ Justice Amaitava Roy panel on prison reforms:

In 2018, the Supreme Court appointed this panel. The committee submitted its report on

February 2020 with major recommendations includes

• For overcrowding

i. Special fast-track courts should be set up to deal with petty offences.

ii. Lawyers – Prisoners ratio: there should be at least one lawyer for

every 30 prisoners.

• For Understaffing

i. The Supreme Court should pass directions to start the recruitment

process against vacancies

ii. There should be use of video-conferencing for trial.

 • For Prisoners

i. Every new prisoner should be allowed a free phone call a day to his

family members to see him through his first week in jail.

ii. Alternative punishments should be explored.

CONCLUSION:

Prison is the important wing of administration of crime and criminology in the

country. Ironically the research in the development of it is still in infancy. There are many

hurdles to cross for the prisons to be a reformative institution than a custodial home of torture.

The progress is mainly hindered by factors such as resource allocation, deterrent functions of

punishment and rehabilitation approach. Prisons in the country shall endeavour to reform and

re-assimilate offenders in the social milieu by giving them appropriate correctional treatment.

Though there have been suggestions and recommendations by various committees, the major

concern in India stands to be that of actual enforcement.

In conclusion it must not be overlooked that the issue of prison administration and reformation

of prisoners is just a piece of the bigger picture of social recovery. The jail organization alone

can’t effectively reform the prisoners. It can just try its modest endeavours to set right the

prisoners; however, endeavours will succeed only when our economics, education, social

institution and values are appropriately coordinated into a cogent and congenial whole in view

of the learning of the human establishment

 6)DISCUSS VARIOUS THEROIES OF PUNISHMENT?

INTRODUCTION:

The theory of punishment refers to the philosophical and conceptual foundations that

underpin our understanding of punishment and the purpose it serves in society. There are

several different theories of punishment that have been proposed over time, each of which

offers a unique perspective on why punishment is necessary and how it should be carried out.

There are several different theories of punishment that have been proposed over time. Here are

four of the most well-known theories:

• Retributive Theory

• Deterrent Theory

• Preventive Theory

• Reformative Theory

RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT:

• The retributive theory of punishment is a widely debated and controversial theory that

holds that punishment is justified as a way of exacting revenge for a wrong that has

been committed. According to this theory, punishment serves to satisfy the victim or

society’s desire for justice and to send a message that such behaviour will not be

tolerated.

• One of the main arguments in support of the retributive theory is that punishment is

necessary in order to hold offenders accountable for their actions and to demonstrate

that society will not tolerate criminal behaviour. Proponents of this theory argue that

punishment serves an important moral function by providing a sense of closure and

 justice for victims and their families, and by affirming the value of the laws that have

been violated.

• Another argument in favour of the retributive theory is that it serves a deterrent

function, by sending a message to others that criminal behaviour will not be tolerated

and that offenders will be punished for their actions. This can help to discourage others

from committing similar crimes in the future.

CRITICISM OF RETRIBUTIVE THEORY:

1. Retribution may not be effective at reducing crime: One criticism of the retributive

theory is that it may not be effective at reducing crime, as it does not address the

underlying causes of criminal behaviour and may not be effective at helping offenders

to reform. Instead of focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration, the retributive theory

focuses on punishment and accountability, which may not be effective at reducing

recidivism or preventing future offenses.

2. Retribution may not be fair to offenders: Another criticism of the retributive theory

is that it may not be fair to offenders, as it may impose harsh and excessive punishment

on those who have committed crimes. Some argue that punishment should be based on

the specific circumstances of each case and should take into account the offender’s

background, mental health, and other factors, rather than simply imposing punishment

for its own sake.

3. Retribution may not be fair to victims: A third criticism of the retributive theory is

that it may not be fair to victims, as it may prioritize the needs of offenders over the

needs and desires of those who have been harmed by crime. Some argue that punishment

should focus more on addressing the harm caused by crime and providing restitution to

victims and their families, rather than simply imposing consequences on offenders.
CASES OF RETRIBUTIVE THEORY:

➢ R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): In this case, four sailors were stranded on a lifeboat

after their ship sank. They survived by killing and eating a cabin boy who had been

with them on the boat. The defendants were charged with murder and argued that they

had acted in self-defence. However, the court rejected this argument and held that the

defendants were guilty of murder, stating that “the preservation of human life is the first

and paramount duty of the law, and that no excuse can be allowed for taking it away.”

The defendants were sentenced to death, although the sentence was later commuted to

six months in prison. This case is often cited as an example of the retributive theory of

punishment, as the defendants were held accountable for their actions and punished for

taking the life of another person.

DETERRENT THEORY OF PUNISHMENT:

• The deterrent theory of punishment suggests that punishment serves to deter people

from committing crimes in the future. This theory is based on the idea that people will

be less likely to engage in criminal behaviour if they believe that they will be punished

for it.

• One of the main arguments in support of the deterrent theory is that it can help to reduce

crime rates by discouraging people from committing offenses. By imposing

consequences on offenders, the deterrent theory suggests that others will be less likely

to engage in similar behaviour, out of fear of being punished. This can help to create a

sense of social cohesion and order, as people are more likely to follow the rules and

norms of society if they believe that there will be consequences for breaking them.
 • Another argument in favour of the deterrent theory is that it can serve to protect society

from harm by deterring individuals from engaging in dangerous or destructive

behaviours. For example, if people believe that they will be punished for committing

violent crimes, they may be less likely to engage in such behaviours, which can help to

reduce the overall level of violence in society.

CRITICISM OF DETERRENT THEORY:

1. Deterrence may not be effective at reducing crime: One criticism of the deterrent

theory is that it may not be effective at reducing crime, as it does not address the

underlying causes of criminal behaviour and may not be effective at helping offenders

to reform. Instead of focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration, the deterrent theory

focuses on punishment and accountability, which may not be effective at reducing

recidivism or preventing future offenses.

2. Deterrence may not be fair to offenders: Another criticism of the deterrent theory is

that it may not be fair to offenders, as it may impose harsh and excessive punishment

on those who have committed crimes. Some argue that punishment should be based on

the specific circumstances of each case and should take into account the offender’s

background, mental health, and other factors, rather than simply imposing punishment

as a deterrent.

3. Deterrence may be difficult to measure: A third criticism of the deterrent theory is

that it may be difficult to measure its effectiveness, as it is hard to determine how much

of a deterrent a particular punishment is. Some argue that there is limited evidence to

support the deterrent effect of punishment, and that other factors, such as the

prevalence of crime and social and economic conditions, may have a greater influence

on crime rates.
DETERRENT THEORY CASES:

➢ United state v. park (1976): In this case, the defendant was the president of a grocery

store chain and was convicted of violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by

shipping spoiled food to customers. The court sentenced the defendant to three years in

prison and a $20,000 fine, stating that the sentence was necessary to deter others from

engaging in similar conduct. This case is an example of the deterrent theory of

punishment, as the sentence was designed to send a message to others that such

behaviour will not be tolerated and that there will be consequences for engaging in it.

PREVENTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT:

• The preventive theory of punishment suggests that punishment should be focused on

preventing future offenses, rather than retribution or deterrence. This theory is based on

the idea that punishment should be designed to address the underlying causes of crime

and to help offenders reform, rather than simply imposing consequences for past

actions.

• One of the main arguments in support of the preventive theory is that it can be more

effective at reducing crime in the long term, as it addresses the underlying factors that

contribute to criminal behaviour. By addressing issues such as poverty, inequality, and

social exclusion, the preventive theory suggests that we can create a more just and

equitable society, in which crime is less likely to occur.

• Another argument in favour of the preventive theory of punishment is that it can help

to reduce the overall burden on the criminal justice system, as it focuses on

rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment. This can help to reduce

overcrowding in prisons and other institutions, and can also be more cost-effective in
 the long term, as it may prevent offenders from committing future crimes and returning

to the criminal justice system.

CRITICISM OF PREVENTIVE THEORY

1. Prevention may not be effective at reducing crime: One criticism of the preventive

theory is that it may not be effective at reducing crime, as it may not always be possible

to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. Some argue that crime is often

driven by complex and multifaceted factors, such as poverty, inequality, and social and

economic conditions, which may be difficult to address through punishment alone.

2. Prevention may be too costly: Another criticism of the preventive theory is that it may

be too costly to implement, as it may require significant resources and investment to

address the underlying causes of crime and to promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

Some argue that other approaches, such as deterrence or incapacitation, may be more

cost-effective in the long term.

3. Prevention may not be fair to victims: A third criticism of the preventive theory is that

it may not be fair to victims, as it may prioritize the needs of offenders over the needs

and desires of those who have been harmed by crime. Some argue that punishment

should focus more on holding offenders accountable for their actions and providing

restitution to victims and their families, rather than simply focusing on prevention.

PREVENTIVE THEORY CASE:

R v. Gladue (1999): In this case, the defendant was a First Nations woman who was convicted

of second-degree murder and sentenced to three years in prison. The court took into account

the defendant’s background and the circumstances of the crime, including the fact that the

victim was the defendant’s abusive partner. The court stated that the sentence was designed to

promote rehabilitation and reintegration, and that the defendant should be given the opportunity
to heal and address the underlying causes of her criminal behaviour. This case is an example

of the preventive theory of punishment, as the sentence was focused on addressing the

underlying causes of crime and promoting rehabilitation and reintegration.

REFORMATIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT:

• The reformative theory of punishment states that the goal of punishment should be to

help offenders learn from their mistakes and become productive members of society.

This theory is based on the idea that people who have committed crimes often do so

because of underlying personal problems or social circumstances, and that the goal of

punishment should be to address these underlying issues and help the offender reform.

• One of the main arguments in support of the reformative theory is that it can be more

effective at reducing recidivism, or the rate at which offenders re-offend after being

released from prison. By focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration, the reformative

theory suggests that we can help offenders to overcome the personal and social

problems that may have contributed to their criminal behaviour, and to develop the

skills and supports they need to lead productive lives.

• Another argument in favour of the reformative theory of punishment is that it can be

more cost-effective in the long term, as it may reduce the overall burden on the criminal

justice system. By helping offenders to reform and reintegrate into society, the

reformative theory suggests that we can prevent them from committing future crimes

and returning to the criminal justice system, which can save money and resources in

the long run.

CRITICISM OF REFORMATIVE THEORY:

1. Rehabilitation may not be effective at reducing crime: One criticism of the reformative

theory is that it may not be effective at reducing crime, as it may not always be possible

to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour or to change the attitudes and

behaviours of offenders. Some argue that crime is often driven by complex and

multifaceted factors, such as poverty, inequality, and social and economic conditions,

which may be difficult to address through rehabilitation alone.

2. Rehabilitation may be too costly: Another criticism of the reformative theory is that it

may be too costly to implement, as it may require significant resources and investment to

address the underlying causes of crime and to promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

Some argue that other approaches, such as deterrence or incapacitation, may be more cost-

effective in the long term.

3. Rehabilitation may not be fair to victims: A third criticism of the reformative theory is

that it may not be fair to victims, as it may prioritize the needs of offenders over the needs

and desires of those who have been harmed by crime. Some argue that punishment should

focus more on holding offenders accountable for their actions and providing restitution to

victims and their families, rather than simply focusing on rehabilitation.

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.