PUNISHMENT: THE INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE
Keywords:
Punishment, Deterrence, Reformative, Retributive, Expiatory, PreventiveAbstract
The sole object of punishment ought to be not merely the prevention but also the reformation of the offenders. It must be awarded in order to achieve any or as nearly possible of the core objectives namely, to serve as deterrent, to be preventive, to be reformative, to be retributive and to be expiatory. The public dislikes a criminal and this dislike is expressed in the form of punishment. Each society has its own way of social control for which it frames certain laws and also mentions the sanctions with them. These sanctions are nothing but the punishments. ‘The first thing to mention in relation to the definition of punishment is the ineffectiveness of definitional barriers aimed to show that one or other of the proposed justifications of punishments either logically include or logically excluded by definition.’ Punishment is the suffering in person or property inflicted by the society on the offender who is adjudged guilty of crime under the law. The administration of punishment involves the intention to produce some kind of pain which may be partly physical and partly mental varying from case to case depending upon the circumstances and personality of the offender.
In this paper we have talked about various kinds of theories of punishment based on which the offenders are punished. We have also discussed the merits and demerits of the different theories and deduced a conclusion based on that.
Punishment is good since it is corrective, deterrent and necessary for public welfare.
References
1. 1963, p. 62 [excerpt from The Rules of the Sociological Method]
2. Klare H.J.; “Changing Concepts of Crime and Its Treatment”, p. 17.
3. http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal +Law 20th July 2017, 23:11
4. Klare H.J.; “Chan ging Concepts of Crime and Its Treatment”, p. 19.
5. Russell, Crime, Vol. I (11th Edition) p. 98.
6. Commentaries on Law of England, Sir William Blackstone
7. Institutes of Hindu Law (translated by Haughton, G.C. 1835) Ch. 7, para 18 p. 189
8. Westermarck, E. The Orig inal and Development of Moral Ideas, p. 169.
9. Bentham, Rationale of Punishment 29 (1830)
10. 41 H.L.R. 543, Insanity and Criminal Law, pp. 13-14
11. Oppenheimer, Rationale of Punishment, p. 252.
12. Shiv Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1998 SC 49
13. Jurisprudence, 12th Edition
14. Salmond, Jurisprudence (12 th Ed.) p. 99 - 100.
15. Sir John Salmond, Jurisprudence, 1947, p. 111.
16. Holmes, Common Law, pp. 4243
17. Miller Handbook of Criminal Law, p. 19
18. 1960 Cr LJ 431
19. State of Karnataka vs. Krishappa , 2000 Cri LJ 1783 (SC)
20. (1977) 3 SCC 287: (AIR 1977 SC 1926).
21. State of Gujarat & Anr. V. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392 : AIR 1998 SC 3164: JT 199 (6) SC 530 : 1998 Cri. L.J 4561
22. Gurdeep Singh alias Deep v. State, AIR 1999 SC 3646 : (2000) 1 SCC 498: JT 1999 (7) SC 191: 1999 Cri. L.J 4573
23. AIR 1978 SC 1542
24. AIR 1978 SC 1548 Cite this Article Shreya Sinha, Anupama Soumya . Punishment: The Indian Jurisprudence . 1(2): 5–11p.
