Module 5 Criminal Psy
Module 5 Criminal Psy
Module 5 Criminal Psy
Criminal psychology
Punishment is the most prominent feature of criminal law. Every society has its own way of
social control for which it frames certain laws and also mentions the deterrents attached to
them. Punishment is the consequence of an unpleasant act that the wrongdoer commits.
Simply put, the fundamental aim of punishment is to give relief to the aggrieved party and to
maintain law and order in society. Punishment can also be termed as the imposition of some
form of deprivation by withholding rights that a person is legally entitled to.
Objects of punishment
1. Deterrent theory.
2. Retributive theory.
3. Preventive theory.
4. Reformative theory.
The founder of this theory is Jeremy Benrhem, and this theory is based on the principle of
hedonism which says that a man would be deterred from committing a crime if the
punishment applied was swift, certain, and severe.
This theory focuses on deterring offenders from criminality or repeating the same crime in
the future. This theory is a lesson to members of society who experience the consequences of
that crime. It creates fear of punishment in like-minded people.
There should be a nexus between the crime committed and the punishment inflicted for that.
While deciding on the punishment, the following should be taken into consideration;
1) The seriousness of the crime – Punishment should be given according to the seriousness
of the crime committed, for e.g one can’t award a death sentence for pickpocketing.
2) The gravity of crime – The consequences of the punishment inflicted have to be taken
into consideration alongside taking into account the victim’s satisfaction concerning the
same. For e.g, if Mr.X is murdered by Mr.Y then if Mr.Y is giving one-time compensation of
Rs.5 lakhs to X’s family, is it sufficient if he is the only bread earner of the family?
3) Impact on the general public – It is most important to consider what will be the effect of
that punishment in the minds of the general public. Are they taking lessons from that? For
example, traffic police are collecting fines for not wearing helmets, but do people follow this
rule? Are they really serious about fines and rules?
In the case of the State of H.P.v. Nirmala Devi (2017), the court of law had opined that if the
crime done is heinous and serious against society then the deterrent theory becomes more
relevant, for those guilty will be punished to deter other prospective offenders.
1. Though this theory intends to deter people from committing crimes or repeating
the same crime, it has failed to serve its purpose. It has proved ineffective in
checking crimes and the fact that excessive harshness of punishment tends to
defeat its purpose by arousing the public’s sympathy towards those who are
subjected to such punishment.
2. Punishment loses its essence once the criminal is punished. For example, in the
Delhi gang rape case, familiarly known as the Nirbhaya case, all 4 accused were
hanged for their heinous crime but the offence of rape continues to happen. Thus
the question as to whether the deterrent theory of punishment serves its purpose
remains arising in people’s minds.
3. It does not give a chance to reform the accused.
This theory is based on the famous saying that a ‘Tit for Tat’, ‘ Eye for Eye’ or’ Teeth for
Teeth’. The main motive of this theory is to inflict a similar amount of pain endured by the
aggrieved party because of the offender’s activity. Put simply, it can be said that every
punishment is retributive to a certain extent for the purpose of punishment itself is to restore
peace and harmony in society. This theory is harsher than other theories.
Owing to humanitarian grounds, this theory of punishment is not much on the favourable side
for it causes harm to the accused in a greater way. Therefore, the most important thing to
consider while awarding punishment is the balance between the aggravating and the
mitigating factors involved in the offence committed.
As per the development of society, this type of punishment was banned due to the following
criticism.
Unlike other theories, this theory aims to prevent crime rather than take revenge. This theory
is also called the disablement theory. Put simply, we can understand the nature of this theory
with a simple example: when we were in school, our teachers used to make the mischievous
students stand out of the classroom, for disturbing the whole class. This punishment by the
teacher prevents other students from disturbing the class due to fear of punishment. In the
same way, this theory talks about eliminating the accused from society to prevent the
repetition of his crime again. By preventing those criminals, society protects itself against
anti-social order in general. Prevention of these criminals can be done by giving them death
punishment or life imprisonment. Separation of these criminals from society prevents other
prospective offenders from committing crimes.
In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), the court of law observed that if the
prisoner is violent or dangerous, solitary confinement is necessary to prevent and segregate
these offenders from society, thereby abiding by the retributive theory of punishment.
While the Preventive theory promotes the dissertation of the offender, the same has severe
consequences and difficulties inflicted upon the accused. It is ideal to note that the concept of
morality being subjective by its very nature makes it difficult to deliver punishments for
crimes committed. Therefore, the immorality of crimes needs to be comparable.
Reformative theory of punishment
The name of this theory itself implies what its nature has to say. This theory helps to reform
criminals, thereby transforming them into law-abiding citizens. Nobody is indeed a criminal
by birth, crimes sometimes happen accidentally or situationally. In this case, the offender
should get another chance to rectify his mistake. For this, there is the facility of correctional
homes, juvenile homes, training schools, and reformatories. The main object of this theory is
the rehabilitation of inmates.
It was the case of Dharambir v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), which became the initiation of
the concept of open jails in India which generally helps in reforming young offenders.
Further, the Supreme Court of India, while deciding the case of Musa Khan v. State of
Maharashtra (1976), had observed that the reformative system prevented juveniles from
becoming hardened criminals.
1. This theory only works for juvenile and first-time offenders and not for hardened
criminals who have committed multiple crimes.
2. The reformative theory of punishment is sometimes considered not justifiable for
the aggrieved party subjected to prejudice by the offender.
Conclusion
The main purpose behind inflicting punishment on the offender, accused of an offence, is to
restore law and order in society. In this process of awarding punishment, both the interest of
the aggrieved party as well as the accused needs to be taken into consideration. One must not
forget that awarding punishment should be directly proportional to the gravity of the crime
caused by the offender. Keeping the same in mind, alongside the need to curb crime from
happening at a rampant rate in society, punishment needs to be awarded. When it comes to
the theories discussed in this article, they serve as a jurisprudential value for the criminal
justice system to frame punishments according to the crime committed. These theories have
been significant in helping the legislators and the judiciary frame and interpret provisions of
punishment, respectively, for a better tomorrow.
Juvenile institutions are facilities designed to house and rehabilitate young individuals who
have committed delinquent acts or offenses. These institutions serve several purposes within
the justice system:
4. Protecting the community: In some cases, juvenile offenders may pose a risk to the
community, and confinement in a juvenile institution helps protect society by removing them
from the streets while they undergo rehabilitation.
There are several types of juvenile institutions, each serving different purposes and
populations:
1. Juvenile Detention Centers: These facilities are used to temporarily hold juveniles who are
awaiting court hearings or placement decisions. They are typically short-term facilities where
juveniles stay while their cases are processed.
2. Juvenile Correctional Facilities: These are long-term residential facilities where juveniles
are placed after being adjudicated delinquent. They offer various programs and services
aimed at rehabilitation, education, and preparing juveniles for reentry into society.
4. Group Homes: Group homes are residential facilities that provide a less restrictive
alternative to juvenile detention or correctional facilities. They offer a family-like setting with
supervision and support from trained staff, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration into
the community.
5. Boot Camps: While less common than other types of juvenile institutions, boot camps are
short-term, military-style programs aimed at instilling discipline and responsibility in juvenile
offenders. However, their effectiveness in reducing recidivism has been a topic of debate.
Borstal homes
Borstal Homes, named after the Borstal Prison system in England, have historically served as
a form of juvenile correctional institution. These institutions were established primarily in the
United Kingdom in the early 20th century as an alternative to adult prisons for young
offenders aged 16 to 21. Borstal Homes aimed to provide a structured and disciplined
environment where young offenders could receive education, vocational training, and
rehabilitation to help them reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.
The concept of Borstal Homes emerged in response to concerns about the treatment of young
offenders within the criminal justice system. Before their establishment, young offenders
were often incarcerated alongside adult criminals, exposing them to negative influences and
potentially worsening their criminal behavior. Borstal Homes represented a significant shift
towards a more rehabilitative approach to juvenile justice.
The origins of Borstal Homes trace back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries in England.
Prior to their establishment, the treatment of young offenders within the criminal justice
system was often harsh and punitive, with minors frequently subjected to the same penalties
and conditions as adult criminals. Concerns about the detrimental effects of such practices on
juvenile offenders led to calls for reform.
In response to these concerns, the Borstal system was introduced with the enactment of the
Borstal Institutions Act of 1902 in the United Kingdom. This legislation authorized the
establishment of Borstal institutions, which were intended to serve as intermediate
institutions between regular prisons and reformatories for young offenders. The first Borstal
institution, Borstal Prison in Kent, England, opened its doors in 1902 under the leadership of
Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise.
The philosophy underlying Borstal Homes was grounded in the belief in the potential for
rehabilitation and reform among young offenders. Unlike traditional prisons, which focused
primarily on punishment and deterrence, Borstal institutions aimed to provide a rehabilitative
environment conducive to personal development and social reintegration.
Key principles guiding Borstal Homes included:
3. Education and Training: Recognizing the importance of education and skill development,
Borstal Homes offered academic classes, vocational training programs, and employment
opportunities to equip young offenders with the necessary tools for success upon their
release.
Operational Framework
Borstal staff members played a crucial role in the daily operation of the institutions. They
were responsible for overseeing the activities of residents, providing guidance and support,
delivering educational and vocational instruction, and implementing behavior management
strategies.
Education and vocational training were integral components of the Borstal program, aimed at
equipping young offenders with the knowledge, skills, and qualifications necessary for
employment and successful reintegration into society.
Vocational training programs provided residents with practical skills and qualifications
relevant to various industries and occupations. Training opportunities included carpentry,
plumbing, electrical work, agriculture, horticulture, mechanics, catering, and office
administration, among others.
Counselors and psychologists conducted individual and group counseling sessions to explore
residents' motivations, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences related to criminal behavior.
Through therapeutic interventions, residents were encouraged to reflect on their actions, take
responsibility for their behavior, develop empathy for others, and acquire coping skills to
manage stress, anger, and conflict effectively.
Family therapy and support services were also offered to involve parents and guardians in the
rehabilitation process, strengthen family relationships, and address familial dynamics
contributing to delinquent behavior.
The ultimate goal of the Borstal system was to facilitate the successful rehabilitation and
reintegration of young offenders into society as law-abiding and productive citizens.
Upon completion of their Borstal sentence, residents were provided with transitional support
and assistance to facilitate their transition back into the community. This support included
assistance with securing housing, employment, education, healthcare, and social services, as
well as ongoing monitoring and supervision to ensure compliance with the terms of their
release.
Borstal staff worked collaboratively with community-based organizations, social service
agencies, employers, and other stakeholders to create a supportive network of resources and
opportunities for residents to access upon their return to the community.
An open prison can be understood to mean any penal establishment in which the prisoners
serve their sentence with minimal supervision and perimeter security, and are not locked up
in prison cells. The concept is based on principles of self-discipline and “trust begets trust”
which, if managed properly, can reform the human resource. The philosophy on the basis of
which the open prison exists is reflected in the two dictums of Sir Alexander Paterson. First, a
man is sent to prison as punishment and not for punishment. Second, one cannot train a man
for freedom unless conditions of his captivity and restraints are considerably relaxed.
(Paranjpe 2001).
The concept partakes of the best features of the concepts of parole, probation and closed
prisons. However, not all prisoners are to be transferred from closed institutions to open
prisons. Neither a routine process of prisoner transfer is envisaged. Invariably, a screening
committee is tasked with the job of ascertaining the mental and physical fitness, behavioural
conduct, reformatory potential, etc, of inmates who complete a minimum mandatorily
prescribed period of incarceration in closed prisons for eligibility for transfer to these semi-
open/open institutions.
The Hindi feature film Do Aankhen Barah Haath2 (1957) exemplifies the concept of open
prisons in India which is essentially based on humanistic psychology. The film portrays a
young jail warden who takes six notorious murderers released on parole and turns them into
persons of virtue. He makes them work hard with him on a dilapidated country farm,
rehabilitating them through hard work and kind guidance. They eventually produce a great
harvest.
The Model Prison Manual (BPR and D 2003) classifies open prison institutions in India into
three types:
1. Semi-Open Training Institutions
2. Open Training Institutions/ Open Work Camps
3. Open Colonies
These institutions are graded in the increasing order of liberty granted to inmates and their
potential for reformation and reintegration into the society. All these institutions have a
properly demarcated area beyond which inmates are not allowed to go.
Semi-Open Training Institutions are generally attached to the closed prisons just beyond the
enclosed perimeter and are relatively more under security surveillance. Those prisoners who
show reformation potential are made eligible for further transfer to open prisons and
colonies.
Open Training Institutions/Work Camps are started in places where activities, like digging
canals, water channels, construction of dams, roads, government buildings and prison
buildings, projects of land reclamation, land development and bringing uncultivated land
under cultivation, soil conservation and afforestation, can be organised.
In Open Colonies, inmates are allowed to bring their family members. Inmates and their
family members are given opportunities to work in agriculture or allied fields or in such
cottage industries or other allied suitable means of livelihood as can be conveniently
organised. Wages paid to the inmates and family members are at par with outside wages. The
inmates are to maintain themselves and their families with the wages earned by them in the
colony.
Minimum standards, as prescribed for the closed institutions, regarding accommodation,
equipment, sanitation, hygiene, medical services, diet and welfare services, are maintained.
Wages at these places are higher than those at the closed prisons. Extra concessions like
remission, leave and review are granted to the inmates of these open institutions. There are no
restrictions on the prisoners in respect of reading materials and are allowed to pursue studies
through open universities. A programme that is suitable for inmate’s training is organised and
cultural and vocational facilities are also provided.
In independent India, the first ever open-air camp was set up and attached to the Model
Prison at Lucknow in 1949. The state of Uttar Pradesh further established an open prison
camp in 1953 for the construction of a dam over Chandraprabha river near Varanasi. During
the 1950s, open prison camps were set up at various places such as Chakiya, Naugarh, and
Shahgarh. In Rajasthan, the first open prison camp was set up in Sanganer in 1963. These
camps were popularly called Sampurnanand camps after the reformist politician
Sampurnanand who in his capacity as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh in the 1950s and as
governor of Rajasthan in the 1960s vigorously promoted the idea (Paranjpe 2001).
These were early examples of the open model where prisoners were allowed to engage in
agriculture, forestry, cottage industry and public utilities related works. They were paid
wages in lieu of their labour. The inmates were called “mazdoor” instead of convicts.
With a view to appreciate the usefulness of open prisons as a correctional measure of
treatment of offenders, it shall be pertinent to look at the functioning of some of the
successful open prisons of India.
Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh
The open prison campus is spread over 1,427 acre located on the outskirts of Anantapur.
Depending on their good conduct and completion of two-thirds of their sentence, closed
prison inmates are moved to open prisons. It is based on the trust that they will not be chained
and nor will they escape. The Himalaya Drug Company's corporate social responsibility
initiative here is to grow a medicinal herb: Alpha Alpha. The prisoners grow the perennial
crop and supply the dried herb to the company earning a suitable price for it. The
pharmaceutical giant helps with the seeds, packaging and transportation of the dried herbs.
The convicts also grow cucumber, brinjal, mangoes, amla, neem, jowar, etc. They get hands-
on experience in agriculture and can use this skill to earn their livelihood once they are out of
jail (Rao and Ray 2014).
Shri Sampurnanand Khula Bandi Shivir, Sanganer, Rajasthan
This open camp, located roughly 25 km from Jaipur and spread over four hectares, is unique
in that it allows convicts to live with their families. The camp, with a low boundary wall, has
about 150 prisoners including 10 women. It is manned by just two guards. The convicts build
their own houses and pay for use of water and electricity. They are allowed to go out to work
between 6 am and 7 pm, within a 10-km radius. Their children attend nearby schools.
Prisoners engage in a wide variety of jobs; some teach in neighbouring schools, others are
daily wage earners and labourers. It has a strict screening system. Those who have committed
heinous offences, crimes against the state, drug smugglers, and habitual offenders are not
selected. All the inmates are required to have served at least a third of their sentences,
including remission, in an ordinary jail before being eligible for transfer to this camp (Info
Change News and Features 2004).
Nettvketheri, Kerala
Situated on nearly 300 acres in the foothills of the Western Ghats, this open prison houses
murderers with no bars or fences. The guards carry no guns. One is as much pleased as is
surprised to see that the atmosphere is peaceful and relaxed. Every convict begins his
sentence in a closed prison, and those who exhibit good behaviour are transferred to the open
prison. The inmates work on the prison’s 200-acre rubber plantation, tapping rubber,
preparing rubber sheets, or cultivating rice paddies. Each inmate works four to six hours a
day and gets wages. The sale of rubber brings in revenues that are more than enough to cover
annual expenses for running the prison, and the excess goes back to the Kerala state
government. Inmates get to spend one month out of six with their families. There is also a
special five-day leave granted in the event of a family member’s death, wedding, or other
important occasion. The continuing involvement with their home and community allows the
family to share the burden of reform with the state. The open prisoner’s family involvement
also allows the criminal to gradually heal the community’s wounds associated with their
crime (Merkel 1994).
Probation, in the context of law, refers to a period of time during which a person who has
been convicted of a crime is released into the community under supervision, typically instead
of serving time in jail or prison. It is a form of criminal sentencing that allows offenders to
remain in the community while they adhere to certain conditions set forth by the court.
Probation is designed to provide offenders with an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves
while also serving as a form of punishment and protection for the community.
1. Eligibility: Not all offenders are eligible for probation. The decision to grant probation is
typically made by a judge based on various factors, including the nature and severity of the
crime, the offender's criminal history, and their likelihood of successfully completing
probation.
2. Conditions: Probation typically comes with certain conditions that the offender must abide
by. These conditions can vary widely depending on the specifics of the case and the
jurisdiction, but they often include things like regular meetings with a probation officer,
maintaining employment or attending school, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, submitting
to drug testing, staying away from certain places or individuals, and completing community
service.
3. Supervision: Probationers are usually assigned a probation officer who is responsible for
monitoring their compliance with the conditions of their probation. The probation officer may
conduct home visits, drug tests, and other checks to ensure that the probationer is following
the terms of their probation.
4. Violation: If a probationer violates the conditions of their probation, they may face
consequences such as additional fines, extended probation, or in some cases, imprisonment.
The consequences for violating probation are determined by the court and can vary
depending on the nature and severity of the violation.
5. Duration: The length of probation can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics
of the case. It may last for a few months to several years, with the goal of providing the
offender with enough time to demonstrate their rehabilitation and ability to reintegrate into
society.
6. Purpose: The primary goals of probation are rehabilitation, punishment, and public safety.
By allowing offenders to remain in the community under supervision, probation aims to
provide them with the support and resources they need to address the underlying issues that
may have contributed to their criminal behavior, while also holding them accountable for
their actions and protecting the community from further harm.
Overall, probation is an important component of the criminal justice system that seeks to
balance the goals of rehabilitation and punishment while also promoting public safety. It
provides offenders with an opportunity to make positive changes in their lives while still
being held accountable for their actions.
Parole is a legal concept in criminal law that allows a prisoner to be released from prison
before serving the entirety of their sentence, under certain conditions and supervision. It's
different from probation in that parole is granted after a portion of the sentence has been
served in prison, whereas probation typically avoids incarceration altogether. Parole is
granted by a parole board or similar authority and is based on factors such as the prisoner's
behavior in prison, their likelihood of rehabilitation, and the risk they pose to society if
released.
1. Eligibility: Not all prisoners are eligible for parole. Eligibility criteria vary by jurisdiction
and may include factors such as the type of crime committed, the length of the sentence, the
prisoner's behavior in prison, participation in rehabilitation programs, and the prisoner's risk
level.
2. Parole Board: Parole decisions are typically made by a parole board or similar authority,
which reviews the prisoner's case and determines whether they should be released on parole.
The board considers various factors, including the nature of the offense, the prisoner's
criminal history, their behavior in prison, their rehabilitation efforts, and input from victims
and other relevant parties.
3. Conditions: Parole comes with conditions that the parolee must abide by in order to remain
free. These conditions are set by the parole board and are designed to help ensure the
parolee's successful reintegration into society while also protecting public safety. Common
conditions may include regular meetings with a parole officer, maintaining employment or
attending school, refraining from drug and alcohol use, staying away from certain places or
individuals, and complying with any treatment or counseling requirements.
4. Supervision: Parolees are typically supervised by a parole officer who monitors their
compliance with the conditions of their parole. The parole officer may conduct home visits,
drug tests, and other checks to ensure that the parolee is following the terms of their parole
and making progress towards rehabilitation.
5. Violation: If a parolee violates the conditions of their parole, they may face consequences
such as being returned to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence or having their
parole revoked and being subject to additional penalties. The consequences for parole
violations vary depending on the nature and severity of the violation, as well as the policies
of the parole board and the court.
6. Purpose: The primary goals of parole are to provide prisoners with an opportunity to
reintegrate into society, to reduce prison overcrowding and costs, and to promote public
safety. By releasing prisoners under supervision and with conditions designed to support their
rehabilitation, parole aims to help individuals make positive changes in their lives while also
holding them accountable for their actions and protecting the community from further harm.
Overall, parole is an important component of the criminal justice system that seeks to balance
the goals of rehabilitation, punishment, and public safety. It provides prisoners with a second
chance to demonstrate their ability to live law-abiding lives while also holding them
accountable for their past actions.
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a contentious issue in India,
evolving over time from the colonial period to the present.
1. Colonial Period
- During British rule, India inherited the legal system of capital punishment from the British
Empire.
- The Indian Penal Code of 1860, drafted by the British colonial authorities, prescribed the
death penalty for certain serious crimes.
2. Post-Independence Era:
- After gaining independence in 1947, India retained capital punishment as a legal sanction.
- The death penalty was incorporated into the Indian legal system through various laws,
including the Indian Penal Code and special laws dealing with specific offenses such as
terrorism and treason.
5. Recent Developments:
- In recent years, there has been growing scrutiny of capital punishment in India.
- In 2012, the execution of Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai
attacks, attracted international attention and renewed discussions about the death penalty.
- In 2014, India's Supreme Court ruled that the "rarest of rare" doctrine should guide the
imposition of the death penalty, reserving it for the most egregious cases.
- Despite calls for abolition, the death penalty remains legal in India, and executions have
continued sporadically.
In summary, capital punishment in India has evolved from the colonial era to the present,
shaped by legal, social, and political factors. While the debate over its abolition continues, the
death penalty remains a legal sanction in India, albeit with limitations and ongoing
controversies.