PREETI YADAV Criminology

SCHOOL OF LAW
Session:2023-24
Course and Semester: LLB 4rth semester
Assignment/Project
Topic: A study of criminology
Theories of punishment
Submitted By :preeti yadav

Roll No.: LLBN1SL22022 Submitted to: Dr. Shobha bharadwaj
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the faculty of ITM UNIVERSITY GWALIOR (DEPARTMENT OF LAW)
for giving me this opportunity to explore into an area of my interest and their full cooperation
during the different stages of my project.
I would like to thank for Dean Mam shobha guiding me and enriching my project through her
valuable outputs from her reservoirs experience. She was extremely helpful in ensuring that my
project was progressed on the right track.
I would like to acknowledge my wholehearted thanks to all faculty members.
PREETI YADAV
Roll no. LLBN1SL22022
2
Student declaration
I hereby declare that the work presented in the project in the report entitled “case of tredmark “ in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for degree of "LLB" in itm university gwalior from scol of
law, is record of my own work.
Further i declare that this is my original work and the analysis and the findings are for academic
purpose only.
Name: PREETI YADAV

Roll no. LLBN1SL22022
3
Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Objects of punishment
• An insight of theories of punishment
• Deterrent theory of punishment
• Criticism of deterrence theory
• Retributive theory of punishment
• Criticism of the retributive theory
• Preventive theory of punishment
• Criticism surrounding the retributive theory of punishment
• Reformative theory of punishment
• Criticism surrounding the reformative theory of punishment
• Conclusion
4
Introduction
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. This article aims to bring to its readers a
simple explanation of the theories of punishment that helps the criminal justice
system function from time to time.
Objects of punishment
1. To protect society from mischievous elements by deterring potential
offenders.
2. To prevent actual offenders from committing further offences.
3. To eradicate evils and reform criminals and turn them into law-abiding
citizens.
4. To administrate justice partly by inflicting pain to deter criminals and others
from indulging in crime and partly by reforming criminals.
5. To maintain rules and regulations for a crime-free country.
An insight of theories of punishment

Theories of punishment generally contain policies regarding the handling of crimes
and criminals. The theory of punishment deals with the principles on the basis of
which punishment is to be given to the offender, with the object of safeguarding a
society deprived of law and order. There are four types of theories of punishment.
1. Deterrent theory.
2. Retributive theory.
5
3. Preventive theory.
4. Reformative theory.
Deterrent theory of punishment
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;
• 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.
• 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?
• 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?
6
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.
Criticism of deterrence theory

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.
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.
It does not give a chance to reform the accused.
Retributive theory of punishment

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
7
most important thing to consider while awarding punishment is the balance between
the aggravating and the mitigating factors involved in the offence committed.
Criticism of the retributive theory

As per the development of society, this type of punishment was banned due to the
following criticism.
It is difficult to determine the proportion of pain or revenge in this type of

punishment, meaning to what and to what extent the pain should be returned.
The entire natural justice principle will collapse if everyone takes revenge on each
other according to their hate and the injury caused.
Preventive theory of punishment

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.
Criticism surrounding the retributive theory of punishment
8
While the retributive 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.
Criticism surrounding the reformative theory of punishment

• This theory only works for juvenile and first-time offenders and not for
hardened criminals who have committed multiple crimes.
• 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.

PREETI YADAV Criminology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREETI YADAV Criminology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREETI YADAV Criminology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL OF LAW

Course and Semester: LLB 4rth semester

Submitted By :preeti yadav

Name: PREETI YADAV

An insight of theories of punishment

• The seriousness of the crime – Punishment should be given according to the

• The gravity of crime – The consequences of the punishment inflicted have to

• Impact on the general public – It is most important to consider what will be

Criticism of deterrence theory

Retributive theory of punishment

Owing to humanitarian grounds, this theory of punishment is not much on the

Criticism of the retributive theory

It is difficult to determine the proportion of pain or revenge in this type of

Preventive theory of punishment

Criticism surrounding the retributive theory of punishment

Reformative theory of punishment

Criticism surrounding the reformative theory of punishment

You might also like