JAIPUR NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY
(A VENTURE OF THE SEEDLING GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS)

CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

SUBJECT -: DEFINATIONS, THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

(Date of submission –02 NOVEMBER 2017)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. M. Vishvakarma Niraj kumar
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With immense please, I Mr. NIRAJ KUMAR .

presenting the assignment report as part of the curriculum of
subject (definations, theories of punishment). I wish to thank all
the people to gave me support.

I express my profound and thanks to faculty Dr. M

Vishvakarma Sir all those who have indirectly guide and helped
me in preparation of this assignment.

Niraj kumar
(signature of the student )
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION OF CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

2. DEFINATION OF CRIMINOLOGY

3. DEFINATION OF PENOLOGY

4. INTRODUCTION & THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

5. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

6. PUNISHMENT

7. PUNISHMENT JUSTIFICATIONS & GOALS

8. INFLUENCE FROM CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

9. CONCLUSION
Introduction OF Criminology & Penology

Criminology looks at theories around crime commission.

Penology deals with how society looks at and responds to crime.

There are many types of crimes and criminals e.g. rapists, murderers, etc and all

crimes must be addressed specifically and then tied down to theories.

How the media report crime does and what makes them report the way they do?

E.g. the post election violence. What are the influences?

Bias in the criminal justice system in criminology. The assumption is that it is

working in a just and fair manner. USA has the issue of blacks and whites and

Kenya has blue and white collar offenders. Some offenders get priority by judges.

How do judges deal with offenders? Is there bias? Do we consider white collar

crimes? Why are there so many weapons in the crimes? Is it deliberate or not?

Internet and technology is the new order of crimes.

How is crime statistics formulated? Petty thievery and murder, what does

that suggest about society? The response to crime will depend on this. Police

reports on crime statistics and trends are they true or false? What is the motivation
in lowering or hiking the figures? How are they interpreted? The figures can be

flawed to support a given target.

The three areas we will focus on include;

a) White collar crimes.

b) New ways of breaking the law e.g. kidnapping and cyber crime.

c) Youth delinquency- Gang culture

Definition of Criminology

Criminology is the scientific study of crime, including its causes,

responses by law enforcement, and methods of prevention. It is a sub-
group of sociology, which is the scientific study of social behavior. There
are many fields of study that are used in the field of criminology, including
biology, statistics, psychology, psychiatry, economics, and anthropology.

Just as criminology is a sub-group of sociology, criminology itself has

several sub-groups, including:

 Penology: the study of prisons and prison systems

 Biocriminology: the study of the biological basis of criminal behavior
 Feminist criminology: the study of women and crime
 Criminalistics: the study of crime detection


History and Theories

There are many different theories of criminology that have
developed throughout the past 250 years or so, and while some have fallen
out of popularity, others are still thought relevant today. The creation of
criminology as a field of study can be tracked as far back as the 18th
century, when two social theorists, Cesare Beccaria in Italy and Jeremy
Bentham in England, each pushed the idea that the punishment should be
so severe that the criminal would decide that the pleasure of the criminal
act would not be worth the pain of the punishment. This was known as
the classical school of criminology.

As recently as 1995, a judge in California sentenced a man to prison for 25

years to life for stealing a slice of pizza. The judge stated that his hands
were tied because of the three strikes law, and the law would not allow the
judge to look at the specific crime. This example follows the classical
school of criminology that was developed over 200 years ago.
During the early 19th century, criminologists started to argue that the
classical school of criminology does not differentiate between varying
degrees of crimes. These criminologists were known as the positivists.
The positivists believed that the punishment should fit the criminal, not the
crime.

Cesare Lombroso, Italian physician and psychiatrist, was a leader of

the positivist theory. He believed that criminals were born, not made, and
that crime was a matter of nature, not nurture. He conducted extensive
studies on cadavers of executed criminals, coming up with the argument
that certain facial features, such as very large jawbones and strong canine
teeth, were obvious signs that an individual was or would be a criminal.
However, this theory became less popular for moral reasons and in favor of
later theories focusing on environmental factors that contribute to criminal
behavior.

During the late 19th century, criminologists began to incorporate biology

and statistics into their field of study. Genetics was used to determine
whether criminal behavior could be linked from one family member to
another, and statistics was used to study population and crime. In 1946, the
Society for the Advancement of Criminology was created, which later
became the American Society of Criminology, a scholarly and scientific
organization aimed at studying prevention and causes of crime and
treatment of criminals.

During the 20th century, two more theories in criminology were developed.
These theories are social-structural criminology, and social-process
criminology. Social-structural criminology studies how criminal behavior
is affected by structures and/or social situations. The idea behind this
theory is that crime is a product of the deficiencies in social structure.
DEFINETION OF PENOLOGY

Penology comes from the Latin word poena which means punishment

and it is concerned with an in-depth examination of the formal institutions of

criminal justice such as police, courts and corrections. It is concerned with the

process devised and adopted for punishment, prevention of crime and treatment of

prisoners. Sentencing and punishment are currently increasing profile policy

issues. They have generated debate and proposals for new procedures, criteria,

social life. This is a policy area that is also complex and issues of criminal justice

practice and the administration are continually with the public domain. The

modern society has attempted to address the problem of increased crime by

building more and more prisons but the futility of incarceration is apparent, calling

for renewed debate on how best to counter this. Sentencing and punishment are by

no means mere academic matters. Policy and practice impact on actual and

potential victims of crime if they fail to prevent or limit reoffending. They affect

the offender and family and friends and also leads to a large expenditure on courts

and prisons. These are also topics where they are strong personal and popular

feelings about what should happen and how justice should be done. Policy and

practice in this area are also contingent on and influenced by a very wide range of

factors. Political, social and economic issues are not only of great importance in
the broader development of penal policy but are also relevant to the particular

circumstances of individual offenders and their experience of punishment.

Influence of theory on penal law and practice

1. Principles from criminology and penology:

These principles are the justifications of punishment and they

include; retribution, rehab, social protection and none recently restoration of

social harmony. Together, they constitute the store of knowledge regarding

what is theoretically the best response in dealing with offenders, because

theorists from oppressing conditions may agree that punishment is necessary

but different in their news of the best response, the type of punishment may

depend on which theory, which purpose of punishment is explicit or implicit in

policy. It may also depend on which philosophical ideas underpin the chosen

punishment. E.g. where the individual is seen as autonomous or possessive, free

will or whether their actions are determined by their surrounding environment

or genetic makeup.
2. The so called ‘new penology’:

This approach has been a significant influence of penal policy in

USA and UK.

This has also influenced penal law. It draws on the new managerialist focus

on value for money which is reflected in new public management. It applies

private sector method to public sector incorporating a concern with efficient use of

resources e.g. to consider whether punishing certain types of minor infringements

is cost effective. It uses actuarial (statistics to manage, predict, etc) to manage the

risk of offending and reoffending. The new penology according to Simon 1992,

embraces both a theory and a practice and punishment. In the new penology, crime

is seen as normal and the best we can hope for is to control crime and risk through

actuarial policies and technocrat forms of knowledge, internally generated by the

penal system. This approach focuses on categories of potential and actual offenders

rather than an individual on managerial aims rather than management and

transformation of the offender. Its focus is on actuarial incapacitation as a way of

managing risk and removing persistent offenders from society. Prison is used to

warehouse offenders at high risk of reoffending and because of managerial cost

concerns are , prisons will be reserved for the rest risk categories. Actuarial

justice provides means of selecting the target population to be imprision.

3. Classical theories of punishment:

The principle justification of punishments is clearly associated with

distinct traditions or schools. Retribution was influence by the late 18 th Century

philosophies and received in the 1970s and 80s. The rival tradition is which

includes the justification of , social protection or incapacitation or

. Both theories accept that punishment can be justly inflicted but differ in

their views of what constitutes the justice of a particular punishment. Both seek to

limit to use of discretion of sentencing in favor of a more vigorous principle

approach and both address issues of proportionality. Both approaches have had a

strong impact of penal policy in recent years. One major influence of penal and

sentencing policy has been a particular reattribute idea of just desserts. Justice will

be served to better through a more consistent approach in sentencing so that

convicted aims get their just and deserts which is the calculation of seriousness and

the consideration of a sentence proportionate to it.

4. Policy trends in the late 20th Century,

due to the increased repeat offenders and increasing during the

1940s onwards the rehabilitative deal lost much of its support but have recently
received renewed support. In the 1990s in the USA and UK saw a marked

increase in the use of punishment and incapacitation with focus being a

proportionate punishment rather than treatment or deterrence per say. Trends in

the past 20 years or so have seen the emergence of law and order as key. In the

UK, more policies focus is being shifted towards the heed to rebalance the

system in favor of victims, witnesses and communities and to give paramount

importance to protecting the public and resting public confidence in the aim

justice system. The aim is to increase the rights of victims even if this means

fever rights of the defendants.

1) INTRODUCTION
2) THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

1) INTRODUCTION –
A Punishment is a consequence of an offense. Punishments are
imposed on the wrong doers with the object to deter them to repeat the same wrong
doing and reform them into law- abiding citizens. The kind of punishment to be
imposed on the criminal depends or is influenced by the kind of society one lives
in. The aim of the different theories of punishments is to transform the law-
breakers into law-abiders.

2) THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT –
The different theories of Punishment are as follows –

 Deterrent Theory
 Retributive Theory
 Preventive Theory
 Reformative Theory
 Expiatory Theory


A) DETERRENT THEORY-
The term “Deter” means to abstain from doing an act. The main purpose of this
theory is to deter (prevent) the criminals from doing the crime or repeating the
same crime in future. Under this theory, severe punishments are inflicted upon the
offender so that he abstains from committing a crime in future and it would also be
a lesson to the other members of the society, as to what can be the consequences of
committing a crime. This theory has proved effective, even though it has certain
defects.
B) RETRIBUTIVE THEORY-
This theory of punishment is based on the principle- “An eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Retribute means to give in turn. The object of this theory
is to make the criminal realize the suffering of the pain by subjecting him to the
same kind of pain as he had inflicted on the victim. This theory aims at taking a
revenge rather than social welfare and transformation.

This theory has not been supported by the Criminologists, Penologists and
Sociologists as they feel that this theory is brutal and babric.

C) PREVENTIVE THEORY –
This theory too aims to prevent the crime rather than avenging it. As per
this theory, the idea is to keep the offender away from the society. This criminal
under this theory is punished with death, life imprisonment etc. This theory has
been criticized by some jurists.

D) REFORMATIVE THEORY –
This theory is the most humane of all the theories which aims to reform
the legal offenders by individual treatment. The idea behind this theory is that no
one is a born Criminal and criminals are also humans. Under this theory, it is
believed that if the criminals are trained and educated, they can be transformed into
law abiding citizens. This theory has been proved to be successful and accepted by
many jurists.

E) EXPIATORY THEORY –
Under this theory, it is believed that if the offender expiates or repents and
realizes his mistake, he must be forgiven.
 IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

Dina Bawri vs State Of Assam on 8 May, 2000

Gauhati High Court Dina Bawri vs State Of Assam on 8 May, 2000 Author:
Gauhati High Court

Jasu Alias Jaswant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September,

1994
Rajasthan High Court Jasu Alias Jaswant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on
19 September, 1994
Rajasthan High Court

Legal Remembrancer vs Matilal Ghose And Ors. on 30 June, 1913

Magistrates as the case might require and to punish any contempt of a
wilful disobedience thereunto by fine and imprisonment ... Court, being only
a Company's Court, and in theoryderived its jurisdiction and authority, not
from the British Crown
Calcutta High Court

Shri Ram & Shiv Ram & Anr. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 October,
1997
KURDUKAR, J. A primitive theory of punishment,

Dina Bawri vs State Of Assam on 8 May, 2000

Gauhati High Court Dina Bawri vs State Of Assam on 8 May, 2000 Author:
Gauhati High Court
PUNISHMENT

Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the

commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the omission of the
performance of an act required by law, by the judgment and command of
some lawful court.

The right of society to punish, is derived from a supposed agreement which

the persons who composes the primitive societies entered into, in order to
keep order and, indeed, the very existence of the state. According to others, it
is the interest and duty of man to live in society; to defend this right, society
may exert this principle in order to support itself, and this it may do,
whenever the acts punishable would en-danger the safety of the whole. And
some are of opinion that the foundation of this right is laid in public utility or
necessity. Delinquents are public enemies, and they must be disarmed and
prevented from doing evil, or society must be destroyed. But, if the social
compact has ever existed its end must have been the preservation of the
natural rights of the members and, therefore the effects of this fiction are the
same with those of the theory which takes abstract justice as the foundation of
the right to punish for, this justice, if well considered, is that which assures to
each member of the state, the free exercise of his rights. And if it should be
found that utility, the last source from which the right to punish is derived, is
so intimately united to justice that it is inseparable from it in the practice of
law, it will follow that every system founded on one of these principles must
be supported by the others.

To attain their social end, punishments should be exemplary, or capable of

intimidating those who might be tempted to imitate the guilty; reformatory, or
such as should improve the condition of the convicts; personal, or such as are
at least calculated to wound the feelings or affect the rights of the relations of
the guilty divisible, or capable of being graduated and proportioned to the
offence, and the circumstances of each case; reparable, on account of the
fallibility of human justice.

Punishments are either corporal or not corporal. The former are, death, which
is usually denominated capital punishment; imprisonment, which is either
with or without labor; vide Penitentiary; whipping, in some states, though to
the honor of several of them, it is not tolerated in them; banishment and
death.The punishments which are not corporal, are fines; forfeitures;
suspension or deprivation of some political or civil right deprivation of office,
and being rendered incapable to hold office; compulsion to remove nuisances.

The object of punishment is to reform the offender; to deter him and others
from committing like offences; and to protect society.

Punishment to be just ought to be graduated to the enormity of the offence. It

should never exceed what is requisite to reform the criminal and to protect
society; for whatever goes beyond this, is cruelty and revenge, the relic of a
barbarous age. All the circumstances under which the offender acted should
be considered.

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 8, forbids the infliction of

"cruel and unusual punishments."

It has been well observed that "when the rights of human nature are not
respected, those of the citizen are gradually disregarded. Those eras are in
history found fatal to liberty, in which cruel punishments predominate. Lenity
should be the guardian of moderate governments; severe penalties, the
instruments of despotism, may give a sudden check to temporary evils, but
they have a tendency to extend themselves to every class of crimes, and their
frequency hardens the sentiments of the people. Une loi rigoureuse produit
des crimes. The excess of the penalty flatters the imagination with the hope of
impunity, and thus becomes an advocate with the offender for the
perpetrating of the offence."

Punishments are infamous or not infamous. The former continue through life,
unless the offender has been pardoned, and are not dependant on the length
of time for which the party has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment; a
person convicted of a felony, perjury, and other infamous crimes cannot,
therefore, be a witness nor hold any office, although the period for which he
may have been sentenced to imprisonment, may have expired by lapse of
time.Those punishments which are not infamous, are such as are inflicted on
persons for misdemeanors, such as assaults and batteries, libels, and the like.
 A punishment is the imposition of an undesirable
or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by
an authority—in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law—as a
response and deterrent to a particular action or behaviour that is deemed
undesirable or unacceptable. The reasoning may be to condition a child to
avoid self-endangerment, to impose social conformity (in particular, in the
contexts of compulsory education or military discipline), to defend norms, to
protect against future harms (in particular, those from violent crime), and to
maintain the law—and respect for rule of law—under which the social
group is governed.[1][2][3][4][5] Punishment may be self-inflicted as with self-
flagellation and mortification of the flesh in the religious setting, but is most
often a form of social coercion.

The unpleasant imposition may include a fine, penalty, or confinement, or

be the removal or denial of something pleasant or desirable. The individual
may be a person, or even an animal. The authority may be either a group
or a single person, and punishment may be carried out formally under a
system of law or informally in other kinds of social settings such as within a
family.[2] Negative consequences that are not authorized or that are
administered without a breach of rules are not considered to be punishment
as defined here.[4] The study and practice of the punishment of crimes,
particularly as it applies to imprisonment, is called penology, or, often in
modern texts, corrections; in this context, the punishment process is
euphemistically called "correctional process".[6]Research into punishment
often includes similar research into prevention.
Punishment justification and goals

Introduction
Criminal punishments are government sanctions imposed on
persons convicted of criminal acts (other forms of punishment, not dealt with
in this bibliography, include measures imposed by parents on their children,
by organizations on their members, by employers, etc.). Criminal punishment
requires clear and convincing justification for two essential reasons. First,
such punishment is, almost by definition, unpleasant and harmful to the
offender, at least in the short term: it deliberately brands and stigmatizes that
person as a wrongdoer, usually involves some loss of liberty or other harsh
treatment, and often causes harm to the offender’s family. Second,
punishment consumes scarce public resources that might be better spent on
other pressing needs, or better spent on alternate ways of achieving the
supposed justification(s) for the punishment. Punishment justifications and
goals can be either positive or negative criteria: they can provide moral
and/or practical arguments in favor of the punishment, or they can set limits
on the type or degree of punishment that it is permissible to impose under
one or more of the positive rationales. Whether positive or negative,
punishment justifications and goals fall into two major categories. So-called
deontological rationales and limits evaluate a particular punishment
according to its inherent value—whether it is a good or a bad thing in itself,
regardless of whether the punishment yields good or bad consequences. The
second category of rationales and limits are “consequentialist” (or utilitarian);
punishment is justified and limited according to whether it produces good or
bad effects, in particular whether it tends to decrease future criminal acts by
the offender and/or other would-be offenders. Some theories of punishment
belong entirely to one or the other of these two main categories, but a number
of hybrid or mixed theories have been proposed, incorporating both
deontological and consequentialist principles, and most modern legal systems
take this approach.
General Overviews

Bedau and Kelly 2010 provides a broad overview of traditional

consequentialist and deontological theories of punishment and the evolution
of these theories over time. Duff 2010 also reviews consequentialist and
retributive theories, expanding his coverage to include a discussion of mixed,
restorative, and abolitionist theories of punishment. Greenawalt 2001 reviews
various punishment theories and notes how each theory is related to
sentencing practices and to principles governing criminal procedure and
criminal liability. Hart 2008 gives a philosophical perspective on punishment
and the questions of who, why, and how society should choose to
punish. Tonry 2006 discusses a broad range of legitimate and illegitimate
punishment purposes, and proposes a model system.
 CONCLUSION

Criticism against constraints on exercise of judicial discretion.

1. Reduced discretion results in a decreased possibility that justice can be tailored

to the specific circumstances of a case or individual. This might itself lead to

injustice.

2. Research has shown that mandatory sentences/penalties have not achieved

their intended aims.

3. Judges and other legal professionals may seek ways to circumvent mandatory

provisions. Discretion elsewhere in the Criminal Justice process could become

the site for increased professional activity to negotiate justice clients in order

that mandatory sentences might be avoided.

4. The lack of discretion at the sentencing stage could encourage more ‘not

guilty’ pleas. The accused might consider that more is at stake if the likely

penalty is severe and so chosen risk a trial. This would increase the workload

for the courts and add to the financial costs.

5. The lack of direction may lead to constitutional or Human Rights violation.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://indiankanoon.org/s

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminology

https://www.lawnotes.in/Penology

https://www.lawnotes.in/Theories_of_Punishment

http://www.caselaws.in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

https://www.slideshare.net/MeiPoe/chapter-5-conclusion-suggestion