INTRODUCTION-

PENOLOGY
PREPARED BY
GAYATHRI .S
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW
INTRODUCTION

Term “Penology” coined by in 1834 by

 Francis Lieber : A system of administering
punishment to the convicted offenders.
The name of the discipline comes from the Latin
poena (‘punishment’) and from the Greek logos
(meaning, among all, ‘knowledge’ and ‘reason’)
Multidisciplinary Subject
Detterence, rehabilitation, punishment and
Incapacitation
Crime and Punishment
Punishment is defined by crime
Crime is to shaped by punishment.
OBJECTS OF PENOLOGY

Penology is the scientific study of infliction of

appropriate sentence on conviction of an offender and
execution there of in the form prescribed by the law.
It concerns with the various aspects of punishment and
penal policies.
To protect the society against the criminal
Administration of penal measures
To infliction of appropriate punishment
SALIENT FEATURES OF PENOLOGY

Penology is a technique of punishment and

reform of criminals
The aims and objects of these techniques
are to suppress crime and criminal.
Penology helps in establishing and
managing the institution of reform,
probation and correction.
Penology also helps in bringing about social
PUNISHMENT

Not defined in IPC

Oxford Dictionary: Punishment means to
make an offender suffer for an offence.
The simple meaning of 'punishment' is the
infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a
person for a misdeed.‘
D.R.Taft: Conscious infliction upon a
disturbing individual in the interest of his
Sutherland: It involves pain or suffering produced
by design and justified by some value
In 1764 Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crime and
Punishment deals with the concept of classical
school of Penology.
Punishment should be for crime and the nature of
the crime.
HLA Hart, in his pioneering work ‘Punishment &
Responsibility: Essays in Philosophy of Law (1968)’ provides
that punishment should pass according to this tests
It must involve pain or other consequences normally
considered unpleasant.
It must be for an offence against legal rules
 It must be to an actual or supposed offender for his offence.
 It must be intentional, administered by human beings other
than the offender.
It must be imposed and administered by an authority
constituted by a legal system against which the offence is
committed
 PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT

Deterrence
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
Retribution
Restitution
CONCEPT OF PUNISHMENT
According to Sir Walter Moberly, punishment
presupposes
1.What is inflicted is an ill, that is something
unpleasant
2.it is a sequel to some act which is disapproved by
authority
3.There is some correspondence between the
punishment and the act which has evoked it.
4.punishment is inflicted, that it is imposed by
someone’s voluntary act

 CORPORAL AND NON –CORPORAL
PUNISHMENTS

It is directly affecting the human body of the

accused. e.g.
a) Whipping- by the state authority or by victim or
relatives of victim when accused is whipped by the
hunter or by stick in public place.
b) Flogging - it is also a type of beating the accused
in public place.
c) Mutilation - it is process of amputing any part of
body of the accused as decided by the competent
court of Kaji and by making him permanently
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENTS

Bentham’s Theory of Punishment

Jermy Bentham in 18th century founded the Doctrine of
Utilitarianism.
Applied the philosophy of Utilitarianism in to crime and
punishment.
He believed that criminals engage for crime for pleasure and
calculate the gains and losses
Punishment inflicted should offset the pleasure offenders achieve
from their crimes
For Bentham, punishment is "an artificial
consequence annexed by political authority to an
offensive act.
We punish in order to argument the total
happiness of the community by excluding mischief,
which tends to subtract from that happiness.
Punishment is itself a mischief, or evil, since it
inflicts pain, and on the principle of utility "it ought
only to be admitted in as far as it promises to
exclude some greater evil.
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Retributive Theory
Deterrent Theory
Preventive Theory
Reformative Theory
Expiation Theory
RETRIBUTIVE THEORY

 Theory of Vengence ( Retaliation)

The doctrine of Lex talionis, which if
translated, means ‘an eye for an eye’,’ a
tooth for a tooth’.
It focus on punishment to only those who
deserve it.
The core princples of retributivism are desert and
proportionality. For retributivists, the punishment has
to be proportional to the crime committed.
Desert refers to some demerit which has caused the
accused to commit a crime. Retributive punishment
has to be proportional to the degree of desert. The
more the desert, the more the punishment should be.
It aims at restoring the social balance disturbed by
the offender. The offender should receive as much
pain and suffering as inflicted by him on his victim
and the community.
In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal
(ca1994 (1) ALT Cri 388,) SC held that appropriate
punishment is the manner in which the courts
respond to society’s cry for justice.
Criticisms: The punishments were brutal
Bentham criticise retributive theory
Salmond says revenge cannot be re
attributed like bank account.
Every crimes cannot implemented as illegal
and immoral.
DETERRENT THEORY

 The very purpose of selection of this type of punishment

on offenders is to deter them from committing crime.
 Salmond considers deterrent aspect of criminal justice to
be the most important for the control of crimes.
 The deterrent theory was the basis of punishment in
England in the medieval period and consequently, severe
and inhuman punishments were inflicted even for minor
offences.
There are two types of deterrence (i) individual and (ii) general
(i) Individual Deterrence:
Individual deterrence refers to the effect of punishment in
preventing a particular individual from committing additional
crime. In the past this form of deterrence often took the form
of incapacitation, making it impossible for a particular offender
to commit again the crime for which he or she had been
convicted
General Deterrence: The second type is
general deterrence, is based on the
assumption that punishing individuals who
are convicted of crimes will set an example
to potential violators who, being 'rational'
beings, would wishing to avoid such pain,
will not violate the law.
In State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa
(2000Cr.L.J.1793 at 1799(SC)) the court held that the
measure of punishment does not depend upon the
social status of offender or of victim. It must depend
upon the conduct of accused. Protection of society
and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of
law and that is required to be achieved by imposing
an appropriate punishment.
PREVENTIVE THEORY
This theory aims to prevent the crime rather
then avenging it. The preventive theory has
the object of preventing or disabling the
criminal from committing the offences.
By jailing a criminal, he is prevented from
committing another crime.
Preventive Theory is also called restraint theory. The goal of
punishment is restraint.
Divided in to two
Incapacitation and Incarceration
Incapacitation means deprives somebody or something of power,
force and disqualify somebody or make somebody legally
ineligible.
 Modern punishments seek to incapacitate certain offenders who
are believed to pose a threat to the community.
Incarceration Means to put somebody in
prison or to place or situation of
confinement . The most serious or repeat
offenders are incarcerated.
In India imprisonment is the general form of
incarceration for an offence punishable with
imprisonment under IPC and other laws.
REFORMATIVE THEORY
 Reformative theory of punishment is generally most of the
appreciating theory of punishment This theory believes in the
concept that “hate the crime not to criminal” and that nobody is
born as criminal it is only the consequences of those circumstances
which were around of him. So situations and circumstances can be
changed.
In 1957, Government of India, appointed the All India Jail Manual
Committee the Committee observed that the problems during
imprisonment cannot be solved neither by making punishment more
deterrent nor by making more weak and diluted.
• In Sunil Batra II V. Delhi Administration on prevailing
conditions of Indian jails the court has observed that, “
the rule of law meets with its waterloo when the
state‟s minions become law breakers, and so the court
as a sentinel of justice and the voice of the
Constitution, runs down the violators with its writ, and
serves compliance with human rights even behind iron
bars and by prison wardens.”
EXPIATION THEORY

• Also known as Restoration

• Expiation means “the act of expiating, reparation, amends,
compensation”
• According to this theory repentance by the offender itself is a
punishment.
• The theory of restoration takes a victim oriented approach to crime that
emphasized compensation(restitution) for victims rather than focus on
punishments.
• Sec 357 A of CrPC
• Rachhapl Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 2002 SC 2710) .The Session Court
awarded death penalty and 5000 rupees under sec 302,The HC in appeal
altered the sentence to imprisonment and fine 2 lakh but S.C upheld the
imprisonment but reduced the compensation to 1 lakh rupees.
Judicial Decisions
Dr. Jacob George v state of Kerala,: I[8] SCC, Dr Jacob George,
vol. 3. 1994, p. 430.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that deterrence,
reformative, preventive, retributive & compensatory should be
the object of punishment. One alternative hypothesis over the
other is not a sound penalty strategy. Each principle of
punishment, depending on the merit of the event, should be
used separately or integrated.
• In State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat ,
Justice Thomas had held that
• "Reformative and reparative theories deserve serious
consideration where the victim(s) of crime or members of his
family should be compensated by the wages earned by the
criminal in prison." The Court proposed that a comprehensive
statute should be enforced by the specific State in relation to
his compensation owed to the victim of a crime
Sri Ashim Dutta Alias Nilu vs State of West
Bengal – In this case, it was observed that
the purpose of both deterrence and
retributive penalties was to avoid the
recurrence of offences by those who passed
an exemplary penalty for a specific offence.
IMPRISONMENT

As per Section 53 of IPC Imprisonment two types

Simple
Rigorous
In the case of rigorous imprisonment the offender is
put to hard labour such as grinding corn, digging
earth, drawing water, cutting fire-wood, bowing
wool, etc.
In the case of simple imprisonment the offender is
confined to jail and is not put to any kind of work.
The Local and Special Laws not mentioned the types
Under section 3(27) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
such imprisonment may be simple or rigorous.
Simple imprisonment is suitable where a fine will not
suffice and a very short term of imprisonment has to be
imposed. This ensures casual offenders being kept apart
from the contamination of hardened criminals.
FINE: Fine is the most common punishment in every part of the
world .(punishment or penalty)
Manusmruti, Bible and Shariyat
It is commonly acceptable punishment to all types of criminals,
such as white-collar, hardcore criminals and petty criminals.
Indian Penal Code imposes the fine in four ways:
(a) As a Sole punishment in specified offences in which the
highest limit is fixed up under the act.
In certain cases alternative punishment is imposed
in form of fine e.g. five years rigorous
imprisonment and 25,000 rupees fine and on non-
payment of fine of Rs.25,000 additional one year
rigorous imprisonment would be imposed.
In certain offence in mandatory way
In some offences the fine is obligatory
• Forfeiture of property: It is preventing the accused
and his dependents from enjoying unlawful benefits
of properties means, by accused and his families are
deprived of wrongful enjoyment of gains obtained by
illegal activities and offences or as a penal action for
the offences under sections 126,127 & 169 of Indian
Penal Code.
 LIFE IMPRISONMENT

• Transportation
• 1837 Law commission preferred Transportation.
• 1857 rebellion Indian prisoners were transported to Andaman.
• 1955 amendment to IPC
• From 1956 transportation no longer remained a punishment even on
the statute books.

• SEC 55 IPC AND SEC 57 IPC

• SEC 432 AND 433 CRPC