‘FROM RETRIBUTION TO REINTEGRATION’: A decade of change in punishment practices

ABSTRACT

This research evaluates a paradigm shift or reversal policy in penal practices over the former decade, witnessing the progression from retributive approach of justice to more meticulous approaches emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration, with a specific focus on India and across the world. It tarnished the ingrained frameworks of punishment, which historically prioritized retribution and deterrence, and contrasts them with the well-fiter models that wins justice. The research opted for a comparison, prioritizing the implementation of these evolving approaches across diverse jurisdictions within and beyond India, and assessing their impact on recidivism rates, prison environments, and the holistic well-being of incarcerated individuals.

This abstract concludes with a rigorous observation of the efficacy and efficiency of these reforms, identifying best possible practices and delineating the pertinent challenges that impede the realization of a truly reintegrative justice system. It offers a forward-looking perspective on Punishment should be well proportionate to the offence committed, reflecting the gravity of the offense.

KEYWORDS

Retribution, Reformation, Reintegration, Punishment, Capital punishment/ Death penalty, Community Service etc.

INTRODUCTION

In common parlance punishment is to be perceived as the imputation of the suffering in person or property, meted out by an authority in response to a particular action or behaviour that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable, on the offender who is adjured guilty of crime under the law.

In the words of Bentham, punishment is an empirical question of desire and of the infliction of sufficient pain to provide an effective deterrent. Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 outlines six types of punishments that can be imposed under the law:

● Death- The most severe punishment, typically reserved for the most heinous crimes with high parsimony.

● Imprisonment for life- Imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life.

● Imprisonment- Can be either rigorous (involving hard labor) or simple.

● Forfeiture of property- The confiscation of a convict's assets.

● Fine- A monetary penalty.

● Community Service- A relatively new addition, involving unpaid work for the benefit of the community.

These aforementioned punishments are examined in light of the prevailing theories of punishment, namely,

● Retributive theory- The retributive theory of punishment is based on the idea that punishment should be a proportional response to the crime committed. It emphasizes that offenders should "pay" for their actions, and the severity of the punishment should match the severity of the offense. This theory focuses on the idea of justice being served, with the punishment acting as a form of moral balance or payback for the harm caused.

● Deterrent theory- The deterrent theory of punishment aims to discourage potential offenders from committing crimes. It operates on the principle that punishment should be severe enough to outweigh the benefits of the crime, thus deterring individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. This theory can be divided into two main categories: general deterrence, which aims to discourage the public at large, and specific deterrence, which focuses on preventing the individual offender from re-offending. The effectiveness of deterrence depends on the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment.

● Preventive theory- The preventive theory of punishment focuses on preventing future crimes by incapacitating offenders. This approach aims to protect society by removing the offender's ability to commit further crimes, typically through imprisonment, but also potentially through other means such as electronic monitoring or, in extreme cases, the death penalty. The primary goal is to reduce crime rates by physically preventing offenders from harming others.

● Reformative theory- The reformative theory of punishment centers on rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into society as law-abiding citizens. This approach emphasizes the idea that the purpose of punishment should be to reform the offender's character and address the underlying causes of their criminal behavior. It often involves providing education, therapy, and counseling to help offenders develop the skills and attitudes needed to lead productive lives, with the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In earlier eras, punishments such as beheading or execution were common, resulting in either the offender's death or their transformation into a rebel. This negated the fundamental purpose of punishment, which is to eradicate the crime and eliminate the root causes of the offense, preventing recidivism through the offender. The rigid application of retributive theory, with its severe laws, failed to achieve this objective. For instance, in a case where pigs were burned for killing a child, the act was driven by retribution, adhering to the principle of "an eye for an eye." This approach failed to consider the legal validity inherent in animals.

Subsequently, the reformative theory emerged, shifting the focus from punishment to the complete eradication of crime. This theory posits that offenders are in need of treatment rather than punishment, emphasizing the importance of understanding their mental state and the reasons behind their actions. The primary goal is to rehabilitate the offender, fostering a change of heart and reintegrating them into society as a law-abiding citizen.

METHODOLOGY

These are the pro-active measures for the aforementioned research:

● Comparative Analysis- Contrast with other punishment theories.

● Case Studies- Analyze real-world examples of implementation.

● Qualitative Research- Conduct interviews with relevant professionals.

● Quantitative Analysis- Analyze statistical data on program effectiveness.

● Policy Recommendations- Develop suggestions for practical application.

● Ethical Considerations- Address ethical implications and fairness.

Community service is again an optimised version of punishment akin with reforms, which came to existence with enactment of BNS,2023.

DISCUSSION

Position in UK- The death penalty was abolished in the United Kingdom for murder in 1965, with the last execution taking place in 1964. The abolition was a gradual process, with the death penalty being removed for other crimes before murder. Today, the UK's position is firmly against capital punishment, and it is not permitted under any circumstances.

Position in USA- In the United States, the death penalty's legal status varies by state and the federal government. Some states have abolished it, while others still use it. The Supreme Court has ruled on its constitutionality, and its application is subject to numerous legal challenges and debates regarding its fairness and effectiveness.

Position in India- In India, the death penalty is legal and is reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases, due to Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab. This means it is only applied in the most heinous crimes. The Supreme Court of India has the final say on death sentences, and there's ongoing debate about its use and application.

Question of Law- The reformative theory of punishment focuses on rehabilitating offenders rather than just punishing them. It aims to reform criminals so they can reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens. This approach emphasizes education, therapy, and skill-building programs within the prison system. The goal is to address the root causes of criminal behavior and provide the tools necessary for a successful return to society.

CONCLUSION

Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm caused by a crime through a collaborative process involving the victim, the offender, and the community. It emphasizes accountability, amends, and reconciliation rather than retribution. The key principles include acknowledging the harm, promoting dialogue, and finding solutions that address the needs of all parties involved. The goal is to heal and reintegrate both the offender and the victim into the community. 

Closing Credits

Author: IPSA RATTAN

Affiliation: (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University )

"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"