Deterrent Theory of Punishment

Punishment is the consequence of the commission of an illegal act. From the initial stages of human Civilization, the offenders are being punished for the commission of the offence. In the ancient period, no such codified laws were established to punish the offenders; the people or head of the community or a village chose how to punish the offenders, and the punishment applied to the criminal in the ancient period was very rigorous and heinous. Subsequently, there were eras of monarchy and punishment, during which the ruler of a region determined the severity of the penalty.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. History of Punishment in India
2. Punishment in Modern India
3. Why is Punishment Imposed?
4. Theories of Punishment
5. Deterrent Theory of Punishment in India
6. Conclusion

To put it simply, the primary objectives of punishment are to relieve the victim and maintain societal order. The imposition of some form of deprivation, such as denying someone their legally allowed rights, is another way to characterize punishment. The purpose of this article is to give readers a quick rundown of the punishment theories that periodically underpin the functioning of the criminal justice system.

History of Punishment in India

The Concept of Punishment in India is not a new term. The methods and reasons for punishment were already being drafted in the Dharmasathras, in which punishment was written as Danda. To control the people and the crimes the Punishment which was known as Danda was imposed in the society to suppress criminal activities. The history of ancient Indian criminology discusses two ideas: prayashchita and data. The difference between the two is that in the case of danda, the transgressor admits that he has done something wrong or violated morality and the rules that were in place at the time. In contrast, in the latter scenario, the transgressor is not required to confess or freely acknowledge his guilt.

Back then, it was the duty of the king, who had the authority to do so, to punish those who broke the law. The king's job was to keep the peace in his realm, and the only social control he had to keep the law-abiding citizens safe was through punishment. The phrase "Danda Chhatra Dhari" refers to the idea that the king serves as both a protector and a punisher in Manu's ancient literature.

Punishment in Modern India

The Indian Penal Code of 1860 was enacted by the British Government and consists of penalties and punishments for offences committed by an offender. The existing kinds of punishment in India are discussed in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. These include death, life imprisonment, harsh imprisonment, simple imprisonment, confiscation of property, and fines. The judiciary's job in contemporary India is to uphold law and order. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure established the procedures for criminal trials. The Court of Law looks into every detail and considers every angle before deciding the acquittal or conviction of both the accused and the injured party.

These days, the most talked-about kind of punishment among penologists is the death penalty. One of the worst punishments that may be applied is the death penalty. According to the IPC, it was only permitted in the "rarest of the rare cases" and is only an option in lieu of mandatory punishment. The ideal option instead of the death penalty has been suggested as being life in prison.

Why is Punishment Imposed?

Punishment is a way to handle the increasing crime rate in a society. penalties and punishments are also imposed to set an example for society. The main objective of Imposing punishments is to maintain law and order in society.

The main objective of imposing punishments is-

• to prevent possible offenders from shielding society from naughty characters.

• to stop real criminals from committing new crimes.

• to drive out evils, reform offenders, and transform them into law-abiding citizens.

• To administer justice in two ways: first, by rehabilitating criminals, and second, by causing pain to prevent future offenders and others from committing crimes.

• to uphold laws and norms necessary for a nation free from crime.

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment consist of the origin of Punishment and the motive behind the Imposing of Punishment. The objective of punishment is to maintain law and order in the society. The different theories of Punishment are-

1. Retributive Theory

Retaliation has always been used as a justification for punishment. This point of view holds that transgression should result in punishment. Moreover, this reasoning maintains that no one will be detained until they violate the law.

This ideology is based on the proverb "Eye for Eye". The main objective of this philosophy is to make the pain that the victim of the offender's actions must endure equally. Put simply, it can be argued that all forms of punishment are in some sense retributive because the whole point of punishment is to restore harmony and peace to society. This hypothesis is more serious than the others.

Due to the fact that punishment inflicts disproportionate pain on the guilty, this idea is not very humanistic. Thus, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence is the most important factor to consider when deciding on the proper punishment.

2. Preventive Theory

This theory works on the quote,’ Prevention is better than cure’. This viewpoint, in contrast to others, seeks not retribution but prevention of crime. The disablement theory is another name for this notion. The idea that society has to be shielded from criminals is what gives the theory its significance.

In a similar vein, this idea proposes expelling the perpetrator from society in order to deter him from reoffending. By apprehending such perpetrators, society protects itself against anti-social order generally. It will be beneficial to deter future crimes if these people receive the death penalty or life in prison. We can prevent more crimes by separating these offenders from society.

There is another way that modern criminologists view the preventative hypothesis. When they first realized it, social and economic forces had to be released from society. Individuals who exhibit antisocial behaviour must also be watched. This is due to a combination of psychological and biological limitations.

In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

According to the retributive philosophy of punishment, the court noted that solitary confinement is required if the prisoner is violent or dangerous to prevent and separate these offenders from society.

3. Reformative Theory

This theory's name alone suggests something about its character. This theory aids in the rehabilitation of offenders, turning them into law-abiding citizens. No one is born a criminal; crimes can occur unintentionally or as a result of certain circumstances. The offender in this case needs to be given another chance to atone. For this, facilities such as juvenile homes, reformatories, training schools, and correctional houses are provided. The rehabilitation of convicts is the main objective of this theory.

Consequently, rather than penalizing criminals, the goal will be accomplished by psychologically rehabilitating them. Criminals who have received training and education will be able to act responsibly in social settings. Assisting the offender in getting back on track is the main objective.

In the case of Dharambir v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The open jails concept was introduced in India as a result of this instance, and it generally helps with the rehabilitation of young offenders.

Deterrent Theory of Punishment in India

Jeremy Benthem is the founder of the Deterrent Theory of Punishment. The principle of hedonism is the base of the Deterrent theory. The goal of this notion is to prevent criminals from committing the same crime or being involved in it again. Those in society who suffer the repercussions of such crime can learn from this theory. It instils a fear of punishment in those who share its beliefs.

According to the Principle of hedonism, The use of a swift, certain, and severe punishment would discourage a man from committing a crime.

Types of Deterrent Theory - Examples

Specific Deterrent-

Punishment is intended to educate offenders to specifically dissuade them from committing crimes. As a result, the offenders who are exposed to this notion may undergo reform. Furthermore, it is argued that punishment transforms offenders. This is accomplished by instilling a dread that the penalty will be meted out again.

General Deterrent-

On the other hand, general deterrence aims to prevent crime in the future. Thus, each defendant is used as an example to do this. As a result, people are afraid to behave in the defendant's manner.

Principles of Deterrent Theory in Indian Law

Several clauses in the Indian legal system demonstrate both general and specific deterrence. For instance, the severe penalties applied to crimes like terrorism, corruption, and murder accomplish both general and targeted deterrence. Indian law seeks to protect society as a whole by curbing future incidents of similar crimes and holding perpetrators accountable.

Components of Deterrence Theory

Severity of Punishment

The level of punishment is indicated by the severity of the punishment. Criminal law must place a strong focus on punishment to deter crime and motivate people to follow the law. Criminal behaviour has long been thought to be largely deterred by the harshness of consequences.

Various experiments have been conducted to find out the benefits of severity of punishments The severity of the penalty reduced the number of crimes including theft, robbery, burglary, battery, and rape. That is, the severity of the penalty did not deter crime. In actuality, the opposite result would occur. There are further advantageous reasons to incorporate harsh penalties into criminal justice policy.

In essence, severance refers to administering a penalty that is so awful that the audience will be terrified to endure it. If the penalty is too harsh, the public might "cry foul" and rebel; if it is too light, test cheaters and pirates might still carry out their evil activities.

Certainty of Punishments

It's common to place more weight on the certainty of punishment than its harshness. Studies reveal that certainty works as a much more effective deterrent than harshness. Subjective certainty is more significant than objective certainty in terms of certainty.

In other words, the belief about the likelihood of punishment takes precedence over the actual likelihood of punishment. This subjective view may exist among the general public, but it is more likely to have its roots in first-hand information or anecdotal evidence from community members.

Celerity of Punishments

Any offence needs to be swiftly punished to deter similar offences in the future. The literature has paid the least attention to celerity, or the speed at which someone is punished for breaking the law. According to research, punishment speed might not have a deterrent effect. According to at least one study, people would rather finish their penalty quickly.

The idea goes that if people don't fear punishment, then they will commit crimes at a higher rate. Scholars suggest that increasing criminal certainty is a more effective tactic than harshening penalties for transgressions. Therefore, proponents of the deterrent hypothesis argue that a rational individual would weigh the benefits and drawbacks before committing a crime if punishment were prompt, certain, and severe. The person will be deterred from breaching the law and committing a crime as a result.

Case Law on Deterrent Theory of Punishment in India

In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

The validity of the death penalty under Indian law is the subject of this historic lawsuit. The Supreme Court of India stressed in its ruling that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on potential offenders and aids in preventing the conduct of similar crimes.

The court ruled that the death sentence may be appropriate as a deterrent in some situations where the offence is egregious and violent and the public conscience is outraged.

Criticisms of Deterrence Theory of Punishment in India

Because the accused in murder, rape, and other crimes were not reported and the victims were defenceless, the deterrent hypothesis did not work. The deterrent theory works only against those who are unwilling to live up to their convictions. Sometimes, despite the abundance of deterrents, criminal minds behave impulsively. Penalties and sanctions are now merely obstacles that offenders must overcome. The Indian criminal justice system does not require this. Even with the severe fines and punishments, there are more criminal prosecutions than ever before.

The main aim of deterrent theory is to deter criminal activities by bringing up a fear of serious punishments and setting an example for society so that offenders think twice about the consequences of their actions before committing it.

Major Criticisms of Deterrence theory are-

• Once the punishment is completed, the offender no longer feels fear.

• The thoughts of the toughest criminals are not frightened by this kind of punishment.

• Make people feel pity for those who commit crimes.

Conclusion

This article talks about the different theories of punishment emphasizing the deterrent theory of punishment. How this theory came into existence and how punishment was in ancient India and as well as modern India. The theory of punishment aims at maintaining law and order in the society. Also, this article talks about different kinds of punishment as mentioned under the Indian Penal Code 1860.