Retributive Theory of Punishment

The result of committing an illegal conduct is punishment. From the beginning of human civilisation, criminals have faced punishment for their actions. Since no such codified rules were in place, the people, the head of the community, or the village decided how to punish the offenders in the ancient era. In the past, criminals received dreadful and incredibly cruel punishment. There were then periods of monarchy and punishment when the local ruler set the harshness of the penalty. Laws were drafted as human civilization advanced, and the seriousness of the offence decided the suitable sentence and punishment.

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. The objective of Imposing Punishment
2. Theories of Punishment
3. Retributive Theory
4. Conclusion

To put it plainly, the main goals of punishment are to uphold social order and soothe the victim. Another way to define punishment is as any type of deprivation or as an impediment to someone's legally granted rights. This article's goal is to provide readers with a brief overview of the various punishment philosophies that occasionally guide the operation of the criminal justice system.

The objective of Imposing Punishment

Punishment is one tactic used to combat a society's rising crime rate. Additionally, sanctions and punishments are used to set an example for society. The main objective of punishment is to uphold social order and law.

The primary goal of applying penalties is-

• to stop potential offenders from protecting society from wicked people.

• to deter actual offenders from committing fresh offences

• to expel evils, turn criminals into law-abiding people, and reform them.

• To impose pain to deter future offenders and others from committing crimes, as well as to rehabilitate criminals as a means of administering justice.

• to respect the laws and standards required for a country free from crime.

Theories of Punishment

Theories of punishment address the background of punishment as well as the justification for its application. The purpose of punishment is to maintain social order and law. Among the several theories of punishment are:

1. Deterrent Theory

The creator of the Deterrent Theory of Punishment is Jeremy Benthem. The Deterrent hypothesis is based on the hedonistic principle. Preventing offenders from committing the same crime or becoming entangled in it again is the aim of this idea. This theory has lessons for those in society who experience the consequences of such crimes. Those who hold its doctrines are instilled with a fear of punishment.

The Deterrent Theory of Punishment is further sub-divided into-

General Deterrent

The goal of general deterrence is to stop crimes before they happen. Every defendant is used as an example to achieve this. People are therefore scared to act in the defendant's way.

Specific Deterrent

The primary objective of punishment is to educate offenders to discourage them from committing crimes. As a result, individuals who commit crimes and are made aware of this concept may decide to change. Additionally, it is said that punishment modifies offenders. This is accomplished by instilling a sense of anxiety that the penalty will be meted out again.

2. Preventive Theory

This hypothesis is based on the proverb "Prevention is better than cure". This viewpoint, in contrast to others, seeks to deter crime rather than seek retribution. The disablement theory is another name for this concept. The idea that society must be shielded against criminals is the foundation of the theory's significance. The result of this scenario is defence and camaraderie.

Similar to that, this theory suggests removing the offender from society to discourage him from committing crimes again. Through the arrest of such offenders, society defends itself against the anti-social order in general. If these individuals are given the death penalty or life in prison, it will help to discourage such actions in the future. By removing these criminals from society, we can stop additional crimes from happening.

Contemporary criminologists see the preventative theory from a different angle. Social and economic forces needed to be freed from society, they realized at first. People who act in an antisocial manner also need to be kept under observation. This results from a confluence of biological and psychological constraints.

3. Reformative Theory

Even the name of this idea tells something about its nature. This notion helps criminals get back on their feet and become law-abiding citizens. Nobody is born a criminal; mistakes can be made or events might lead to criminal activity. In this instance, the offender needs to be given another opportunity to make amends. Institutions including training schools, juvenile homes, reformatories, and correctional institutions are available for this purpose. The primary goal of this ideology is the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Two examples are the concepts of deterrence and retribution, both classical and non-classical. The positive theory, which contends that positive thinking is the principal cause of crime, gave rise to the reformative hypothesis. As a result, this view contends that the major goal of punishment should be the offender's rehabilitation.

As a result, the objective will be achieved by mentally rehabilitating offenders rather than punishing them. Criminals can behave responsibly in social situations if they have obtained training and education. The primary goal is to help the offender get back on track.

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". This philosophy's primary goal is to equalize the suffering that the victim of the offender's actions must go through. Simply put, since the goal of punishment is to bring harmony and peace back to society, one could argue that all forms of punishment are retributive in some way. Compared to the other theories, this one is more serious.

This approach is not particularly humanitarian because punishment causes the guilty undue anguish. Therefore, the most crucial thing to take into account when choosing the appropriate punishment is striking a balance between the offence's aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Origin of Retributive Theory of Punishment

The origin of the retributive theory of Punishment can be found in many religious texts. In the Christian religion, references can be found of punishment to the wrongdoers and also in Christian texts the afterlife punishments can be found for sins committed. In Hindu text the concept of Karma can be found along with concepts of retribution can be found in epics like Mahabharata, where Lord Krishna talks about the importance of war when all methods of negotiations are exhausted Further in the Quran of the Muslims we can find the concepts of retribution theory as punishments. The objectives of the retributive theory of punishments can be found in religious texts.

Principles of Retributive Theory of Punishments

Principles of Responsibility

This theory of punishment only applies when an individual has voluntarily accepted that he has individually committed a crime. In Retributive theory, the concept of Mens Reus and Actus Reus is the fundamental element. In simple words, the offender will only be punished if he has committed the act. In the retributive theory of punishment, the emphasis is given to the guilty mind and guilty acts along with acceptance of the offence by the criminal.

Principle of Proportionality

According to this principle under the retributive theory, the punishment of an offence should be equivalent to the seriousness of the crime. The principle of payback is used in the retributive theories of punishment. The severity of the crime is taken into account and is the fundamental essential to determining the punishment.

Principle of Just requital

The fundamentals of punishment are emphasized by this retributive theory of punishment principle. This theory defends punishment by saying that it upholds the standards of justice and righteous wrongs. It emphasizes the moral need for retaliation and the victims' right to hold those responsible for wrongdoing accountable. The victims' interests are supported by this concept. It says that the victims are entitled to see the offender punished. Non-retributivists generally disagree with this portion of the theory, arguing that two wrongs do not equal a right.

Types of Retributivism Theory

Moarlistic and Legalistic retributivism

Moral culpability is given more emphasis in Moralistic Retributivism. In moralistic Retributivism, the crime is made punishable even if the offence does not lead to violation of law or harm. Whereas in legalistic retributivism the punishment is imposed on the offender even if there is a moral violation or not.

Negative and positive Retributivism

Negative retributivism holds that the offender shouldn't be punished more severely than is necessary for the crime they committed. The contrary assertion is made by strong or positive retributivism. It emphasises the maximum punishment determined by the criminal's just deserts.

Deterrent Retributivism

The primary objective of retaliation is not deterrence. However, the spectacle of retributive punishment in public may deter such crimes in the future. The idea behind this is that making an offender pay for their actions serves as a deterrent to future offenders. Punishments for retribution, which are applied to people who violate moral principles and social mores, support the shared values of the society. This encourages victims to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement. These all have a minor impact on reducing crime rates.

Communicative and Consequentialist Retributivism

Communicative retributivism is an alternative viewpoint on retributive theory. This variant expresses some doubt over severe interventions. Its main message is to strongly condemn misbehaviour. There is also consequentialist retributivism, which differs greatly from ordinary retributivism. It is predicated on logical and conceptual outcomes. Retributivism restrictions are meant to keep proportionality within bounds. Comparative proportionality is a crucial factor to take into account when assessing whether a crime's punishment is reasonable.

Theory of Retribution in Indian Law

The retribution notion of punishment is the foundation for many laws around the world. The concepts of retribution have also been integrated into Indian legal systems. Though the theories of retribution are not directly mentioned in any statutes of India, in many judgments in the Indian judicial system the principle of Retribution theory of punishments has been used. Following is the Indian legislation in which the theory of retribution has been used-

Indian Penal Code

The Indian Penal Code 1860 the code lays down offences and punishments depending on the seriousness of the crime. In the punishments that are prescribed by the Indian Judiciary the principle of proportionality which is an important principle of the retributive theory of punishments can be seen.

Criminal procedure Code

The criminal trial process and the administration of justice in India are governed by the CrPC. While primarily addressing the procedural aspects of criminal proceedings, it also protects the accused's right to due process and facilitates the application of the law when applying punitive measures.

Capital Punishment laws

The topic of retributive justice is often raised when debating the use of the death penalty in India. Even though there are reasons for and against its abolition, the death penalty's continued usage for some crimes upholds the concepts of just retribution and equitable punishment.

Landmark judgements

Retributive justice is a concept that the Indian Supreme Court and other Indian courts regularly interpret and use in their decisions. Important rulings like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which emphasized the punitive element of the death penalty in cases involving the most heinous offences, have shaped the legal precedent surrounding the death penalty.

Case Laws on Retributive Theory of Punishment

In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

In this case, the issue raised was the constitutionality of the death sentence as it also goes against human rights. This is one of the important cases as it introduced the concept of rarest or rarest cases. The court in this case held that the capital punishment or death sentence will only be delivered in the rarest of rarest cases and only by the procedure established by law.

The Delhi Gang Rape and Murder Case (Nirbhaya Case)

This was one of the cases that shook the whole country and was one of the most tragic and inhuman incidents that sparked outrage and anger in the whole nation. In this case, the theory of Retributive theory of punishment was used and out of six offenders, four were hanged to death. In this Retributive punishment was imposed on the convicts. This judgement was one of the most celebrated and awaited judgments.

Conclusion

In this article, we have learnt about the different theories of punishment emphasizing the Retributive theory of punishments. Many legislations in India as well as in other countries are inspired by the retributive theory of punishment. The principles of responsibility, proportionality and just requital are the main pillars of the retributive theory of punishment. Many laws in India and the capital punishment that are imposed on the offenders are influenced by the retributive theory of punishments.