▪
INTRODUCTION: Around
the Globe, we are noticing a disturbing increase in the crime rates and thus,
demands an all-inclusive criminal justice system with certain fixed rules.
Although, there can be no direct formula for the imposition of punishment as
every variation has its own penalty which is different with respect to each
other but there is a dire need to have certain sentencing guidelines to
eliminate the subjectiveness. Sentencing Policy of India is not specific but it
is general in nature. It provides punishment which is not particular, it means that
the punishment for an offence differs from case to case on the basis of
circumstances and over the discretion of the court. ‘Sentence’ as the term is
used in criminal law denotes the action of the court before which trial is held
in consequence of the determination of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, any
consequence which flows from conviction is a sentence and the Policy refers to
the Principle of action adopted by an organization. Sentencing Policy of India
is to punish the criminals for their guilt in order to reduce the crimes. In
India, there is an absence of specific guidelines for sentencing in criminal
justice. Personal experience and mindset of the judge also affect the decision
and therefore, there is an urgent requirement for specific guidelines for the
criminal justice system in India.
▪
Effectiveness of
Sentencing Policy :
Sentencing policy of
India is not so effective as it does not provide separate guidelines for giving
punishment to the accused. Separate codified guidelines were recommended by the
Malimath Committee (the Committee on Criminal Justice and reform) in March 2003
and also Malimath committee issued a report that emphasizes the need for sentencing
guidelines to minimize the uncertainty in awarding sentences stating that
“The Indian Penal Code
prescribes only the minimum and maximum punishment which can be anything as
defined under section 53 IPC for offences without laying down any guideline for
the imposition of punishment in proportion to the crime. Thus, each judge
exercises its own discretion resulting in a sentencing system which lacks
uniformity. This requires a systematic examination by an expert statutory
body.”[1]
The case
of Soman v. State of Kerala[2], also observed the absence of
structured guidelines:
Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery but in our country,
it is the weakest part of the administration of criminal justice. There
are no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court
in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after
he is held guilty of the charges.
Therefore, the Sentencing Policy of India is
not so effective. The country must adopt fixed
guidelines for better performance of the Criminal Justice system.
▪
Objective of Sentencing
Policy :
The main objective of
Sentencing Policy is to Punish criminals to reduce the crime rate and
provide justice to the victim for injuries caused to the victim. These are the
following objectives of sentencing Policy –
1. Retribution –
Victim is the party who
suffered some injury which could
be physical or mental. Person who caused such injury
is an accused and when a crime is committed by
the accused, then the criminal justice system
uses its trial to punish the accused for his or her acts. As illustrious above, committing a crime will
be met with the state doing something the criminal does not like – typically in
the form of taking away freedom, or ordering monetary fine or penalties.
2. Deterrence –
Second objective is both
common and exact deterrence. Imparting punishment for a crime gives an idea to
the general public that there are consequences for committing a crime. It gives
direction and boundaries of appropriate behaviour that must prevail in a
society and the general public will be able to know the cost of breaking the
law. This is done with a hope that the
individual will choose not to commit a crime in the future which might
result in such punishment.
3. Incapacitation –
The main objective of
the criminal justice system is meant to protect the public, to keep society
educated and therefore, another sentencing objective must be there to protect the public, if necessary, through sentencing. As
such, if a person commits a crime that sets an example to society that the
person cannot be trusted to behave appropriately or cannot control their actions
sufficiently, then a person can be incapacitated from a society, for a specific
period of time or permanently. The definitive form of incapacitating a person
from society is the death penalty, while a sentence for imprisonment for life is more favoured as most of the
states uses this form.
4. Rehabilitation –
This is the main
objective of the criminal justice system. But Many participants in the criminal
justice system forget about this sentencing objective. It should be remembered
that many people want to change and they can change, if given the chance and
the right circumstances. Hence, sentencing a person should be done with an objective
of helping him turn his life around if that is possible. Optimistically,
rehabilitation will truly become a feasible sentencing objective again, and
people will be allowed to change themselves around and join society again as
useful citizens.
5. Restitution –
Restitution is very
helpful for the victim who caused harm. This objective of the criminal
Judicial system should not be ignored. Restitution refers to restoring or
repairing any damage caused on the victim, means bringing the victim back, as
much as possible, to his or her position where the victim was before the commission of a crime. In crimes, such as theft, restitution is relatively easy, In
such cases, the criminal can be ordered to pay back the victim, while some
crime are such where it becomes impossible to
take the victim back at the position where
he/she was like in case of Murder. In
such cases, punishment and penalty is the only way through which mental or
emotional relief can be given to the victim or
the family.
Conclusion: The main objective of the legal system is to provide
justice for the members of the society. In this field safety of rights through
reasonable trials and proper sentencing policy. Capital Punishment can also be
viewed from the perception of psychological concept. Death is the utmost terror
of most of them. When death is set as a punishment for any offence it acts as a
prevention in the commission of heinous crimes. Thus, the purpose of punishment
to act as a deterrent is served and death penalty must be inflicted in
cases. Thus, sentencing discretion is an inevitable sin, it can only be
structured, regulated and disciplined.
[1] Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System
Report Vol I March 2003
[2] (2013) 11 S.C.C. 382
No comments:
Post a Comment