Deterrence V. Punitive: What Should Criminal Justice Focus On?
- Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
- Mar 2
- 1 min read
Reema Nayak, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat
ABSTRACT
The criminal justice system and its stakeholders have debated often regarding rationales behind punishment. While punishment may be perceived as the norm, decoding rationales behind them help justify the extent of punishment that the State may impose on an accused. Two of the most well-discussed rationales of punishment include the Deterrence theory and the Punitive or Retributive theory. Deterrence theory argues that the fear of punishment dissuades individuals from committing crimes, while retribution emphasizes moral responsibility, insisting that offenders must be punished in proportion to their wrongdoing, in a bid to fairly balance the distribution of burdens and benefits. This paper critically examines both theories, exploring their philosophical foundations, judicial interpretations, and practical applications within modern legal frameworks. This paper further examines the limitations of both theories through the Kramer Test, which evaluates punishments based on two principles, including the minimal invasion principle and humane treatment principle. The paper intends to showcase how tilting disproportionately on one theory alone tends to violate at least one or both prongs of the Kramer Test. Therefore, a justice system solely relying on either approach is inadequate. A balanced model is necessary, a model that incorporates the most effective aspects of both theories while more importantly prioritizing rehabilitation. Ultimately the goal of the criminal justice system should not be to merely punish offenders or deter potential offenders but also address the underlying causes of crime, offering opportunities for reformation and reintegration. Viewing offenders as individuals in need of intervention fosters a more humane, efficient approach to justice.
Comments