Imprisonment:

Under Cambridge dictionary: The act of putting someone in prison or the condition of being
kept in prison.
Imprisonment in law is the specific state of being physically incarcerated or confined in an
institutional setting such as a prison. The Law have recognized that the minimum period in an
indeterminate sentence that was actually imposed by a court of law is the official term of
imprisonment. Imprisonment in other contexts is the restraint of a person's liberty, for any cause
whatsoever, whether by authority of the government, or by a person acting without such
authority.
Imprisonment is the act of taking away someone’s freedom, though this does not always mean
that the person is physically locked up in a jail cell. Imprisonment can be carried out for any
reason, whether it’s with the permission of the government, or by a person who acts without any
authority. If the latter is true, then the imprisonment is referred to as “false imprisonment.
Definition of imprisonment under the General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December
1988:
"Imprisonment" means the condition of imprisoned persons as defined above.
Principle 1: All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a
humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Principle 2: Arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose.
Principle 3 There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights of
persons under any form of detention or imprisonment recognized or existing in any State
pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that this Body of Principles
does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Principle 4 Any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights
of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the
effective control of, a judicial or other authority.
Principle 5 1. These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of any given
State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or religious
belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Measures applied under the law and designed solely to protect the rights and special
status of women, especially pregnant women and nursing mothers, children and juveniles, aged,
sick or handicapped persons shall not be deemed to be discriminatory. The need for, and the
application of, such measures shall always be subject to review by a judicial or other authority.
Principle 6: No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No circumstance whatever may be
invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
* The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" should be interpreted so as to
extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental, including the
holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or
permanently, of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his awareness
of place and the passing of time.
Principle 7 1. States should prohibit by law any act contrary to the rights and duties contained in
these principles, make any such act subject to appropriate sanctions and conduct impartial
investigations upon complaints.
2. Officials who have reason to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has
occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and, where
necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers.
3. Any other person who has ground to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles
has occurred or is about to occur shall have the right to report the matter to the superiors of the
officials involved as well as to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or
remedial powers.
Principle 8: Persons in detention shall be subject to treatment appropriate to their unconvicted
status. Accordingly, they shall, whenever possible, be kept separate from imprisoned persons.
Principle 9: The authorities which arrest a person, keep him under detention or investigate the
case shall exercise only the powers granted to them under the law and the exercise of these
powers shall be subject to recourse to a judicial or other authority.
Principle 10: Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for
his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

What is Imprisonment
Imprisonment is the act of taking away someone’s freedom. This can either be done by locking
the person up in a jail cell or other location, or by restricting his rights in some similar fashion.
The most common understanding of imprisonment is the act of locking someone up in a jail or
prison cell as a result of the crime he is accused of committing. The prisoner may be held in jail
until the completion of his trial. If he is found guilty, then he may be locked up for even longer,
the length of the sentence depending on the decision of the judge.

As an example of imprisonment, suppose that Patrick is pulled over by a police officer, who sees
him driving recklessly. The officer smells alcohol on Patrick’s breath, so he puts Patrick through
a series of sobriety tests to determine whether he is drunk, and therefore a danger to others on the
road.
Patrick cannot walk a straight line, nor can he touch the tips of his fingers to his nose with
outstretched arms, so the officer takes Patrick to the local precinct to be processed. The officer
takes Patrick into custody, and delivers him to the jail. In this example, imprisonment not only
gets Patrick off the streets until he sobers up, but serves to hold him until he can be arraigned on
the serious crime of driving under the influence.

Imprisonment and Sentencing Guidelines

When a judge is determining a sentence that includes locking an offender up, he or she does not
have sole discretion in the type or length of the sentence. Criminal sentencing may be subject to
state laws for:
Mandatory sentences
Maximum sentences
Minimum sentences
As expected, each of these sentences comes with its own rules insofar as the length of
imprisonment, and when they should be used. It has been a topic of debate as to whether or not
justice is properly served if there is a minimum sentence attached to a particular crime. It is often
believed that judges should have more discretion in assigning a sentence so as to be able to better
tailor the sentence to the individual situation. Each situation is unique, even if the charges are the
same, and there may be some aspects to a situation that warrant a lighter sentence.

For instance, a judge may not want to give someone one year in jail (if that is the minimum
sentence) for stealing groceries, if the man’s motivation was that he was too poor to feed his
starving child. However, if the law dictates that the minimum sentence for theft is one year in
prison, the judge is forced to give the man the same prison sentence that someone with less
honorable intentions would receive.

Mandatory Sentences
Mandatory sentences are sentences that are required by law to be imposed, regardless of any
additional factors that the judge may wish to consider. If a person commits a particular crime,
then there is a mandatory sentence attached to that crime. For instance, if someone commits
murder in certain parts of the world, then the mandatory sentence is life in prison. Some life
sentences, however, do not necessarily last the length of the prisoner’s life. In some cases, the
prisoner is released early for good behavior after his case is reviewed after a minimum number of
years already served.
Maximum Sentences
Maximum sentences are the maximum amount of time someone can sentenced to spend in
prison, depending on the crime he commits. For instance, if the maximum sentence for armed
robbery is seven years, then the most amount of time someone can spend in jail for committing
that crime is seven years.
Maximum sentences help judges decide what sentence to hand down. If the judge knows that he
can award up to seven years for armed robbery, then he knows he can assign any number of
years up until that seven-year maximum, depending on the punishment that he feels would bests
fit the crime.

Minimum Sentences
Conversely, minimum sentences contain the least amount of jail time that someone can be
assigned upon being convicted of a criminal charge. In most jurisdictions in the U.S., judges are
not empowered to hand down whatever sentences they see fit, but are required to adhere to the
maximum and minimum sentences prescribed by law.
For example, if someone in the state of New York is convicted of possessing drugs in the first
degree, then the minimum sentence that person can receive is 20 years in jail. Further, if
someone is being convicted of a second or third offense, then the minimum sentence may
increase, compared to the minimum sentence that would be handed down to a first-time offender
for an identical crime.

False Imprisonment
False imprisonment is the unlawful imprisonment of someone against his will, by someone who
lacks the proper authority. For example, a bank robber – or some random person off of the street
– enters a bank, and threatens everyone inside with physical violence should they attempt to
leave, he is holding those people against their, and without the proper authority. Should the bank
robber then release the hostages unharmed, the hostages may file a lawsuit against the bank
robber on the charge of false imprisonment, amongst other charges like intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

Police officers who abuse their power to arrest may also be accused of false imprisonment. This
happens if they imprison someone without the proper justification to do so. What this means is
that if someone is arrested on a hunch and without any proof to back up that hunch, then the
person can ultimately sue the police officers for false imprisonment upon his release. Also
included in this lawsuit would be false arrest. The false imprisonment comes when the person is
actually held in custody.
In actuality, the law says that it does not matter if the person is held against his will in a room, on
the street, or even in a moving vehicle. If a person is held against his will, and without legal
authority, the individual detaining him may be charged with false imprisonment, which is both
criminally and civilly illegal.

In order to be able to prove false imprisonment in a civil lawsuit, the imprisonment or

confinement must be proven to be:

willful or intentional
done without the detained person’s consent
unlawful
Examples of false imprisonment:

A man grabs hold of a woman’s elbow, and forces her to stay put, refusing to allow her to leave
until he says it’s okay.
A police officer or security guard detains someone based on the fact that he “looks suspicious,”
but without any evidence he has done something wrong. For example, if the officer thinks the
person looks like a terrorist but cannot actually prove any connection to terrorism, then that
officer is probably liable for false imprisonment.
A nurse forces a patient to take medication against his will, by making physical or emotional
threat.
False imprisonment can actually be considered a civil tort and a crime. This is because while the
act of false imprisonment is civil in nature (i.e. the officer doing the arresting is not usually
trying to physically harm the person he is arresting), ultimately false imprisonment is forcing
someone to do something against his will, which is a crime.

Of course, there are instances where force is used to arrest someone, and so the criminality of
these cases is clearer, provided such abuse can be proven. Evidence could include photographs of
the physical abuse sustained at the hands of the officer, but the accuser must be able to prove that
the officer did, in fact, inflict that abuse in order to succeed at a criminal trial.

False Imprisonment Example Involving a Good Deed

Licensed pharmacy technician Rachelle Jackson never thought that doing a good deed could
come with such dire consequences. In November of 2002, a car ran a stop sign in Jackson’s
neighborhood and hit a police car. Jackson happened to be walking near the scene and rushed
over to help. When she approached the car, she saw that the officer behind the wheel was
unconscious and his partner, Officer Kelly Brogan, was confused.

Jackson, fearing that the smoking police car may explode, quickly pulled Brogan from the car
and helped her to the closest stoop. When the police arrived on the scene, they informed Jackson
that the unconscious officer’s gun was missing. She was asked to go to the police station for
questioning, which she assumed was so she could act as a witness as to what she had seen. In
reality, she was being falsely arrested and charged with robbery and the battering and disarming
of a police officer.

Jackson was then held for two days with little food and water, was refused sleep and bathroom
privileges, and was repeatedly threatened with violence until she finally agreed to sign the
statement the police had prepared for her saying that she had stolen the officer’s weapon.
Jackson then was forced to spend ten months in the Cook County Jail awaiting her trial.
At the trial, several witnesses testified that it appeared to them that Jackson was only trying to
help Officer Brogan. Some witnesses even testified that they were pressured by police into
saying that Jackson had restrained Officer Brogan so that her nonexistent accomplice could steal
Brogan’s partner’s gun.
The case was ultimately thrown out by a Circuit Court judge who cleared Jackson of all charges.
In retaliation, Jackson rightfully sued the city, Brogan, and the two interrogation officers,
accusing them of false arrest, malicious prosecution, coercive questioning, and the intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Thankfully, the federal jury agreed, and awarded Jackson $7.7
million – a victory that came six years after the day that changed her life forever.

Prison:
When we will be discussed about the imprisonment then it will be mandatory to mention the
Prison where the prisoner are need to be kept.
Prison, an institution for the confinement of persons who have been remanded (held) in custody
by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction for a
crime. A person found guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour may be required to serve a prison
sentence. The holding of accused persons awaiting trial remains an important function of
contemporary prisons, and in some countries such persons constitute the majority of the prison
population. In the United Kingdom, for example, generally about one-fifth of the prison
population is un-convicted or unsentenced, while more than two-thirds of those in custody in
India are pretrial detainees. Until the late 18th century, prisons were used primarily for the
confinement of debtors, persons accused of crimes and awaiting trial, and convicts awaiting the
imposition of their sentences—usually death or transportation (deportation) overseas. A sentence
of imprisonment was rarely imposed—and then only for minor crimes.
As the use of capital punishment began to decline in the late 18th century, the prison was
increasingly used by courts as a place of punishment, eventually becoming the chief means of
punishing serious offenders. The use of imprisonment subsequently spread worldwide, often by
means of colonial empires that brought the practice to countries with no indigenous concept of
prisons. By the early 21st century a majority of countries had abolished the death penalty (in law
or in practice), and imprisonment was consequently the most severe form of punishment their
courts could impose.

The purpose of imprisonment;

There are a number of accepted reasons for the use of imprisonment. One approach aims to deter
those who would otherwise commit crimes (general deterrence) and to make it less likely that
those who serve a prison sentence will commit crimes after their release (individual deterrence).
A second approach focuses on issuing punishment to, or obtaining retribution from, those who
have committed serious crimes. A third approach encourages the personal reform of those who
are sent to prison. Finally, in some cases it is necessary to protect the public from those who
commit crimes particularly from those who do so persistently. In individual cases, all or some of
these justifications may apply. The increasing importance of the notion of reform has led some
prison systems to be called correctional institutions. This description of imprisonment applies
mainly to the countries of Europe and North America. In China imprisonment was historically
used as a means of reforming the minds of criminals, and it obliged prisoners to work in support
of the state. Imprisonment in the Soviet Union similarly became a method of forcing so-called
enemies of the state to labour on its behalf and, in so doing, to recognize the error of their ways.
Developing countries faced a different challenge as they confronted prison systems that in many
cases symbolized a legacy of colonial domination. Given the difficulty of replacing the structure
and organization of an existing prison system, many countries consequently struggled to
implement effective forms of punishment that were also decent and humane.

The Prison System in Pakistan

Pakistan inherited the Prisons System from the British as a colonial legacy. This system was used
as an instrument to suppress political opponents and to neutralize threats to Crown rule. th Prison
as a place of punishment after conviction, is an 18 century concept. It was conceived of as a
humanitarian alternative to corporal punishment. It was felt that confinement would help
prisoners to become penitent and that penitence would th result in reformation. It was not until
the 19 century that the prison reform movement took shape when for the first time classification,
segregation, individualized treatment and vocational training of inmates were given due
consideration. After independence the prisons and prison departments as a whole remained a
low-priority item on the Government agenda. However prisons remained an exclusively
provincial concern in the successive constitutions of the Republic of Pakistan. Provincial
Governments did make efforts to maintain and improve the existing prisons available in the
country. Quite a few numbers of new jails were also constructed in the last fifty years, on the
recommendations of various prisons reform committees. The first prison reform programme was
introduced in Pakistan during the year 1950 under the chairmanship of Col Salamat Ullah, ex-IG
Prisons (UP combined India). Later various reforms committees were constituted in the
provinces and under the auspices of the Federal Government in order to settle the grievances
brought by prisoners. The recommendations of these Committees were invariably approved.
However no productive work could be done mainly because of financial constraints.

Background of Prison System in Pakistan

Maximum-security prisons were commonly identifiable by the walls and towers for armed
guards as well as the restrictive rules for the prisoners. The colonial prison system was conceived
as an instrument of punishment. Harsh and brutal treatment was meted out to prisoners such as
the imposition of handcuffs and fetters as well as hard labor, cellular and separate confinement,
whipping, dietary restriction, the substitution of gunny clothes and the loss of privileges. The
Jailor being the head of the institution without uniform had to play the role of judge and his
orders were to be implemented through his deputy designated the Chief Executive Officer of the
prison. Prisons were operated under a military-style system of authority. Each officer in the staff
hierarchy had specified duties and responsibilities and was linked to officers of higher and lower
rank through a chain of command. Despite its hierarchical logic the system of authority and
communication had serious weaknesses. One problem was that policy-decisions were made by
administrators who were far removed the realities of daily life in prison. The chain of command
also compromised the accuracy and completeness of reports as they moved up and down the
ranks. For many officers in the lower ranks allegiance to administrative policies was less
important than engaging in the exchange of rumors with the inmates resulting in fraternization
and collusion with the inmates.

Legislation on Prisons
The colonial Government had through Regulation III of 1818 passed on the 7 April of the same
year, for the confinement of state prisoner adopted a procedure to place any individual under
personal restraint against whom there were no sufficient grounds to initiate judicial proceeding.
Act No. IX of 1894 was passed by the nd Governor General of India in Council on the 22 March.
The said enactment came after Bombay Act II of 1874 which was applicable to civil jails in the
Presidency of Bombay under the provisions of about eight sections i.e. Section 9 to 16. The st
Prisons Act was came into force on the 1 July 1894 comprising twelve chapters and sixty-two
sections and detailing the provisions for maintenance of prisons, the duties of prison staff,
discipline, rights and obligations of prisoners. th Having received the assent of the Governor
General on the 11 March 1897 an Act VIII of 1897 was passed to amend the law relating to
reformatory schools and to make further provisions for dealing with youthful offenders. After
enactment of this law, the Reformatory Schools Act, 1876 was repealed. Act III of 1900, the
Prisoners Act, received the assent of the Governor General nd on 2 February 1900 and came into
force at once. It consolidated the existing statutes relating to prisoners confined by order of a
court. It extended to the whole of British India inclusive of British Balochistan, the Santal
Parganas and the Pargana of Spiti. The Act included nine parts and fifty-three sections had the
guidance on admission, removal, discharge, attendance in court and employment of prisoners. nd
The Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 received the assent of the Governor on the 22 th July 1926 and that
of the Governor General on the 16 August 1926 and was first the published in the Punjab
Government Gazette of the 27 August 1926. It was an Act to make provision for the
establishment and regulation of Borstal Institutions in the Punjab and for the detention and
training of Adolescent offenders therein already received the sanction of the Governor General
under sub-section (3) of section 80-A of the Government of India Act. The Act contains thirty-
six sections to discuss various aspects of prisoners under twenty-one years of age. The 1932 Jail
Manual received the assent of the Governor in the council of st Punjab on 31 December 1932.
The Manual included forty-two chapters, eleven hundred and sixty rules, twenty supplement
appendices and a comprehensive index. All the rules framed in the Manual are under the
authority of section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894. The Manual included special mention of the post
of Factory Manager, provisions for the appointment of European Warders for European
prisoners, for the role of Senior Assistant Superintendent, for documents of bails or surety bonds,
for duties of convict monitors, for punishments like Transportation for life, accidental or
unnatural deaths, details about state, Leprosy and European prisoners and their treatment.

Duration of life imprisonment and its substantive imprisonment in Pakistan:

The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 answers under section 57 that “in calculating fractions of terms
of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 25
years.” Therefore, considered that life imprisonment means imprisonment for maximum of 25
years.
In resolution to this proposition, two sister jurisdictions need to be examined: Pakistan and India.
The reason is simple; both states’ laws have a common origin in English common law and their
shared history of judicature under the British. To begin with Pakistan; so far, the question has not
been answered by the superior courts in clear & unequivocal terms.
In the case of Abdul Malik V. The State , honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that

“In Pakistan as well Rule 140 of the Prison Rules framed under Prisons Act and as reproduced in
Para-29 above codifies this authority of the Government. It lays down as to what “imprisonment
for life” would mean if the remissions were to be calculated (25 years); what is the minimum
period of substantive sentence that a lifer is to undergo (15 years); how the cases of all the
prisoners who have served out the minimum period of substantive sentence as provided in sub-
rule (i) are to be submitted to the Government for appropriate orders. This exercise is to be
carried out for the purposes of section 401 of the Cr. P.C. which empowers the Provincial
Government, inter alia, to suspend or remit the sentence of the prisoner and pass order of his
release. While it is the function of the Court to pass a sentence, it is for the appropriate
Government to carry it into effect, to regulate the custody of the convict/prisoner, to grant him
remissions and to pass order of release under the law. If a prisoner/lifer is released in terms of the
Prison Rules under consideration, the said prisoner is in fact under an order of release and the
sentence of imprisonment for life continues to entire.

For instance, in Zargul’s case of 1989 , the Supreme Court of Pakistan reckoned the duration as
25 years in toto. Likewise, in Dilawar Hussain vs. State case of 2013, while referring to section
57 of the code, the Supreme Court held that the term ‘life imprisonment’ means 25 years
imprisonment.
The honorable apex courts in Pakistan, in their reasoning, refer to rule 140 of the Pakistan Prison
Rules, 1978 , which provides that “imprisonment for life will mean 25 years rigorous
imprisonment and every life prisoner shall undergo a minimum of 15 years substantive
imprisonment…”.
In another case of Abdul Malik V. The State, honorable Supreme Court ruled that the provincial
government is empowered under section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with prison
rules, to remit or commute the sentence of convict, subject to the condition that he has undergone
fifteen (15) years of imprisonment . In Pakistan, the concept is that after spending fifteen years
behind the bars, if the convict is not released on remission or commutation of sentence under
section 401 CrPC read with Prison rules; then he will have to wait till the completion of twenty-
five (25) years.
In India, the situation is altogether different in reckoning the life imprisonment. Their chief case
law on this issue is Gopal Vinayak Godse v State of Maharashtra . In this case the Supreme
Court of India held that “sentence of imprisonment for life is not for any definite period and the
imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the
remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life”. And further ruled in paragraph 8 of it,
that “The Rules framed under the Prisons Act enable such a prisoner to earn remissions—
ordinary, special and State—and the said remissions will be given credit towards his term of
imprisonment. For the purpose of working out the remissions the sentence of transportation for
life is ordinarily equated with a definite period, but it is only for that particular purpose and not
for any other purpose. As the sentence of transportation for life or its prison equivalent, the life
imprisonment, is one of indefinite duration, the remissions so earned do not in practice help such
a convict as it is not possible to predicate the time of his death. That is why the Rules provide for
a procedure to enable the appropriate Government to remit the sentence under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure on a consideration of the relevant factors, including the period of
remissions earned”.
Afterwards there is no cavil in this proposition in India that meaning of life imprisonment is,
unless properly remitted by respective government, imprisonment for the entire life of convict.
They many a times reiterate the Gopal Vinayak Godse’s case and in Kishori Lal’s case of Privy
Council in resolving this issue.