<<Criminology>>

<< Fundamentals of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice>>

<<Penology and Criminology>>

1
 Role Name Affiliation
Principal Investigator Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Paper Coordinator Dr. Debdatta Das Assistant Professor, Amity
Law College, Kolkata
Content Writer/Author Dr. Paromita Chattoraj Associate Professor and
Associate Dean (Academics),
School of Law, KIIT
University
Content Reviewer Dr. Kavita Singh Associate Professor, West
Bengal National University of
Items Description of Module
Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
Subject Name Criminology
Paper Name Fundamentals of Crime, Criminal Law and
Criminal Justice
Module Name/Title Penology and Criminology
Module Id 23
Objectives Learning Outcome:

 To make the learners understand the meaning

and scope of penology and its relation with
criminology

 To make the learners understand the origin and

development of punishment

 To acquaint the learners with the different

theories of punishment

 To make the learners understand the types and

mode of execution of punishment

 To acquaint the learners with the various

alternative modes of punishment

Prerequisites General understanding of the punishment provided

2 Penal Code 1861
under the Indian
Key words Penology, punishment, sanction, sentencing, correction
DESCRIPTION OF MODULE
1. Introduction

The term “penology” was first coined in 1838 by Francis Lieber, the American
political scientist, who used it to describe the new science of prisons and punishments
that was emerging at that time (Lieber. F., 1838). It is ordinarily understood as the
study of punishment and attempts to understand and evaluate the complex legal,
sociological and also emotive issues that are raised when we think about punishment.
Punishment on the other hand is the sanction imposed on a person for infringement of
the rules of society (Clarkson, C.M.V., & Keating, H.M., 1995). The primary purpose
of punishment is of social control. Austin considered sanction as an essential
ingredient of law and it is only through sanction that obedience to law can be secured.

The term punishment is defined as, "pain, suffering, loss, confinement or other
penalty inflicted on a person for an offence by the authority to which the offender is
subjected to" (Alexander, J. P., 1922-23). Penological thoughts mainly surround
punishment, for instance Durkheim (1947) talks about punishment as a means of
repairing "the wounds made upon the collective sentiments". Penology also focuses
on the different theories of punishment that rationalizes the different aims of
punishment, such as retribution or deterrence or incapacitation or reformation.

1.1 Penology and Criminology

Traditionally the term „penology‟ has been used to detail the academic study of penal
institutions (in the most part, prisons). Penology, like criminology, has drawn from
diverse range of academic traditions; from psychology, medicine and economics
through to social sciences. Criminology is primarily concerned with the study of
crime causation and reasons and methods of criminalization and its effects. In the
long run, "penology" came to be swallowed up by "criminology", a term invented
about fifty years later (Bierne, P. 1993). Although, there were claims of the almost
forgotten W. W. Smithers (1911), who argued that "the science of criminology is a
secondary evolutional development of the study of penology", the opposite
assumption became the standard one, the premise being that the study of crime and
criminals is the primary scientific enterprise, and the business of punishment and
control is to be regarded as a secondary practical matter. Paul Rock puts it in the

3
International Encyclopedia of Sociology, penology was "a great pursuit of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries" but nowadays there is "no separate academic
discipline" of that name (Rock, P, & M Mann ed. 1984). David Garland agreeing with
Smithers observed that penology is not an element or a sub-discipline of criminology;
it is the other way around. Penology, properly understood, is the more basic
discipline. It is the study of the social processes of punishment and penal control,
which is to say, of the whole complex of laws, ideas and institutions which regulate
criminal conduct (Garland, D., 1997). And, as Francis Lieber emphasised, these penal
institutions are to be studied "theoretically, practically, and historically" and "in their
relation to the political community"(Lieber. F., 1838).

2. Meaning of Penology

The term penology can have different connotations. The discipline of penology has
been primarily concerned with punishments sanctioned and undertaken by the state,
however punishment may not always originate from the state. Rather punishments can
be physical or psychological, performed publicly or privately and can be informal or
formal sanction and legal sanction (Scott, D., 2008). For example when a child is
punished by his mother for some mischief, it is informal but the same child given a
punishment at school by his teacher for some mischief in the class may be a formal
sanction. In its older and narrower sense “penology” designates the attempt to reform
or rationalize penal conditions and regimes so as to maximize their corrective
effectiveness (McLaughlin, E, and Muncie, J. 2013). In recent times its ambit has
changed to cover the application of clinical, managerial, or social scientific methods
or expertise to the disciplined study and evaluation of penal institutions especially
prisons (McLaughlin, E, and Muncie, J. 2013).

4
Therefore, penology is a multi- disciplinary subject that aims to study and evaluate
the application of penal sanctions to wrongdoers. Primarily it is a response to human
wrong doing. Secondly, it involves in the evaluation of the different forms of social
control, for example, as manifested in the social denunciation of a member of the
community for marrying in a lower caste. Thirdly, penology also involves in
examining the different aspects affecting deployment of penalties like social factors,
historical factors and economic factors. At times social and historical facts may be
interlinked too closely to influence the penal policy, for instance dowry death has
historical as well as social bearings and that made the legislature to deploy a
minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment. As far as economic consideration
in deployment of penalty is concerned, all the penalties under the various socio-
economic legislations like Narcotics and Psychotropic Drugs Acts or Customs Act are
based on economic considerations. Fourthly, penology focuses on the act which is
made punishable, the antecedents of the actor who is to be punished and the rationales
of such punishment to such person. Fifthly, it also seeks to evaluate the legitimacy of
the Criminal Justice Administration to punish. Under this aspect the discretion of the
judge for sentencing, probation parole may be evaluated.

5
2.1 Evolution of Penology

Conventionally it may be more appropriate to date the inception of modern

penological thinking from the reform projects undertaken by John Howard, Jeremy
Bentham and others from the late eighteenth century onwards. Penology has been
throughout most of its history a reform minded subject with practical goals focusing
on particular histories of prison architecture and disciplinary regimes, as well as
minutiae of medico-psychiatric services, religious observance, diet and other aspects
of material infrastructure and social relations of penal institutions (McLaughlin, E,
and Muncie, J. 2013).

In the twentieth century for the most part of it there were two major focus of
penological effort, first is the monitoring of the variations in sentencing thatis, a
quantitative analysis; and of the manipulation of penal regimes (both in prisons and in
non-custodian settings) for evidence of their impact on offending and re-offending,
whether on the grounds of rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation (McLaughlin,
E, and Muncie, J. 2013).

The second major focus that occupied the middle decades of the twentieth century,
was the systematic study of penal institutions themselves- their social organization,
routines and characteristic relationships; the experience of confinement like the
impact of the penitentiary system and of custodial and supervisory work of the prison
management system; the recurrent problems of imprisonment, like riot, violence,
suicide and self-harm inside the prison (Simon, J., 2000).

Subsequently there was a relative decline of both therapeutic penology and of prison
sociology, which may be attributed to have flown from the evidence produced by
empirical data showing no significant impact of penal intervention on the rate of
recidivisms. This was witnessed by many, as a shift towards primarily incapacitative
rationales with a punitive reasoning. These developments are summed up by Garland,
(1990) as constituting a „crisis of penal modernism‟. The irony for penology is that
whereas the latter developments tend to increase the scale of imprisonment this is met

6
by a reduced intensity of school of scholarly interest in what goes on in prisons, or
more generally in the lives and fates of offenders.

However, the 21st century onwards saw much of the research in penology through the
comparative analysis of various determinants impacting crime and punishment, as
well as prison upkeep.

2.2 Comparative Penology

The study of comparative penal systems is very important. It helps us to avoid

reductionist, deterministic and ethnocentric social analysis by taking into
considerations the various determinants (variables) that may have an impact on the
study of punishment and penal systems (Cavadino, M , and Dignan, J., 2006). It
allows us to understand the similarities, differences and broad trends in the way in
which imprisonment has been deployed historically around the globe. Comparative
analysis can also be used to examine the complex relationship between crime and
punishment, the relationship between official crime and prison rates and similarities
and differences in the social backgrounds of prisoners and the offences they have
committed. Comparative analysis entails consideration of mostly the socio-economic,
Governmental, Social Controls, Cultural and Extra territorial parameters. The Figure
below sketches the different aspects within the above parameters where the
comparative analysis adds to the penological understanding more effectively.

7
 Socio-economic
Political economy, labour market demands, commitments to welfare
state and fiscal pressure

Governmental
Law, criminalization and age of criminal responsibility, social and penal
policies, patterns of punishment, aims of imprisonment, penal
administration, role of judiciary and sentencing process.

Controls
Balance between informal social controls like family, school, work and
community and formal social controls like governmental; gendered or
radicalized differences

Cultural
Historical and geographical legacies, values and sensibilities, public
Comparative opinion, media, individualism and collectivism orientations, perceived
levels of social insecurity
Penological
Analysis
Extraterritorial
Migration,, globalization, accelerating international informational
exchange, foreign national prisoners

The socio-economic aspect includes factors such as the political economy, labour
market demands, commitments to welfare state and fiscal pressure in different
countries determine what is to be criminalized and how severely an act is to be
punished, for instance drug regulations and the penalties attached there to. A
comparative analysis of Governmental decisions of different jurisdictions in the form
of law regarding criminalization, age of culpability, social and penal policies, patterns
of punishment, aims of imprisonment, penal administration, role of judiciary and
sentencing process; is a much fertile field for penological research. Much of the
researches have also focused in the comparative analysis of social controls like
family, work and community and its impact on crime causation and also recidivism.

Comparative analysis between different countries of cultural parameters such as,

historical and geographical legacies, especially for crimes of terrorism and penal
response towards it will add a better dimension in understanding such crimes. The
other cultural factors that may be compared are values, public opinion, role of the
media, individualism and collectivism orientation etc. Another important aspect that
may be comparatively analysed is that of the extraterritorial including factors such as
migration, globalization, international informational exchange, status of foreign
8
national criminals, for instance the initiative of the Indian government to book the
money launderers in aid with various EU nations.

3. Punishment
Penology involves much of its scholastic analyses on the punishment regime and its
efficiency dimensions. Penologists have asked important philosophical questions
about all forms of punishment, regulation and control. One of the primary questions is
what is State punishment? Professor Andrew Flew in 1954 argued that for an act to be
defined as punishment, it must conform to five basic rules (McLaughlin, E, and
Muncie, J. 2013).

The penal sanction must-

a) Create human suffering;
b) Arise as a direct result of the perpetration of an offence;
c) Only be directed at the person who undertook the offence, ie. the offender;
d) Be the intentional creation of other humans in response to that offence;
e) Be inflicted by an authorized body representing the embodiment of the
rules or laws of society in which the offence was committed.

However when we consider punishment as an organized practice ingrained in the

deliberated deprivation of liberty at the primary level and subsequently in the
infliction of pain and suffering even at the hand of the State, raises serious moral
questions of legitimacy. This leads penologists to invest themselves in the different
justifications of punishment.

3.1 Justifications of Punishment

The basic aim of punishment is to prevent criminality that may justify punishment
generally. Hyman Gross (1979) similarly writes, “The rules of conduct laid down in
the criminal law are a powerful social force upon which society is dependent for its
very existence, and there is punishment for violation of these rules in order to prevent
the dissipation of their power that would result if they were violated with
impunity.Unless the threat of punishment by the state exist, and the State actually
punished criminals the authority of the state would be loosened to the point that social

9
order and security of the individual would be at stake. Thinkers such as Kenny, Gross,
and Hart take the prevention of harm and preservation of order as fundamental
reasons for criminal sanction, without it also needing a justification in fundamentally
moral terms(Jacobs, J., 2013).

As Anthony Kenny (1978).has put the point:

“The primary purpose of punishment is to prevent citizens from becoming
criminals; hence punishment will never be understood if it is regarded purely as a
transaction between society and those who have already become criminals. When a
man is punished, the purpose of punishment has, in his case, already been
thwarted”.

The above justification of punishment is based on the utility model. There are other
penologists who believe that it is important for there to be a moral justification of
punishment at the general level, a justification in terms other than considerations of
public safety and crime-prevention. That is, they believe that punishment needs a
deontological or non-consequentialist justification, a justification in terms of what
persons deserve or what is owed to them by the state because of the fact that they
have caused harm or injury to one or more members of the state. Kant is a propounder
of such a theory. Such theorist maintain that considerations of desert, often
conceptually connected with considerations about the distinctive nature of persons as
rational agents meriting respect, supply the basis for a moral justification of
punishment independent of facts about what sorts of benefits punishment might bring
about (Anthony K., 1978).
Immanuel Kant
Kant developed a retributivist account of the moral justification of punishment.
Kant noted that good consequences (such as an offender‟s ethical self-correction)
are indeed welcome. Nonetheless, they are not properly part of the justification of
punishment. Kant also held that there is a moral duty to punish criminals; it would
be morally wring not to.

In addition, it might be argued that though punishment essentially is in the form of

pain or suffering on the offender but it should not degrade or humiliate the persons
punished. Punishment can include deprivation of liberty and infliction of pain but that
is not the same thing as degrading the humanity of the person punished or deliberately
causing pain and suffering in ways that extend beyond the denial of liberty by

10
incarceration and the imposition of conditions to preserve safety and order in a prison.
If someone is administratively isolated from other prisoners because he is violent and
starts fights, that separation is justified. If someone is forced to share a ten-foot by
six-foot cell with five other people twenty four hours a day, and there is no window or
ventilation that is not justified (Anthony K., 1978).

The different justifications of punishmenthave been propounded by the different

theories which necessarily underpin a large amount of penology. Penologists view
punishment primarily from the standpoint of the crime for which is to be or has been
designated. The various questions that are examined in the investigation on the
competing rationales of punishment may range from, whether imprisonment should at
all be an option or mere therapeutic alternatives like community service, fines etc can
achieve the same purpose? Whether there should be a mandatory minimum
punishment, what should be the maximum punishment, whether prison stay is to
punish only or reform the offender? What kind of institutional framework will
actually incapacitate the offender?

The major theories of punishment and their important tenets have been identified in
the figure below-

11
 • Punishment to have a symbolic value

Denunciation • Sends a strong message to everyone including the offender

• Structure of Prisons and hardship of prison life expresses collective disapproval
of the public

• Punishment as a mode of avenging the offender for the

Retributivism harm caused by him to the victim and the society both

• Imprisonment actively serve to prevent people from

Incapacitation committing more crime

• The threat of sanction serves to dissuade people from

Deterrence committing crime

• Through training education, work experience, and other

Rehabilitation treatment programs during the imprisonment term for
reforming the offender

Denunciation is based on the expressive approach where punishment is regarded as a

conventional device for expressing attitudes of resentment and indignation (Garland,
D eds., 1995). In the expressive view punishment is required as a way of doing more
than just verbally expressing censure; it is a vindication of the law and it serves a
socially useful function. Retributivism is based on jus deserts and it has often been
argued that a person who commits crimes deserves to be punished, whether or not
punishing does any good to the person punished or to others. Retributivism involves a
central connection between wrong action and deserved punishment. Incapaciation
through incarceration is the most ancient and basic mode of segregating the offender
from the society and keeping him confined in such a manner that he is no longer
capable of reoffending. Deterrence on the other hand is based on utility model were it
is presumed that through the imposition of punishment for a given offence that
offender will be threatened in the future not to think of reoffending (Specific
deterrence) and for the society at large to understand the consequence of wrongdoing,
that crime never pays so, that they are threatened to go down the dark alleys
themselves (general deterrence). Utilitarians argue that we can work out a system of
punishment that can discourage and deter offending behavior, that is a system which

12
must be certain that „crimes‟ must be punished and that to swiftly. According to the
reformative ideal punishment is justified by being for the good of the person punished
by playing a central role in reforming the wrongdoer by motivating recognition of the
wrong he has done and by motivating reconnection with the good or with correct
values. it understands punishment as a mode of encouraging motivational and
cognitive adjustment or revision on the part of the offender. It aims at improving or
correcting the offender‟s understanding of values, and thus, the reform of the
offender‟s understanding and motivations is what is sought from the imposition of
criminal sanction (Anthony K., 1978).

3.2 Forms of Punishment

The various forms of punishment that are prevalent range from death penalty to
imprisonment for a term to life, to fines and forfeiture of property. The quantum of
punishment is largely proportional to the severity of the offence like for willful
homicide most jurisdictions prescribe the severest punishment, however, the quantum
is also fixed at times depending on the impact it has on the victim or society. In spite
of several judicial pronouncements the imposition of death penalty as an alternative to
life imprisonment is still a much debated issue. The biggest gray area in the
application of capital punishment is the possibility of misapplication, since there is no
possibility of review or revocation.

Fine and imprisonment are the two common modes of punitive sanctions. If „fine or
imprisonment‟ is the only punishment provided for a particular offence, the only
question for the court to determine is to fix the tariff within permissible limits having
regard to the circumstances of the case. If, however, the court has to make choice out
of the two punishments, it has to apply its mind in choosing the appropriate mode of
punishment before fixing the fine. The problem of fixing the quantum of fine or
imprisonment in the range provided by the statute is not a simple one since a number
of factors has to be considered in fixing the sentence and no punishment can be truly
the exact one required or deserved in a particular situation.

3.3 Alternative Approaches of Punishment

13
During the preceding one hundred and fifty years different views and approaches
have prevailed at different times, and current practice exhibits influences from many
of them. Also, the aims of the academic community that studies punishment and the
aims of policy makers often point in different and incompatible directions. Generally
there may be a need by the ruling polity to be „tough on crime‟ and to be in favor of
harsh sentences; that plays well with the public. But this means that there is a very
large prison population, with many persons serving very long sentences, and there is
little political attention paid to whether imprisonment does any good or actually
worsens many offenders or at least makes it very difficult for them to reenter civil
society successfully. The cost of imprisonment worldwide is hard to calculate, but the
best estimates are in the region of US$ 62.5 billion per year using 1997 statistics (G.
Farrell and K. Clark. 2004). After nearly two hundred years of the prison experiment
in different parts of the world, it seems that a sentence of imprisonment is more likely
to increase rather than decrease future offending. This led to the strengthening of
other alternatives of imprisonment in the form of –
1. Decriminalizing- It is the process of changing the law so that conduct that has
been defined as a crime is no longer a criminal act. Various societies have
decriminalized vagrancy in whole or in part, significantly reducing rates of
imprisonment. The primary concern in such cases should be that,
decriminalizing the behaviour and dealing with it outside the criminal law
does not produce a negative impact on public safety (Criminal Justice
Handbook Series, 2007).
2. Probation- This is the most common form of alternative punishment that most
countries practice. Probation is a suspended sentence in jail or prison time that
is put on hold if the defendant complies with certain other obligations, for
example, the conditions of probation or the completion of a drug treatment
program, with or without the supervision of the Probation officer.
3. Parole- It takes into effect after the offender has spent considerable time in
prison and thereafter based on his good behavior or conduct, a parole board
decides to either suspend the rest of his prison term or temporarily suspend the
same.
4. Diversion- Strategies of restorative justice can play a crucial part in decisions
about diversion. The use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in
meetings with offenders, victims and community members to deal with
14
 matters that would otherwise be subject to criminal sanctions has the potential
to divert cases that might otherwise have resulted in imprisonment both before
trial and after conviction. Much of the first time offences or youthful offences
in many countries including the United Kingdom are dealt in this manner.
5. Community services- Judges can sentence defendants to perform unpaid
community work called "community service" to repay a debt to society for
having committed the offense. The defendant may be required to perform
community service in addition to receiving some other form of punishment,
such as probation, a fine, or restitution.

4. Sentencing Policy

Death penalty is awarded under the IPC for treason, murder, and after the Delhi Gang
Rape case in 2013 the legislature through amendment provided capital punishment for
certain extreme types of rapes like under section 376A of The Indian Penal Code
1860, for rape which either causes the victim to be in a persistent vegetative state
(PVS) or death, or 376E of The Indian Penal Code 1860 for repeat sexual offences.
Further sec 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides that the court
in case of awarding the death penalty must give 'special reasons' for such sentence.
The constitutional validity of death penalty under the IPC was considered by a
constitutional bench(five judge bench) of the Supreme Court and by a majority of four
judges held that in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1982 SC 1325) of a
conviction of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception,
save in the 'rarest of rare cases'. In Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC
957) the Supreme Court elaborated as to what constitute 'rarest of rare cases', where
after a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors are drawn out and full
weightage is give to the mitigating factor and still the court comes to the opinion that
there is something so uncommon about the crime, which renders a sentence of life
imprisonment inadequate and therefore, calls for death penalty. The Supreme Court
further observed in Lehna v. State of Haryana [(2002)3 SCC 76 ] that rarest of rare
cases are such when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked in
circumstances such as murder that are extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting or dastardly ; murder with such motive which evinces total depravity and
meanness for example murder by hired assassin for money; murder of individuals
15
belonging to minority caste, or bride burning or murder of wife to remarry after
adulterous affair; multiple murders of entire family or community or locality; murder
of a child, or helpless women or old or infirm person upon breaching the trust or
respect that the victims had on the perpetrator.

In order to determine the meaning of the expression “life” in the term “life
imprisonment”, considerable judicial attention has been attracted.Mohd. Munna v.
Union of India [(2005) 7 SCC 417] reiterates the well settled judicial opinion that a
sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for
the whole of the remaining period of the convict‟s natural life. This opinion was
recently restated in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathode v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 2
SCC 764] and State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar [(2012) 8 SCC 537 ] where the Supreme
Court affirmed that life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 or
20 years, and that it actually means (and has always meant) imprisonment for the
whole natural life of the convict.

Post Delhi Gang rape case life imprisonment has been prescribed as punishment in
section 376 (1) Indian Penal Code 1860, section 376 (2) Indian Penal Code 1860,
section 367A Indian Penal Code 1860, 367D Indian Penal Code 1860 and 367E Indian
Penal Code 1860. Except for section 376 (1) Indian Penal Code 1860, in rest of the
provisions it has been categorically mentioned in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act
2013 that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the natural life of the person.

5. Penal Institutions

Apart from the discussions on punishment systems and justifications of punishments,

the other important focusing area of penology has been the legitimacy of penal
institution, administration of prisons, modes of execution of different forms of
punishments, statistics on prison population. Much of the attention has been bestowed
in the evolution of modern prisons and the prison reforms initiated by John Howard in
the 18th century and the after effects felt in America that tried to have the penitentiary
movement, till the coming of age of the minimum, medium and maximum security
prisons. Also, Indian experiments with the open prison system, that houses prisoners
in conditions of partial liberty owing to their excellent conduct in the closed prison

16
and giving them the opportunity to earn their living under such conditions, so that
they can be amalgamated back into the society as contributing members.
Michel Foucault
Michel Foucault‟s Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (1977) is one of the most
influential books on penology in the last thirty years. Taking as his backcloth the change
from capital punishment to the timetabled regimes of penitentiaries, Foucault rejected the
liberal argument that the prison was a form of humanitarian progress, claiming instead
that prisons developed „not to punish less;[but] to punish better, to insert the power to
punish more deeply into the social body‟(McLaughlin, E, and Muncie, J. 2013).

6. Conclusion

There exists much debate on the fact whether penology is a subset of criminology or
penological studies preceded much before criminology scholarship made its presence
felt. However, there is no two opinions about the fact that penology, like criminology,
has drawn from diverse range of academic traditions; from psychology, medicine and
economics through to social sciences. Although, defined variously penology is a
multi-disciplinary subject and is mainly associated the study of punishment, and its
rationales and penal institutions and its legitimacy. To sum up, penology focuses on
justifications, characteristics and effectiveness of penal systems and penal institutions.
The evolutionary journey of penology shows how this has always been a reform based
discipline and how the understandings of the punishment systems and penal systems
have added to our understanding of the same. The Comparative analysis of the
various determinants effecting punishment regimes has marked a revival of the
penological understanding in a much effective way.

The different justifications of punishment can be categorized on the basis of targeting

future crimes or committed crimes. The deterrence, incapacitation and reformation
represents the former category where all these theories focus on preventing future
crimes whereas, the denunciation, retributivism and desert principles are non-
consequential in its approach and rationalizes the crimes already committed by the
offender. Apart from this the other basis of categorization may be on the utility model
or desert principle. The former representing the consequential and the later focusing
on the non-consequential approaches of punishment.

17
The other significant penological agendas are concerned with the types and forms of
punishment, the efficacy of the alternatives of punishment and finally the study on the
penal institutions.

References
1. Alexander, Julican P., "The Philosophy of Punishment": The Journal of

Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science: v.13: 235 (1922-23).

2. Anthony K. (1978). Freewill and Responsibility, New York : Rouledge &

Kegan Paul.

3. Bierne, P. (1993). Inventing Criminology- Essays on the Rise of "Homo Crimi-

nalis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

4. Cavadino, M , & Dignan, J. (2006) . Penal Systems: A Comparative

Approach, London: Sage.

5. Clarkson, C.M.V., & Keating, H.M. (1995). Criminal Law: text and materials.

London : Sweet & Maxwell.

6. Corrado, Michael L., (2001), “The Abolition of Punishment”, Suffolk

University Law Review N.D.

7. Durkheim, Emile, (1947), The Division of Labor in Society, N.P.

18
8. G. Farrell and K. Clark. (2004).What does the world spend on criminal

justice?, (HEUNI Paper No. 20) , The European Institute for Crime

Prevention and Control affiliated to the United Nations, Helsinki

9. Garland, D eds. .(1995). Joel Feinberg’s The Expressive Function of

Punishment,

Reprinted, David, R , & Duff , A.eds. A Reader on Punishment, New York:

Oxford University Press.

10. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford University

Press.

11. Garland, David The Punitive Society: Penology, Criminology and the History

of the Present, Edinburgh Law Review,1(2), pp. 180–199

12. Gross, H. (1979). A Theory of Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University

Press.

19